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

December 4, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-Dec-04 (PDF)

L047 - Thu 4 Dec 2025 / Jeu 4 déc 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 4 December 2025 Jeudi 4 décembre 2025

Orders of the Day

Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en garantissant l’accès à l’énergie abordable pour les générations futures

Annual report, French Language Services Commissioner

Members’ Statements

Ecumenical meeting in Istanbul

Volunteers

Services for persons with disabilities

Holiday events in Brampton East

Tenant protection

Agri-tourism

Children’s health services

Holiday events in Cambridge

Holiday activities

Order of business

House sittings

Wearing of jacket and pin

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Manufacturing jobs

Government accountability

Education funding

Consumer protection

Education funding

Education funding

Small business

Public transit

Water quality

Bail reform

Environmental protection

Provincial debt

Energy policies

Fire safety

Business of the House

Notice of dissatisfaction

Members’ birthdays

Notices of dissatisfaction

Independent members

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women

Petitions

Gender-based violence

Services for the developmentally disabled

Social assistance

Life lease housing

Tenant protection

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en garantissant l’accès à l’énergie abordable pour les générations futures

Ontario University Athletics Week Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la Semaine des sports universitaires de l’Ontario

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Amendment Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 modifiant la

Loi sur les parcs provinciaux et les réserves de conservation

Marriage Amendment Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 modifiant la

Loi sur le mariage

Ethiopian Heritage Month Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le Mois du patrimoine éthiopien

Ethiopian Heritage Month Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le Mois du patrimoine éthiopien

Kids’ Online Safety and Privacy Month Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le Mois de la sécurité et de la protection de la vie privée des enfants en ligne

Hospitality Workers Appreciation Day Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la Journée de reconnaissance des travailleuses et travailleurs de l’industrie de l’accueil

Private Members’ Public Business

Public safety officers’ survivor scholarship fund

The House met at 0900.

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

Prières / Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Now, a moment for reflection.

Orders of the Day

Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en garantissant l’accès à l’énergie abordable pour les générations futures

Mr. Oosterhoff, on behalf of Mr. Lecce, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to energy, the electrical sector and public utilities / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’énergie, le secteur de l’électricité et les services publics.

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

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to thank you, Speaker, for indulging me this morning as we have our debate on the third reading of this bill—a piece of legislation that I know has already been before the House a couple of times, that has had an ample opportunity for many members to speak and to participate and to share their perspectives on this legislation.

I want to thank those members who have already participated in our discussion and have also ensured that the perspectives of so many parts of the province have been represented.

I want to also acknowledge the excellent work of the parliamentary assistant the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore and his incredible advocacy and work on this legislation.

I want to also recognize the parliamentary assistant from Scarborough Centre for his work.

I also need to acknowledge Minister Stephen Lecce, who is an absolute champion, this week alone, doing incredible work to build out our energy security, to build out partnerships globally when it comes to securing good deals for Canada and supporting jobs and economic growth.

I want to acknowledge their participation in building out this legislation.

Speaker, if passed, the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act will support the much-needed expansion of Ontario’s energy system. It will limit our reliance on foreign resources, and it will drive economic growth.

We know that Ontario needs to prepare for a massive increase in energy demand while at the same time powering the strongest economy in the G7. As we all know, protectionist measures by the United States have created uncertainty and disruptions. We have seen that we are currently at a 26% lower trade level since the start of the year, and economists say that the Canadian GDP could shrink by up to 1.27% by 2027. This means that we need to rethink how we are allocating our energy to support jobs and build up the economy.

We need to make sure that we are allocating our energy in a way that is responsible and that is recognizing, particularly, the emergence of new technologies, rapidly growing demand from data centres, and new and emerging industries that are also choosing electrification. This demand, if we do not act, could in fact outpace grid upgrades. It could create potential reliability issues and even create delays for connection of new industry and jobs.

When we look at places in other parts of this continent that have failed to take action—you look at British Columbia, California, Texas, the Netherlands, Belgium, other places across the world, that are recognizing that there is an enormous challenge and that they need to take action to address that challenge.

It builds on the work that we’ve seen from our own Independent Electricity System Operator, who has signalled that we could see a supply gap by the end of this decade.

That’s why we’ve taken action. It’s why we brought forward the LT2 program, the long-term procurement project, which is securing 7,500 megawatts of power. Why do we need so much power, 7,500 megawatts? That’s the equivalent of 7.5 million homes—a massive amount of power. Why do we need so much power? Well, there are a few reasons.

One, we have had population growth here in the province of Ontario. We are one of the most rapidly growing jurisdictions in North America. I think it was last year, 2024—at one point, Ontario was growing faster than Texas and Florida combined, two of the fastest-growing jurisdictions. When you talk to Americans, specifically, they talk about the growth that’s happening in those states. Ontario is growing faster than both of those states combined. We see that there will be more than a million new homes, so 15% growth in our population, by 2035, and an anticipated demand of six terawatt hours, or 9% of new electricity demand, just for this growing population alone.

But it’s not just the existing growth that’s coming; it’s also the shift to electrification. We see households and industries choosing more and more often to make decisions that are in the best interests of our environment and also of our economy. We are seeing electric vehicle adoption taking over, as we see more than a quarter million new vehicles here on Ontario’s roads today, with that number expected to substantially increase, to the tune of 20 terawatt hours, or 31% of new demand, by 2035—again, a massive amount of new demand in just a decade.

Speaker, 2035 might have seemed like a long time just a few years ago, but 2035 is less than a decade away now. We’re coming up to the turn of this year, into 2026, and it’s something we have to think about as we prepare for that.

So what does that all mean? It means that with the growth of industry, the growth of population, the growth of demand, we will need some 18,000 anticipated megawatts of nuclear capacity alone by 2050. And this is also how we achieve our net zero targets without penalizing hard-working families, without putting the cost of climate action, without putting the cost of reducing emissions, in a punitive way, on the backs of working families.

This is really where we have a strong differentiation between our approach and the Liberal and NDP approaches, which really say, “No, we need to whack people over the head with reducing emissions. We’re going to make it as expensive as possible to drive a car. We’re going to make it as expensive as possible for that industry to be able to procure power.” We say no. We say we are going to take a reliable, affordable, sustainable approach that’s driven by energy security and that, frankly, recognizes families and industries that are foundational to our province’s success need to have choice; they need to have options when it comes to the types of energy resources that we have in our system.

We know, through our modelling, that by 2050 we will have an over 99% emissions-free grid without needing to take some of the punitive measures that the opposition members continually bring up as their solution. How do we do that? Again, it’s by building out that robust energy ecosystem that we have.

In Ontario, we have such a unique strength. When I talk to folks from other jurisdictions and they realize that we have 50% nuclear, 30% hydroelectric power, some 12% renewables, and then an additional form of natural gas as an insurance policy for, depending on the day, about 10% of the grid, so that you have a really robust form of energy supply—what does that do? That’s economic and competitive tension that creates savings, at the end of the day. It keeps costs lower by forcing all of those players to compete with each other.

We’re in a day-ahead market here in the province of Ontario, where the day before that power is needed, over 90% of it is required to be registered and to be sold. It’s sold in the day-ahead market. That means all of those different resources are competing with each other, and that’s keeping costs down from where they would otherwise be.

In fact, I believe it was the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario who estimated that because of our focus on competitive procurement, because of Premier Ford’s desire to see the energy sector—one that’s driven by the economic tension, which keeps costs down—we’ll have, by the end of this decade, energy costs that are 23% lower than they would have been under the Liberals’ plan. A 23% delta is massive, when you look at those cost savings running into the thousands of dollars for families here in the province of Ontario.

One of the ways that we’re different from what we saw under that plan and one of the reasons why our plan is going to keep costs 23% lower than they would have otherwise been is what we saw last week—we saw an historic announcement from Minister Lecce, joined by other members of our team. The previous Liberal government said that they were going to close Pickering, and that, frankly, was heading in the wrong direction. We, on the other hand, made a commitment: We’re going to extend the life of Pickering, which powers 2.2 million homes.

It’s going to create over 30,000 jobs, $41 billion in economic growth, and keep 90% of the supply chain benefits in Ontario. That’s massive.

Not just Ontario, but Canada as a whole has built up a really robust, a really meaningful supply chain for the nuclear sector. I know you, Speaker, understand that better than some, when it comes to the value of those supply chains.

I think of places in my own riding. Talking to Spencer Fox, talking to Niagara Electric—there are so many people, so many skilled workers, especially, in the labour force. I think of Jonathan White from the Power Workers’ Union, who lives in Vineland and I’ve met with a number of times.

These are folks who are spread out across every corner of our province who have helped to build a really remarkable supply chain. To keep 90% of that spend here in Ontario is really, really substantial.

We’re also calling on the federal government to designate the nuclear project in Wesleyville as a nation-building project to build the largest nuclear power plant in the world. This, again, is just an opportunity that we have when it comes to a site that’s designated, that has capacity, that has potential, and we’re calling on the feds to come alongside.

We saw Minister Lecce just return this week from meetings in the UK and Bulgaria. In Bulgaria, we signed a deal with the Bulgarian government to sell Ontario’s nuclear expertise—and be able to bring those profits back to Ontario. It’s a display of our government’s leadership and commitment to nuclear excellence.

In this legislation, as we look, again, at that massive increase in demand that we’re going to be experiencing over the coming decades, we have to make sure that we’re also prioritizing and being smart about the demand side. We can’t just talk about supply. Supply is very important—again, building out that robust supply ecosystem is crucial—but we also need to be smart about how we’re dealing with demand. An example of this would be how we can prioritize the good data centres—the data centres that deliver measurable benefits to local economies, to local communities, and to our province.

Speaker, I’ve heard from some folks who have misunderstood comments in the past and seem to think that we think all data centres are bad. No—absolutely not. There are important values that data centres provide to certain parts of the economy. But I think we have to also recognize that not all data centres are created equal. There’s a big difference between a bitcoin cryptocurrency chugging away, sucking up a lot of juice and not providing a lot of employment benefit or benefit for the innovation economy in Ontario.

We need to be cognizant about the risk that that kind of mega facility presents to the grid, to ratepayers, and to our entire ability to attract talent into other areas. That’s very different than cloud-based services that support start-ups in the KW corridor, for example, or data centres that provide compute for the Kanata–Carleton area, where we have a massive and growing tech sector.

Not a lot of people know this, but next to the Silicon Valley, Ontario has the second-highest concentration of tech workers in North America. Of course, everyone knows Silicon Valley and its place in the world when it comes to its capacity.

Ontario has a lot to offer as well, but we need to make sure we’re prioritizing those data centres that are most effective, most efficient and, frankly, that offer the highest value to our economy.

These are the kinds of measures that this legislation really allows us to build upon.

There’s more, but I know I have a number of colleagues who are going to be speaking to this legislation. So I’m going to allow them to go through some of the components of this legislation that, for example, speak about the value of made-in-Ontario products and how we’re changing the structure to prioritize buying made-in-Ontario, buying made-in-Canada, and ensuring that those economic benefits and expertise stay right here.

But I do want to acknowledge, again, that this is a crucial piece of legislation that demonstrates our government’s commitment to not just thinking in four-year cycles, but thinking in generational cycles; not just thinking about what’s best for the next election, but thinking about what’s best for my children, for our grandchildren and for so many others who have yet to be born.

With that, I will cease my contributions to this legislative debate this morning, and I will allow other members, who I know have a great deal to say as well, to participate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: It is a pleasure to say a few words today about the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act.

I come from northern Ontario. There are many, many electrical dams in my riding. On the Wanapitei River, two major dams—I think they’re at over five megawatts for each of them. If you look at the Vermilion River—I live close to the Vermilion River—there are three hydro dams. They are all over my riding, and yet, the power supply to the people I represent in Nickel Belt is terrible.

If you look at Gogama, last week, the week before, the week before that, we averaged at least three power failures. Every single week, we have power failures. I have an apartment here in Toronto. I have plugged in a clock, I think, 18 years ago, and it has never gone off because you don’t see this here. In northern Ontario, where we produce a ton of electricity, we see this all the time.

Mattagami First Nation has a huge transmission line that goes through their territory, and yet the band had to buy generators for every single home and every single business on Mattagami First Nation. Why? Because we have to deal with power failures all the time.

Northerners pay the highest price for electricity, yet we produce electricity that gets transmitted all the way to down south, where people down south—nothing against people who live in southern Ontario. But we live in northern Ontario, we produce clean green energy through a lot of power dams, and yet the infrastructure to bring this to our homes so that we have reliable energy has not been maintained for so long that all of us face power failures all the time. I have a generator in my garage. Mattagami First Nation bought generators for every single one of their residents, every single one of their businesses because the electricity distribution system has not been maintained.

I will bring you back to when Hydro One used to be a public entity. It was owned by all of us. It was there to make sure that electricity was considered a public good.

The Wynne government decided to privatize Hydro One. Well, they paid a high price for this. They lost the election, came back and did not have party status for two elections in a row. Why? Because they privatized hydro.

What this bill is doing is further privatizing our electricity system. Now the government will get to decide who gets to connect to the grid and who doesn’t, who makes enough donations to enough PC members so that their business can be connected to the grid.

In my riding, I have the second-highest and the third-highest users of electricity. Glencore—sometimes second, second or third. Their smelter operation is driven by electricity. The more rocks you melt to be able to get the nickel, the copper, the gold, precious metal and everything else out, the more electricity they use. They have no problem being connected to the grid.

Iamgold, another mine that opened up in my riding—everybody knows what they mine. Iamgold—I’ll give you a hint. They mine gold. At this point, gold sells for $4,000 an ounce. Let’s just say that they opened up at a good time. Well, they did not have electricity, because in my riding, although we have big transmission lines, nobody is connected. They needed 44 kilometres to connect to the grid. It didn’t even take a year—they had all of the environmental assessments; the line was built. They get all of the electricity they need—but Biscotasing, Mattagami First Nation, Gogama, Westree, Shining Tree, Indian Lake?

They’re all in the same area. Biscotasing is actually on a generator. They are not even connected to the grid. Get this, Speaker: Between Sudbury and Timmins—that’s not that far away—we still have communities that rely on generating stations to have electricity. Yet, the mine, which is really close to Biscotasing, across the street from Gogama, got all of the power that they needed. There is nothing wrong with this. I just want everybody else to also have access.

I have a lot of problems with giving this government more power to decide who will get to connect and who won’t get to connect, if you are a high user of electricity.

My riding is called Nickel Belt. Why? Because most of the nickel mines, except for one, are in my riding. You go down to a little community like Levack, and there are seven active mines that mine all the time, that need a ton of electricity in order to go. Is this because this has been an NDP riding for the last 58 years? Does that mean that they won’t get to connect to the grid; that only people who make donations to this government will get to connect?

Those worries are real. The more power we give to this government, the more they use the resources of the taxpayers to help their friends, their donors, the people who are well-connected. I’m worried.

Do I care about the mining sector? Absolutely. Most of the people in my riding either work in the mining sector or depend on the mining sector to make a living. Are there opportunities to do more? Yes, absolutely. There are explorations going on throughout my riding.

Right now, copper is selling better than nickel. Nickel is at about USD$7 a pound. That’s about where profit margins start to get pretty thin. Copper, on the other hand, is going up. We have lots of opportunity to mine copper. It tends to be a little bit deeper. It tends to require a little bit more infrastructure. It needs electricity. And now the government will get to decide whether the electricity needed for this to happen will take place or not.

I would encourage them to look at the decisions that the Liberal government made, to look at the decisions to privatize electricity.

Electricity is a human good. If you don’t have electricity, it’s almost impossible in this day and age to set up a home, to set up a community, to set up a business, to open up a mine, to open up a camp. We need electricity. And now we bring more uncertainty for business, for people, for communities, as to how they will be able to gain that electricity.

It’s hard to convince people who live in my riding, who face at least three power failures every single week, that this government is really committed to securing affordable energy for generations to come. Who are we kidding here? This is 2025. I guarantee you that today or tomorrow, there will be a power failure in my riding. There’s a good chance it will be at my house. There’s a good chance it will be in another community. It happens all the time. It doesn’t have to be that way. It was never that way when hydro was a public good, when hydro was owned by the province, which made sure that we had equitable access.

Big parts—sure, the huge transmission is still owned by Hydro One, but the delivery is not, and what we see is old infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Really, how hard is it to send a bunch of people underneath the line to cut the trees so they don’t fall on the hydro line when there’s a storm, when there’s snow? Are you surprised that there’s snow in northern Ontario? When I left, I had about three inches; now my husband says we’re at five inches of snow all over the ground in my backyard.

But there have been feet—I don’t know how many centimetres that is, but anyway, that thick of snow in the northern part of my riding. Are you surprised that some of the branches fall on the power lines that haven’t been maintained? The solutions are easy.

Why is it that in Quebec they send—mainly young people—people with chainsaws every summer? They follow the transmission lines and they follow the power lines, and they cut the trees and they clear it. This way, they don’t fall on the power lines.

None of this is happening in my riding, so that means every time we have a storm and a branch falls, we have power failures.

The government needs to take the responsibility. It is not by leaving the door wide open for preferential treatment that you will reassure the people of northern Ontario that you are taking your responsibility seriously—because right now, nobody believes you.

Even the hydro ombudsman—when the power goes off and comes back on, it often creates problems. I will talk about the last time that happened in our house. The fridge, the hot tub, the television, the coffee maker, the furnace; basically, everything that had been off for many, many hours—the power came back on, went back, came back on, went back, and it killed all of my electrical appliances. That happens all the time.

So you put in a complaint and say, “Because the power went off, came back, went off, came back, I had to pay $700 to change some kind of a board in my fridge for the fridge to work again.” I forget how much it was for the furnace. It was $250 for the hot tub. I ended up buying a new coffee maker—$100; television—$400. Anyway, you submit all of this, and you say, “This happened. It happened to me, to my neighbour, to my neighbour on that side, that side.” And we get, “No. It has nothing to do with hydro. You don’t get compensation. You don’t get anything.”

Try to build trust in our hydroelectric system. The Liberals decided to privatize it. We are paying the price for that privatization.

When you put a bill forward like Bill 40 that leaves the door wide open to preferential treatment, we know what that means for northern Ontario. That means we will be the losers. That means that a system that we cannot count on right now, because we have power failures all the time, will get worse, not better. I don’t accept that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Hsu: I am appreciative of the opportunity to stand up and speak to third reading of Bill 40, but I’m disappointed that third reading debate is being truncated, that it’s only going to last two hours—only 36 minutes per recognized party—and that there are not going to be any questions and answers after our interventions. That’s unfortunate, because I think this place works better when we do ask real questions and we do get real answers.

Committee is a place, as things work right now, where you can have back-and-forth discussions and where you can discuss new laws in detail before they get passed and you can try to understand them, on behalf of the people of Ontario.

I want to start off by giving an example of why committee is so important and why the government should not assume that everything is perfect and that it doesn’t need to put a bill through committee. This is especially pertinent right now, because there is a government motion that’s going to be debated later today that is fast-tracking another three bills to third reading without going to committee stage.

Some of the members in the Legislature were actually present in Timmins when Bill 71, in the last Parliament—some of the people here today. Bill 71 was the Building More Mines Act, and we went up to Timmins to hold committee hearings. It was a very nice trip, actually. On April 5, 2023, the minister came to testify. When it was my turn to ask the minister, I asked the following—and I’m just going to read this into the record because I think it’s important. “The first question is about

section 18(1). There’s a line in the legislation that says”—and this is about restoring the land after mines close—“‘The condition of the land with respect to one or both of public health and safety or the environment following the remediation is comparable to or better than it was before the recovery.’” That sounds okay, but the problem is, there is an “or” in there.

So what I said in committee was, “My question for the minister is, the way it’s worded now, you could have public health and safety or the environment”—one of those two—“be worse as long as the other one is better.” I didn’t believe that was really the intent of this government. They may be bad, but they don’t want to make public health and safety worse or the environment worse, do they? “So my question is, why don’t you just say ‘both public health and safety and the environment’ in that line of the legislation?”

So, during this committee meeting in Timmins, I had the opportunity—because I read the bill in detail—to point out to the minister, with the ministry official sitting beside him, that there seemed to be this drafting mistake. And I wanted to ask him, “Did they really mean that you can make the environment better but make public health and safety worse, after you close the mine? Did they really mean that you can make public health and safety better, but it was okay to make the environment worse when you close the mine?”

I will note that at that committee meeting in Timmins, I did witness the ministry official quietly advising the minister that indeed this was a drafting mistake.

And to confirm all of that, on April 18, the Standing Committee on the Interior—which was considering this bill, Bill 71, in the last Parliament—met again for clause-by-clause consideration of this Building More Mines Act. I tabled that amendment to fix this serious drafting error and, lo and behold, the government put forward the same amendment. The member for Essex, who actually moved this amendment, said, “I move that

section 18 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted”—I won’t read the whole thing. What the government decided to do was put in the following language regarding remediation of lands where mining occurred—and the amendment from the government said, “such that the condition of the land with respect to public health and safety and the environment following the remediation is comparable to or better than it was before the recovery....”

The point is that the government had a drafting error. It was pointed out in committee—and I know that because the minister didn’t realize there was a drafting error. The ministry official quickly realized that there was a drafting error and that wasn’t the intent of government. And the government confirmed everything by putting forward their own amendment to change an “or” to an “and,” which substantially changed the meaning of the legislation. In fact, there were two other places in the bill where that correction had to be made. And the member for Essex moved the amendment, on behalf of the government, to fix Bill 71.

At the end of it all, I followed up with the following, which I just want to note in this debate for those who are listening: I said at the committee on the interior, “I also just want to say for the record that I’m happy the government has put forward this amendment which corrects a defect that came out during questioning of the minister in our meeting in Timmins, because the bill, as written, would have allowed one of either public health and safety or the environment to be worse after the mine closure.

So I’m happy that the government is bringing forth this amendment, and I would be withdrawing my amendment if this one passes.” And of course—well, maybe I shouldn’t say “of course”—we’re very fortunate that the amendment did pass and that the government’s legislation was fixed.

This is the sort of thing that can go wrong if we get into the habit of skipping committee—and I think “habit” is the right word here, because it’s not one or two bills that have skipped the committee stage. I think we’re up to about 20 now—20 bills this year—where the government has decided that they are so perfect that we don’t need to go to committee stage to look at the details of the bill.

Partisanship aside, I don’t trust myself to be perfect the first time around on anything, let alone the government. I don’t know how many people in Ontario really trust the government to get things right the first time.

This is the sort of thing, if you adopt the attitude that you want to avoid criticism and “We’re right and they’re wrong, and this is all partisan, and they’re the bad guys and we’re the good guys”—if you’re not open to criticism in order to improve, then you’re not going to do very well. You’re not going to be serving the people of Ontario as well as you could. So in the debate this afternoon on the government motion to have Bills 45, 72 and 76 skip committee and go directly to a truncated third reading—I hope people keep that in mind when they debate this this afternoon.

The government motion establishing the rules around the committee allowed for only two hours of debate over amendments to the bill. So we only got to debate amendments to the bill between 9 and 10 in the morning and 3 to 4 p.m. in the afternoon. The government motion allowed for proceedings to go on until midnight, in fact, that day, and we are operating currently under rules where the House does sit until midnight, so that’s not particularly strange.

But for some reason the government only wanted to have two hours of debate—well, discussion, question-and-answer, any kind of discussion—about the details of the bill. So at 4 p.m., according to the government motion, no more discussion was allowed, and only votes were allowed.

What happened, even though we had plenty of time left in the day, is that the amendments which the government put forward—and so, in fact, this is another example; Bill 40 is another example where the government said, “Oh, I guess we’re not perfect; we’d better put forward some amendments.” We never got to discuss the government amendments. The government amendments weren’t even read out; they were simply voted on. So we never got to ask, “Well, what’s the rationale for these amendments?” Why didn’t you put them in originally?

You had all summer.” The Premier even delayed the return of elected MPPs to this Legislature by several weeks—from the beginning of September to the end of October. The government had all this extra time, and still they didn’t get this bill right—I’m not expecting them to, but at least let’s talk about it. If you had all that time to write this bill, what was the rationale for putting in these amendments?

And it’s too bad; I think this PC government thinks they don’t have to explain themselves if they conveniently shut down elected MPPs.

Finally, let me get to the bill itself, because there are some things that I want to say.

I’ll start with

schedule 3,

section 6. It gives the CEO of the Ontario Energy Board the power to set internal procedural policies. It confuses me, because isn’t a chief executive officer who’s responsible for running something—aren’t they supposed to be able to set internal procedures? It just doesn’t make sense. So at committee in the hearings, I asked the ministry official, “Why do you need to do that? What’s the purpose?” All they could say was, “Well, we have to do it for clarity. We have to make things clear.”

It’s ironic; this PC government is so insistent on clarity in this one case—inscribing in the statutes of Ontario that a CEO should have the power to set internal procedures. How shocking—because you’d expect any CEO to have that kind of power. You’ve got to wonder, is it because the Ontario Energy Board, when it tried to do its job of protecting consumers from stranded fossil fuel assets, caused this government to panic and put through a whole bill that was dedicated to overruling an OEB decision, at the behest of particular businesses?

I need to point out that the PC members of the committee of the interior voted down my amendment to have more transparency around these internal procedures of the OEB.

So now the government says we need to have more clarity about the internal procedures, the power of the CEO of the Ontario Energy Board. Why not have more clarity in other parts of Bill 40?

For example, why not have new clarity about these new mandates for the Independent Electricity System Operator and the Ontario Energy Board? They’re being given this new mandate to also support economic growth.

The IESO is supposed to have the primary mandate of making sure the electricity system runs. You flick your switch, the electricity goes on—that’s the IESO who’s taking care of that.

The OEB is supposed to have the mandate of protecting consumers. You open up your energy bill—and who’s got your back that you’re not being charged too much? That’s the OEB. That’s their main job.

Now they’re supposed to have the job of supporting economic growth, but if you’re going to write it in, if you’re going to inscribe it in the statutes of Ontario, why not get it right?

Why not put something like real per capita GDP growth? Inflation can increase nominal economic growth, but it doesn’t really increase productivity. You could have population growth, which increases economic growth, but that doesn’t increase the standard of living; it doesn’t increase something that we call productivity.

I was sorry to hear the poor PC MPPs were given, by their government, something to say which was not true. They were told to say that economic growth and productivity growth are the same thing. And I don’t fault them, because they were given things to read out in the committee.

Productivity growth is the thing that really improves the standard of living, especially in the long run. It’s the thing that really will increase wages, allow you to demand higher wages. It increases quality. It decreases costs. So it’s the most important thing when it comes to bringing down the cost of living, making Ontario’s economy more competitive. Productivity growth is what will really protect Ontario in this new era of tariff wars. And this PC government doesn’t seem to want to admit that it needs to fight that war.

Working more hours—that gives you economic growth, but it doesn’t always make life better. If you think, “Oh, I’ll just work more hours” at the factory or the plant—certainly, you get more income, but it doesn’t always make your life better.

Another thing that often happens, especially here in Canada, is, you get a surge in commodity prices—it could be oil, it could be gold, it could be wheat. That can give you economic growth. But that sort of thing never lasts. It has fooled Canada over and over again, in our history, into not investing enough into other sectors of the economy. It has caused Canada to lag in innovation, in increasing competitiveness, and in productivity growth. We have a history of this. So that’s another thing that can cause you to think you have economic growth. But your economy is not getting healthier.

Lastly, in this bill—I want to talk about taxpayer subsidies of electricity. This bill allows the PC government to get more money from the taxpayer to subsidize electricity bills. Sometimes you have to do that. Maybe you want to protect low-income people from high costs or spikes in energy costs. Sometimes you have to say, “No, ratepayers shouldn’t pay for that. Taxpayers should take that responsibility of protecting people who are more vulnerable.” But this subsidy is getting big. If you look at the annual budget for the energy ministry, it’s over $6 billion now, and it could get higher.

This bill allows the PC government to ask the Legislature for more money for generators, for transmitters, for distributors. So where do we draw the line? We have to draw the line somewhere. If the PC government energy minister wants to spend even more money that way—it may be justified, but don’t the people of Ontario deserve to know why, especially through their elected representatives? No, that was also voted down by the PC members of the interior committee.

Just to conclude: This bill is too vague. It gives too much discretionary, unaccountable executive power to the Ford ministers. It leaves a lot to regulations—and in this sense, I think I’m in essential agreement with my colleague from Nickel Belt. It leaves a lot to regulations, and it misses the opportunity to give thoughtful, high-level guidelines to the regulations that will set the actual rules. It just opens things up to a pay-to-play government and a pay-to-play economy. That, we know, is not healthy. It’s a disturbing trend with this PC government. Stakeholders who have the money to pay to play may not worry, but it should worry average people.

I think that future generations will rue the darkness in which Ontario democracy has been allowed to decay.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m honoured to rise today to debate Bill 40 at third reading.

I find it very interesting that the government has the words “affordable energy” in the title of this bill, because they’re making our electricity system less affordable as we speak.

In November of this year, just in the last month, they’ve jacked up electricity prices by 29%, due to the policies of the Ford government. They’ve tried to hide that in the fall economic statement by increasing the hydro subsidy that the Liberal government brought in prior to 2018. I remember, in the 2018 election, the Conservatives railed against this expensive hydro subsidy which I think, at the time, cost taxpayers—sorry; the Conservatives railed against the Liberal one because it cost taxpayers like $5 billion; that’s now up to almost $7 billion.

I asked the Financial Accountability Officer to do a study of who benefits the most from this subsidy, and, lo and behold, it’s the wealthy. Millionaires, billionaires and people with six-, seven- and eight-figure incomes disproportionately benefit from the government’s hydro subsidy. Why? Because—it’s kind of common sense—they use the most electricity.

I just want to ask the members opposite why you’re putting forward energy policies that jack up prices by almost 30% and, according to the IESO’s own estimates, are going to significantly go up over the next decade, and then turn around and spend billions of dollars subsidizing electricity prices for the wealthy.

This is at a time when the government says we don’t have money for health care and our hospitals are taking out lines of credit to meet payroll. They say we don’t have money to build deeply affordable housing at a time when, tragically, 81,000 people are experiencing homelessness. They say we don’t have money for our schools at a time when they’re experiencing a $1,500-per-student cut, which is leading to hardships in our schools and in the education environment. And yet, they have the money to subsidize hydro rates for the wealthy, while they’re increasing hydro rates.

So what’s causing the increase? Well, primarily, it’s the increase in nuclear power.

I just want to be clear: Ontario Greens are not opposed to nuclear power. We support rebuilding Darlington and Bruce, providing long-term, reliable power for decades to come. About half of our grid now is supplied by those nuclear units.

But let’s look at what’s happening with SMRs right now. For the four SMRs this government is bringing forward—the estimated cost to them in 2022 was $4.8 billion; that cost has escalated now to almost $21 billion.

No wonder electricity prices are going through the roof already and are going to continue to go through the roof. The government is choosing high-cost sources of generation, rather than looking at where the entire world is putting their energy dollars: wind, solar and battery storage, because they are now the cheapest sources of electricity generation anywhere in the world. But Ontario is missing in action.

I find it interesting that the government—and I listened to the minister’s speech earlier this morning—says, “Do you know what? We want to be independent. We don’t want any foreign interference into our electricity grid.” Guess what technology these SMRs are? Oh, US-based technology. They chose a US technology over Canadian technology, and now they’re locking us in to having to buy enriched US uranium in order to power those SMRs. I don’t know why they’re doing that, especially at a time when the Trump administration is economically attacking the province of Ontario and the country of Canada.

They’re also ramping up gas plants, which will increase electricity prices as well, because gas and nuclear are three to 3.5 times more expensive than wind, solar and battery storage, according to the IESO’s own data.

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m using IESO data. I hear the minister heckling me over there. I know the facts hurt. I know the IESO’s facts hurt when you’re making decisions that are going to increase electricity prices for Ontarians. I know that hurts, because it’s going to hurt politically.

They may continue to try to hide it, but then that’s going to take money away from health care, education, housing, and a whole bunch of other things. So they’ve got some tough choices to make over there.

Ramping up gas plants means making us even more dependent on fossil gas from the US, because about 70% of the gas going into these gas plants is from the US.

So I don’t see what’s affordable about Bill 40, and I don’t see what’s protecting us from the threat of the US in Bill 40. I don’t get it. I think the facts say otherwise.

Not only is ramping up gas plants going to increase electricity prices, but it’s also going to make our grid dirtier and less competitive.

When the current government was elected in 2018, Ontario’s grid was 96% clean, emission-free, one of the cleanest grids in the world. I’ve heard the industry minister say over and over again that part of what has enabled Ontario to attract investment, especially EV battery manufacturing investment, is the competitive advantage Ontario’s clean grid provides the province. I just met with Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, I believe it was yesterday or the day before, here at Queen’s Park, and they told me that for some of their big plants, their competitive advantage is that Ontario has a clean grid.

So what has happened to that grid in the almost eight years that the current government has been in office? It has gone from 96% clean to only 84% clean—a 12% decrease in what is our competitive advantage in attracting global capital. It’s only going to get worse. According to the IESO’s own estimates, we’re going to see a 400% increase in climate pollution on Ontario’s grid because this government is ramping up gas plants. Instead of using them as peaker plants—maybe there just in case of an emergency, which would be an acceptable thing to do—they’re running a lot of these plants 24/7.

In Toronto, the Portlands gas plant is the largest single source of climate pollution and toxic air pollution in the city of Toronto. As a matter of fact, builders have had to change their building plans because they can’t build tall buildings with the windows being able to open, because the air around the plant is so toxic to people.

When I met with the manufacturers, they were saying that that’s going to hurt them, especially internally, within their corporate networks—of attracting capital investment to Ontario—because their companies want to invest in decarbonization.

Ontario is losing our competitive advantage of a clean grid because of the policies of the current government—which, by the way, will increase prices, making us less competitive doubly.

The other thing that the increase in gas is doing—this is a little bit complicated, so I’m going to try to explain it. The association of major power producers brought this to my attention when they were here this week. When electricity prices go up, it’s driven by the price of gas, because that’s the most expensive electricity that’s being bought on the market. So when the price goes up, that increased price applies to all sources of generation: nuclear, wind, solar, whatever. In a sense, we’re actually paying an industrial carbon tax on emission-free electricity right now.

I would encourage the members opposite, especially the minister, to do a directive to the IESO to say, “When you look at the market price of electricity, make sure you don’t include the full price of gas, because that full price is transferring carbon pricing onto emission-free electricity, which is never designed for that.” We should make sure we have the competitive advantage of clean electricity and not have the industrial carbon price applied to it.

I want to close, in the final couple of minutes I have, to say to the members opposite that the government’s energy policies, driven by Bill 5 and Bill 40, are giving an unfair advantage to gas producers. They’ve changed the rules in the LT2—the long-term energy procurement process—to favour gas generators, which is going to increase climate pollution. And they’re doing it at a time when the green energy transition—the economy for the green energy transition—is now worth $8 trillion. Some $2.2 trillion is being invested in the green energy transition just this year, just in 2025 alone—double what’s being invested in fossil fuels.

So this government is ramping up investments in fossil fuels, ripping up renewable energy contracts, at a time when the rest of the world is going in the complete opposite direction—why? Because investors want to invest in the lowest-cost sources of electricity. But, for whatever reason, this government doesn’t want to do that. How does that hurt Ontario? It means we’re missing out on the opportunity to have our fair share of that $2.2-trillion investment this year, to create good-paying jobs right here in Ontario, to diversify our economy, to diversify our export markets.

At a time when we want to become less dependent on the US, this government is making us more dependent on the US in our energy sector because, for whatever reason, they’re just ideologically opposed to the lowest-cost sources of electricity generation: wind, solar and battery storage.

So I want to say to the people of Ontario: Let’s put pressure on this government to invest in renewables so we get those investment dollars here, so we create good-paying jobs in Ontario, so we lower electricity prices, so we lower the emissions profile of our grid to make it more competitive, so we can attract more investment in manufacturing in Ontario to create even more good-paying jobs and, all at the same time, reduce climate pollution and help us meet our climate obligations.

Unfortunately, in the fall economic statement, this government cancelled climate action. We can have win, win, win if you would end your opposition to low-cost renewables.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Jess Dixon: I’m grateful to have the chance to rise today in support of Bill 40.

Ontario is entering this period of extraordinary opportunity. We’re living through one of those moments in history when global economic pressures, rising energy demands, changes in technology, demographic growth are all converging at once. Really, we are in a pressure cooker, and the question isn’t whether or not the pressure is on—it is—but whether we, as a province, will respond in a way that ultimately strengthens Ontario’s competitive advantage, protects affordability, and secures prosperity for the families and employers who depend on us to plan ahead. In my view, Bill 40 is part of responding to that.

Across every major sector we have here—manufacturing, housing, agriculture, transportation, mining, tech—we keep hearing the same message, which is that Ontario needs more energy, it has to be delivered faster and with long-term certainty.

The global economy is clearly reorganizing itself around clean electricity, secure supply chains and advanced production. Jurisdictions like Ontario that can offer reliable, low-emission power at scale are going to be the ones that are able to attract investments and jobs; jurisdictions that don’t will ultimately find themselves falling behind, regardless of the other strengths that they have. So we have a huge advantage here. We’re not starting from scratch. We already operate one of the cleanest electricity grids in North America. We have world-leading expertise in nuclear power.

We have the engineers, we have the tradespeople, we have the researchers, all of whom have skills that are recognized internationally. We also have environmental and labour standards that give investors, particularly foreign investors, confidence. We have a global economy that is choosing Ontario precisely because of those strengths.

The purpose of Bill 40 is to build on that foundation, to make sure that our energy system is ready for the scale and pace of demand that we’re already seeing under way. When we’re looking at the growth expected—I think I’ve heard four and a half cities the size of Toronto being added to the grid, theoretically speaking, as far as the amount of power needed, which aren’t abstract numbers.

That’s reflecting real projects that are already breaking ground or under application—electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, clean steel production, semiconductor fabrication, critical minerals processing, our large-scale agri-food operations, and then, of course, the increasingly heavy demands of artificial intelligence and cloud computing as well.

I think, really, that’s where the urgency becomes clear and the need to react and the need to have bills like Bill 40 becomes clear. If we’re looking at traditional data centres, they would draw fairly modest amounts of power, 10 or 20 megawatts,

whereas today’s AI-driven facilities are drawing on hundreds. The IESO is getting connection requests over 750 megawatts at a single point. I know that there are a number of active data centre applications that I think, put all together, represent more than 2,300 megawatts of demand. Without us planning for that, those large loads could absorb capacity that we need. I think that Bill 40 is a clear response to that.

Again, when we look at the concept of data centres, for example, we don’t want to discourage innovation or investment, but we do want to make sure that if Ontario is going to be supporting those large loads of energy, it’s also aligned with Ontario’s broader economic and strategic priorities. When we talk about data centres—it’s prioritizing those that create high-quality jobs, support domestic data hosting, strengthen our digital sovereignty, contribute to local economies, and ultimately make sense within the overall planning framework of our province.

I think it’s also important to say that this isn’t just an energy conversation. It is, at its core, a competitiveness conversation. When we look at why this bill matters, we need to look honestly at the global landscape that Ontario is operating in. Around the world, there are jurisdictions whose energy systems and economic models look very different to ours. Some rely almost entirely on high-emission coal, not because it’s sustainable or responsible, but because it’s cheap and available. Some of these jurisdictions have environmental rules that may exist only on paper but are never enforced.

Many others operate with health and safety and labour standards that fall far, far short of what we would ever consider acceptable in Ontario and in Canada.

We know that there are places where communities live alongside heavy industry with no protection from pollution, where kids breathe air that would never meet Ontario standards, and where industrial waste product is not treated in any way that safeguards human health. On a global economy scale, those jurisdictions can appear cost-competitive on a spreadsheet, but ultimately those savings do come from somewhere, and generally, when we’re speaking about those other jurisdictions, they’re coming from compromises in safety, from reduced oversight, from degradation to the environment, and ultimately from the well-being of those people in the communities.

I think it’s very clear those are costs that Ontario has never chosen to off-load. Really, we’ve built a different type of economy here, grounded in clean energy, in having stable and predictable institutions, transparent rules, and a clear and consistent commitment to public safety. When you look at our environmental standards, they have meaning. They’re meaningful, and they are enforced. We have expectations around workplace safety that protect people on the job—consequences for non-compliance. And ultimately, we created a community where communities expect industry to be responsible and accountable.

What’s interesting in this global economy that we’re seeing is that these are not in any way becoming barriers to competitiveness; they are becoming an attraction. They are becoming part of why international companies are coming and investing here—because they know, with Ontario, what they are getting. They know that they can plan long-term, and they know that, ultimately, their investment is supported by stable institutions and by a clean grid. I think that what this is about is really focusing in on that.

When we are looking at those global companies in automotive, batteries, AI computing, agribusiness—whatever—they’re looking for jurisdictions where we know that the lights stay on, where the grid is reliable, where the electricity is clean, and where their own internal commitments as corporations around climate, around sustainability, around human health and well-being could actually be met.

Ontario is one of the few places that can really meet all of those expectations, again, with that incredibly clean electricity grid, with our environmental standards, with our institutions that people can trust—environmental standards that reflect science and common sense—in communities that accept growth but also know that it has to be responsible. Those advantages don’t always appear in the headlines, but they are very important. They matter when companies are deciding where to put a facility, ultimately.

I think another thing to talk about here is that the more production, the more innovation, the more data processing and the more manufacturing that we can host here in Ontario under our clean grid, under our safety standards and under our environmental protections—it’s not just better for our province, but ultimately it is better for the world on a global scale. Every EV battery that’s built here is one that wasn’t built on a coal-heavy grid someplace else. Every tonne of clean steel that we produce here in Ontario is a tonne of steel that didn’t have to be produced in a place without our environmental rules.

Any AI data centre that comes to Ontario and our non-emitting grid is a data centre that’s not drawing from a system that’s creating pollution or relying on unsafe power sources.

In other words, we benefit by making Ontario competitive—not just by attracting that investment to Ontario, but really, I think it’s also about getting to benefit from that and doing our share globally. When companies build here, they are building on a clean grid, and they are operating in communities that value safety and human well-being. Ultimately, they’re contributing to an economy that takes those benefits and reinvests in education, in health care, in public services, and not simply profits that are extracted and spent or sent someplace else.

I think that’s part of the reason why Ontario and Canada remain one of the most attractive places for immigration. It’s because we take investment in our province, because we take jobs, because we take our economy and we do reinvest it into people and into the things that matter.

I think that Bill 40 really strengthens that position. By embedding economic growth directly into the mandates of the IESO and the OEB, it’s ensuring that the decisions that are shaping our energy future are aligned with what I would say are the opportunities and the responsibilities of a changing global economy—the one that we are currently in.

It says that when we build transmission lines, when we approve new generation, when we evaluate the large-scale connection requests that we’re seeing, we’re doing so with a really clear understanding of the long-term impact on affordability, reliability, housing, industrial development and, ultimately, the environment as well.

To me, instead of lowering ourselves to compete with jurisdictions with weaker standards, it’s about carrying forward and investing in what makes Ontario strong, which is our clean power, our predictable governance, our safe workplaces and, ultimately, our communities that will always put people first.

For that reason, I will be very proud to support Bill 40.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: It’s always an honour to be able to rise on behalf of the residents of St. Catharines, and actually all of Niagara—families in St. Catharines, seniors who built our communities, and young people just getting their start, all of whom are feeling the pressure of rising costs every single month.

When we talk about affordability in Niagara, we must talk about energy. Hydro bills, heating bills, delivery charges—everything keeps going up. Residents across Ontario and Niagara are tired of being squeezed. This is why I have been so clear publicly about what is happening. In fact, I’ve said directly to the people of St. Catharines: “Families are being squeezed every single month—hydro bills, heating bills, delivery charges—and Bill 40 doesn’t make life more affordable. It gives the government more power and less accountability while giving families absolutely nothing.” That message resonates because it’s the truth.

This is why we are debating Bill 40, the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act. However, despite its promising title, there is nothing in this bill that actually secures affordability for people across Ontario or for the families and seniors in St. Catharines and Niagara. People want power they can rely on and a bill they can afford. They don’t want any surprises, and they do not want decisions being made in backroom deals.

Last year, I introduced a practical and targeted home heating bill—something that would have delivered real, immediate relief for people across Ontario. It would have helped seniors stay warm without sacrificing groceries. It would have helped families who were choosing between filling the tank and filling their fridges. However, once again, this government voted it down. They had a chance to help seniors, they had a chance to help Ontarians, and they walked away, thumbing their nose up at seniors all across this province.

And now, a year later, they arrive here in this House with Bill 40, a bill that grants the government new powers but offers no relief to people facing high hydro and heating bills right now. Instead of delivering affordability, it delivers uncertainty—uncertainty for families, uncertainty for businesses, uncertainty for the entire Niagara region. This seems to be a pattern, doesn’t it? I ask the people at home.

Speaker, one of the most concerning parts of Bill 40 is how it lets the government decide who connects to the grid without clear rules or, again, no transparency criteria. That opens the door to political interference and special treatment. This song goes on and on and on, doesn’t it? Are you following along? Here, once again, we see political interference and special treatment for the wealthy donors.

This is exactly why I’ve warned publicly: “Bill 40 lets the government decide who gets connected to the grid with no clear rules. Our greenhouse growers and local businesses could be pushed aside, while energy-hungry crypto operations jump the line. People in Niagara already pay some of the highest electricity costs in all of Ontario. We need affordable, reliable energy that puts families first, not insiders.” This is not a hypothetical. In Niagara, our greenhouse growers, who produce food for families across this province, are already worried that they’re going to lose access to the power they need.

These growers know exactly what happens when decision-making isn’t transparent: The productive sector gets left behind once again.

Bill 40 also weakens the Ontario Energy Board—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Annual report, French Language Services Commissioner

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: the 2024-25 annual report of the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario, from the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario.

Members’ Statements

Ecumenical meeting in Istanbul

Mr. Aris Babikian: The recent meeting between Pope Leo XIV and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is not only a religious and spiritual milestone but also an emblem of the values that resonate strongly with Canadian society. The occasion underscored the universal need for peace, dialogue, and the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms—values that are steeped into Canada’s social fabric.

During his journey, Pope Leo also met with Sahak II, Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, and travelled to Lebanon to advocate for peace throughout the Middle East, and to emphasize the necessity of religious freedom for all, regardless of their faith.

A key part of Canada’s identity is its strong support for religious, cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as the protection of human rights. These values should guide Canada’s decisions at home and its actions around the world.

The example set by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch serves as a beacon for all nations to nurture service and sacrifice in pursuit of a more harmonious society.

In this spirit, all Canadians, and especially those of Catholic and Orthodox heritage, celebrated this historic event, reflecting a shared hope for lasting peace and understanding.

Volunteers

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, the holidays are upon us, but for many in our community, the festive season brings more worry than joy.

That’s why I am so grateful for the efforts of Londoners to support those in need.

Every year, the Hyde Park Lions Club and Hyde Park BIA partner with sponsors like Oxford Dodge to host the Hyde Park Santa Claus Parade, collecting essential food items for our community.

The Old South Community Organization, OSCO, organizes its annual Christmas in the Village and tree sale to raise thousands of dollars for local causes.

I want to thank the local faith communities that host free meals and collect donated food—like Springbank Catholic Family of Parishes, St. Michael and All Angels Anglican Church, and Byron United Church, or the Muslim Soup Kitchen, the Halal Food Bank, and the Guru Nanak Mission Society.

I want to recognize the local businesses that offer drop-off locations for the Business Cares Food Drive or the BGC London Koats for Kids, and the countless non-profits that provide such vital supports, like Northwest London Resource Centre, the London Food Bank, Ark Aid, Mission Services, the Salvation Army, LifeSpin—the list goes on.

These organizations—their volunteers, donors and staff—are making the holidays just a little bit brighter for those who are struggling. Let’s support their efforts.

And to all residents of London West, best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.

Services for persons with disabilities

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Today, I speak to an important report by the Ontario Ombudsman titled Lost in Transition. It highlights a crisis of care for adults with a dual diagnosis—those with both a developmental disability and mental health conditions. The complexity leads to no other option than long stays in hospital—or, sadly, dysregulation can lead them to corrections versus care. There’s nowhere else to be safely cared for. And it represents 36% of time that patients stay in hospitals—for people waiting for care elsewhere. We can do better.

Mental health partners—mental health hospitals and supportive housing providers—showcased a solution recently at Queen’s Park. Ricky, who stayed for years in hospital, was transitioned to a purpose-built house with the supportive care supports he needs to live a fulfilling life. Cross-government collaboration made it happen. We need to spread this model across Ontario. It will be better for people like Ricky, and it will open up beds for overcrowded hospitals to provide care for others.

Happy holidays to all in our community. Although the holidays are a time of joy for most, for others it can be challenging for their mental health. If you or someone you care about, who you’re concerned for—please be sure that they’re aware of 988, a 24/7 crisis line available to provide support.

Holiday events in Brampton East

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: As we enter the holiday season, I want to take a moment to recognize the community celebrations that bring families across Brampton together at this time of year.

Recently, I had the opportunity to join residents at the annual Brampton tree lighting and Miracle on Main Street celebration, presented in partnership with the Tiger Jeet Singh Foundation and Peel Regional Police. This event has become a major tradition in our city. It transforms downtown Brampton into a festive gathering place with live entertainment, family activities, and a strong sense of community spirit. It was so wonderful to see so many residents come together and officially launch the holiday season. It’s events like this that highlight the strength, diversity and unity that define Brampton.

I’m proud to support initiatives that bring people together in a positive and welcoming environment.

As we move forward in the coming weeks, I want to wish all Ontarians, and especially the residents of Brampton, a very merry Christmas and happy holidays.

Tenant protection

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Last year, I introduced motion 163 to stop corporate landlords from installing paid parking meters at rental housing properties, a predatory practice that forces tenants and their guests to pay outrageous fees simply to visit their own homes.

In my community of St. Catharines, this issue is hitting people especially hard. Many of the tenants being targeted are seniors or individuals who rely on frequent PSW visits. Some PSWs have now stopped working in the buildings with paid visitor parking because they have to accumulate hundreds of dollars in parking tickets—tickets that come directly out of their paycheques. As a result, seniors are being cut off from the essential care they rely on to live safely and independently.

Instead of strengthening protections for these renters, the government has passed Bill 60, which fast-tracks evictions, weakens tenants’ rights, and hands even more power to corporations and landlords already gouging vulnerable residents.

Some 36% of households in St. Catharines are renters—more than one in three—facing rising housing costs, and now additional financial penalties just to host visitors. This is totally unacceptable.

This government must stop prioritizing corporate landlord profits and start standing up for seniors, families, workers—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Agri-tourism

Mr. Matthew Rae: Speaker, it’s hard to believe that next Wednesday, December 10, is the first anniversary of my private member’s bill, the Growing Agritourism Act, receiving royal assent. The Growing Agritourism Act was and I believe still is the first piece of legislation that addressed limited liability for agri-tourism operators in all of Canada.

Over the past year, I have heard directly from many, many agri-tourism operators across Ontario about the Growing Agritourism Act and how it is protecting their investments and helping them grow their businesses even more. It has provided certainty for farm families to make significant investments in their operations, and continues to provide peace of mind to those operators as they bring more visitors to their farms.

I want to quote Darlene Downey: “As both a farm operator and chair of Agritourism Ontario, I’ve seen how the Growing Agritourism Act has empowered our sector. It gives operators the clarity to innovate and invest, while ensuring families can enjoy safe, authentic farm experiences that celebrate Ontario agriculture.”

Speaker, as we approach the Christmas season, I encourage all members in this place to visit an agri-tourism operator in their local community.

I know that Meghan, Arthur and I look forward to going to a local Christmas tree farm this weekend to pick out our family Christmas tree.

I encourage all members to support local this Christmas season.

Children’s health services

Ms. Sandy Shaw: There are thousands of children in southern Ontario living with progressive life-limiting and life-ending illnesses, but it’s shocking to learn that many Ontarian children and their families cannot access the care they deserve.

Just like many other regions in Ontario, there is no dedicated pediatric hospice in Hamilton.

Gratefully, folks are working hard to change that—to build a children’s a hospice in Hamilton that will embrace children, families and caregivers throughout their journey. Keaton’s House-Paul Paletta Children’s Hospice will provide the care, comfort and connection these families deserve close to home.

Dr. Dave Lysecki from McMaster Children’s Hospital, a pediatric palliative care specialist, said, “There’s a common misconception that pediatric palliative care is only for the dying. But really, it’s about living fully, right up to the last moment and supporting families to live fully and carry the memory of their loved one with them.”

The CEO of Kemp Care Network, Danielle Zucchet, said, “The impact of caring for a dying child has an inordinate, long-term effect on their families.” In fact, Keaton’s House is named in honour of Danielle’s young son.

This will be a place where these young patients and their families can find joy, live well, and create lasting memories.

I have shared in this House the loss of my sister Nancy Rose. I know that a place like Keaton’s House would have provided the comfort that my parents, my sisters and my brother would have needed as we went through that terrible loss.

Access to hospice and palliative care for children should be the highest aspiration of any community. And I know we will make this happen in Hamilton.

Holiday events in Cambridge

Mr. Brian Riddell: It’s true: Santa Claus was seen in Cambridge and Ayr, Ontario, and it fills me with the holiday spirit.

Each year, I’m grateful for the chance to take

part in the Santa Claus parades in both Cambridge and Ayr. They’re special moments for families, especially children.

Nothing can dampen the joy of the holiday season, not even a thunderstorm. The Cambridge parade marched through the pouring rain, and the resilience of our community really showed. The streets were filled with thousands of smiling faces and loud cheers.

The Ayr parade, on the other hand, was a scene from a Christmas storybook. Fresh snow covered the streets, giving the whole event a magical atmosphere. We handed out candy canes and dog treats, and seeing the kids’ faces light up or a dog’s tail wag faster kept me smiling the entire time.

I want to thank my volunteers for braving the storm in Cambridge and making sure every child received a candy cane in Ayr, even if we had to slow down the parade a little bit.

As we head towards the holiday season and the end of this session, I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a very happy holiday season.

Holiday activities

Mr. Dave Smith: Snow is falling, and as we just heard from my colleague from Cambridge, Santa Claus parades are well under way, and some of your neighbours have put up their Christmas decorations.

So what I’d like to talk about today is something that we refer to as the Griswold Awards, named after Clark Griswold from the movie Christmas Vacation.

Every year at Christmas, we’re asking people to nominate someone in your neighbourhood who has gone above and beyond to spread Christmas cheer. You know the ones I’m talking about—those homes where, when they turn on the lights, the Darlington nuclear plant groans and has to ask Niagara Falls to send more water over the Falls just to produce enough electricity.

Last year was our biggest year, with a few hundred nominations; this year, I am hoping for even more. I know that some of last year’s nominees—there was a Facebook page dedicated to their efforts, and I fully expect some are going to up their game and do even more. In fact, I can think of one in particular who has already told me she’s going to add to her display because she got some great ideas from the others on Facebook.

If you decorate for Hanukkah or Kwanza or anything else—those count as well.

What we’re looking for is anyone who celebrates the festive season, decorates the outside of their home and wants to include the entire neighbourhood. Let us know who they are so that we can celebrate with them by giving them a certificate on behalf of the province of Ontario.

Order of business

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

Hon. Steve Clark: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding private members’ public bills.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding private members’ public bills. Agreed? Agreed.

I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or order of the House relating to the following bills:

—Bill 38,

An Act to proclaim the month of September as Ethiopian Heritage Month;

—Bill 22,

An Act to proclaim Ontario University Athletics Week;

—Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Marriage Act;

—Bill 66,

An Act to proclaim the month of October as Kids’ Online Safety and Privacy Month;

—Bill 67,

An Act to proclaim Hospitality Workers Appreciation Day; and

—Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act; and

That when the order for second reading of Bill 38 is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, upon receiving second reading, Bill 38 shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called the same day; and

That the order of the House dated June 5, 2025, referring Bill 22 to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy be discharged and the bill be ordered for third reading; and

That the order of the House dated October 23, 2025, referring Bill 31 to the Committee of the Whole House be discharged and the bill be ordered for third reading; and

That the order of the House dated December 3, 2025, referring Bill 66 to the Standing Committee on Social Policy be discharged and the bill be ordered for third reading; and

That the order of the House dated December 1, 2025, referring Bill 67 to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy be discharged and the bill be ordered for third reading; and

That when the orders for third reading of Bill 22, Bill 26, Bill 31, Bill 38, Bill 66 and Bill 67 are called, 17 minutes shall be allotted to debate on the motion for third reading of each bill, with five minutes allotted for members of His Majesty’s government, five minutes allotted for members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, five minutes allotted for members of the third party, and two minutes allotted to the independent members as a group.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding any standing order or order of the House relating to the—

Hon. Steve Clark: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Dispense? Dispense.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

House sittings

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

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

Wearing of jacket and pin

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

Mr. Brian Saunderson: I seek unanimous consent of the House to wear my Olympic jacket and an Ontario University Athletics pin today for the purpose of third reading of my private member’s bill this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Simcoe–Grey is seeking unanimous consent to wear his Olympic jacket and pin. Agreed? Agreed.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Stan Cho: We have a famous influencer in the House who influences millions to be hungry through his account @insta.noodls. It’s my honour to introduce Clement to the Legislature this morning.

Clement, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Zee Hamid: I’d like to introduce my constituency staff who are attending here today: Myra Pervaiz, Affan Khan, and Karen Baring.

Welcome.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to introduce some parents who are here from Heydon Park Secondary School today: Kamala Kalsi, Paulet Slyfield, David Wallace, Jennifer Reid, Tola Reid, Chris Reid, Jennifer Brooks, Michelle Orchard, Maja Rehou, and Melana Janzen.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Aujourd’hui, j’ai l’honneur de vous présenter deux « Locals » de Unifor. Local 89 : président Alex Dumais, Cindy Richard, Heather Pettypiece. Mais aussi du local 256 d’Unifor, Luc Paquette, qui est le président, et aussi Roland Lepage de 256. J’ai aussi à vous présenter de la fondation de Sensenbrenner Hospital, Mireille Dubosq.

Welcome to your House.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to welcome the family of page captain Emery from York–Simcoe to the House today: father Craig Warner, mom Jamie-Lee Warner, grandmother Arlene Warner, brother Evander, and aunt Avril Edwards. Welcome to Queens Park.

MPP Tyler Watt: Je [ inaudible ] Renée Couture, une bonne amie à moi et la présidente de l’Association libérale provinciale de Nepean, à Queen’s Park. Bienvenue à votre maison.

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: I’m happy to rise today and welcome my good friends Claude Nembhard and Ryan Xavier from Ontario Basketball. They both are doing incredible work across the province, expanding access to basketball to the next generation. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Parsa: Joining us today for the very first time is Judith Csikasz.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. I look forward to meeting with you after question period.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I am pleased to be able to introduce Stephen Yardy, my amazing campaign manager, riding association president and friend.

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to welcome to the House Stephanie Soltermann, a resident of the beautiful riding of Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Stephen Blais: I would like to welcome my special assistant Ana Kraljević and her partner Dominik Kabala to the Legislature today. Thanks for being here.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Today, I’m pleased to welcome Phil LeBeau and a former staff member of mine, Scott Ramsay, from Munitions and Precision Logistics. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: I’d like to introduce my constituent and the PA announcer for the Toronto Maple Leafs, Mike Ross.

Welcome to your House.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’d like to welcome Willow McEachern, my constituency assistant, who has come all the way down here from Thunder Bay–Superior North. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the Rev. Dr. Susan Eagle and members of the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition.

This morning, the members from Ottawa West–Nepean, Nickel Belt, and London–Fanshawe and I had a great opportunity to chat with you.

Thank you for all the work that you do.

Question Period

Manufacturing jobs

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier.

Sault Ste. Marie is bracing for 1,000 workers to be let go from Algoma Steel. The community cannot handle 1,000 more job seekers.

The Premier is saying to 1,000 people that they are going to lose their jobs, and apparently that is just a sacrifice he is willing to make.

The Premier handed $100 million over to the big bosses with no strings attached.

Let me be clear: Is the Premier okay with 1,000 people losing their jobs in Sault Ste. Marie?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The $100-million loan that our government provided was critical to saving as many jobs as possible. They are open today because we put the $100-million loan in. In the CEO’s own words—they simply could not survive without the financing that the government provided. They are here today to fight for tomorrow, and we are fighting along with them.

We are working with them to create new line for plate steel, as countries around the world are looking for new steel. We are working with them because we’re investing $200 billion in infrastructure. Those I-beams should be and will be made in Sault Ste. Marie.

So today, the $100-million loan that we invested kept them alive long enough now to fight the future—and that’s what we’ll do together, with them.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: So $100 million spent to lose 1,000 jobs—that’s what I call a bad deal. And 1,000 people, 1,000 families are the casualties of that terrible deal. The Premier keeps saying he had nothing that he could do about it.

But I ought to say I feel like the Premier gave up a long time ago. It was him and his government that reduced Canadian content requirements for transit projects from 25% to 10%. He is the one who set us up to be more vulnerable than ever to a tariff and a trade war.

Back to the Premier: Why are you undermining these workers and our manufacturing sector just when they needed our help more?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Bill Slater, the president of Local 2724, said they knew these layoffs were coming because of the introduction of the electric arc furnaces, which will make Algoma more efficient and able to hire more people later. But President Trump’s tariffs accelerated those losses.

A $100-million loan is invested that kept the company alive. They’re there today, open today because of that $100-million loan.

We are going to join them in fighting the fights of tomorrow—where we can put this plate steel line in.

Think of the European Union spending almost $2 trillion more on defence. Nobody in the world has enough steel to supply for that. That’s why they’re going to need Algoma.

We’ll be there when they hire. Once we build that new line in Algoma, we’ll be right beside them as they hire people back into Algoma to fight those fights.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, to know that this government was working behind everyone’s backs to ship good manufacturing jobs to other countries—is a complete betrayal of Ontario workers. And now, in the middle of a trade war, it’s like the Premier has left us exposed, and he’s okay with that—he’s like, “The Titanic is sinking, but we saved a few people.”

Well, my goodness. You saved a few rich people.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: You handed over $100 million with no strings attached. And 1,000 families are looking at losing their jobs now, right before the holidays.

The Premier made a choice. He decided to sacrifice 1,000 jobs in Sault Ste. Marie.

How can the Premier justify such a terrible deal: losing 1,000 jobs for $100 million?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I’m going to say it one more time: A $100-million loan kept them open. They’re there today because that money was put in.

Speaker, the member opposite should have a very serious read of the Buy Ontario Act, which, sadly, they’re not supporting. It ensures that Ontario-made steel is prioritized in all our government procurements.

We’ve been very clear from the start: Every major project in this country should be built with Ontario-made steel. That includes pipelines, shipbuilding, and every major infrastructure project.

We are investing $200 billion in infrastructure.

Algoma should be and will be—with our help—building I-beams. All of that will be used in bridges and roads and construction in Ontario—with Ontario-made steel, and new Ontario employees when these lines are built, because they survived today.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, they didn’t survive; 1,000 people lost their jobs.

Anyway, Ontarians are actually struggling to make ends meet. The cost of basic groceries is rising every day. We know it, because we’re putting groceries back on the shelves at the checkout counter. And we know that a record number of people are visiting food banks.

Families are doing everything right, but they just can’t seem to get ahead under this government. It is about choices that this government is making—and they’re making the wrong choices. They chose their friends and their insiders over and over and over again, instead of Ontarians.

Can the Premier explain why he has decided to put his insiders and his friends ahead of working people when handing out the Skills Development Fund?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I think I heard the word “affordability” in there.

I think about the $12 billion that we announced in the fall economic statement—putting money back in the pockets of the hard-working people of Ontario.

Where was the Leader of the Opposition and her members on her team when we cut the gas tax? Did they vote for or against?

Interjections: Against.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: And when we made it permanent, did they vote for or against?

Interjections: Against.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: When we had the one integrated fare, saving $1,600 for transit riders, did they vote for or against?

Interjections: Against.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, time and again—the Highway 412 and 418 tolls: Did they vote for or against?

Interjections: Against.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: It was a trick question.

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is, this government has been working since day one to make life more affordable for the hard-working men and women of this province.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, I understand why the Premier doesn’t want to get up and answer these questions.

This was a fund that was meant to connect people to good-paying jobs. It was supposed to grow our workforce. Instead, where does it go? Your family dentist, your favourite nightclub owner, your campaign manager—your friends—campaign insiders. Those are the only people this government is working for, while Ontarians, including those 1,000 people who got pink slips in Sault Ste. Marie, are paying the price.

When is this Premier going to stop holding the line and fire his Minister of Labour?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Madam Speaker, the only person who should get a pink slip is the Leader of the Opposition.

All I can tell you is, there are 1,080,000 more people working now than when we inherited the bankrupt company from the Liberals and NDP.

You talk about 1,000 people that we—we’re saving their future, actually, as they get ramped up, and they’re going to come back to have a good-paying job.

Madam Speaker, 55,000 people, last month alone, had gainful employment because of our policies, because we reduced the burden of taxation off the backs of people and the backs of companies to create opportunities.

My Minister of Economic Development is travelling all around the world, and every single time he comes back, he has pages of multi-billion dollar investments. That’s what the world is seeing. We’re open for business. We’ve been talking with our great Minister of Finance—no matter if it’s pension funds or other funds. They’re saying that this is the greatest place—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Manufacturing jobs are at the lowest levels we’ve seen in this province since 1976.

This Premier thinks he can pull the wool over people’s eyes.

They are so brazen that they don’t even manage to change up the cast of characters who benefit from their decisions.

People are getting really tired of watching the Premier’s circle of elites get ahead while they are falling further and further and further behind every day.

We have seen what you get with this government. They only help the people who help them.

What is it going to take for this government to start paying attention to what regular Ontarians actually need?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, you’ve heard the story before, many times, that under the Liberals, we saw 300,000 manufacturing jobs leave the province.

Now we know that we have one million more people working in Ontario than the day we got elected. And if you look very carefully at the statistics, there are more people working in manufacturing today than the day we took office. In fact, in the last four months alone, 25,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created.

I understand your number that you’re twisting, but if you look at where that number comes from, it’s because we’ve added 85,000 AI jobs, we’ve added 400,000 tech jobs—we’ve added jobs in all kinds of sectors, including 25,000 new jobs in manufacturing in four months alone.

Education funding

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

Yesterday, my daughter forwarded me the Minister of Education’s letter to parents. The government never ceases to amaze me. It is probably the most pathetic thing I’ve read and seen in a long time.

After almost eight years in government, they’re going to hire—get this, folks—a two-person panel to fix the problem that they created. Eight years of larger class sizes, eight years of starving special education, eight years of ignoring the mental health crisis that’s in our schools—and the Minister of Education’s solution is a two-person panel.

We don’t need a two-person panel. We just need more qualified adults in our schools to help our kids.

When is the Premier going to make that happen?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member from Markham–Unionville.

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you for the question.

Our government is restoring accountability in an education system that for so long was allowed to drift without direction or responsibility, while the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, closed over 600 schools. We are taking a very different approach. Instead of walking away from communities, we are investing $23 billion over the next 10 years to build, repair and modernize schools so students can learn in safe, high-quality environments.

We’ve been clear from day one: Students come first. That means making sure every dollar is spent where it belongs: in classrooms; not on waste, dysfunction or political games that have plagued too many school boards for years.

So while the opposition continues to defend the status quo and failed trustees who waste money, we will continue restoring the accountability and building an education system focused on student success.

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

Mr. John Fraser: That wasn’t even a semblance of an answer.

We don’t need a panel. We just need more adults in our schools.

Anybody can tell you that class sizes are too big. They starve special education. There’s a mental health crisis in our schools that the government is just walking past. Schools are not safe places to learn or to work.

The solution is simple: more qualified adults in our schools to help our kids, with smaller class sizes, with special education needs, with mental health supports—all to fix the problem that they made.

When is the Premier going to stand up for kids and make that happen?

Mr. Billy Pang: Madam Speaker, parents expect an education system which is focused on student success, not one consumed by chaos and mismanagement.

When trustees waste public money or ignore their responsibilities, we will not hesitate to act. Waiting years for accountability is not acceptable for the families who need answers now.

At the same time, we are making historic investments to improve learning environments across Ontario: record core education funding increases of up to $30.28 billion—more than $23 billion over the next 10 years to support school construction, renewal and improvement.

My message and our ministry’s message is simple: We are putting students first and restoring accountability in every corner of the education system.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I’m proud of our record: learning to age 18, higher graduation rates, smaller class sizes, full-day kindergarten, a government that actually cares about education.

But we’re not talking about us. We’re talking about you.

Yesterday, the Minister of Education said small class sizes are really not important in student achievement and success.

Give your head a shake. More kids, less time. Read my lips: More kids, less time—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The government House leader will come to order. The member for Niagara West will come to order.

Mr. John Fraser: There are only so many hours in the day.

So when will the Premier do the simple math and make sure we have enough adults in our schools—qualified adults—to take care of our kids? When are you going to stand up for kids? Get out of your seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize—

Hon. Doug Ford: Excuse me, Madam Speaker.

Read my lips: You closed 600 schools—600 schools. You fired thousands of teachers.

We’ve hired 9,000 educators—9,000. We spent $16 billion on building new schools across the province; $3.6 billion to build 139 schools.

You voted for it—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: You voted to close 600 schools, fired thousands of teachers. That is hypocrisy at its best—at its best.

Madam Speaker, we’re setting—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): You have to withdraw, Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

We ended up adding another $2 billion to education, financing up to $39 billion.

They had never seen that their entire lives. They destroyed the school system. That’s what they did.

We’re improving—we’re actually teaching kids about STEM. You want to teach them about every wacko thing—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Folks, I’m going to start—

Interjection.

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

I’m going to start naming people. The next person I have to call out will be named.

I recognize the member for Orléans.

Consumer protection

Mr. Stephen Blais: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and merry Christmas, Premier.

On March 27, the Premier met privately with the CEOs of Loblaws and Metro. Five days later, he met with the CEO of Sobeys. And just weeks after those closed-door meetings, his government introduced a bill that would open the door to reward points expiring once again—a change that no Ontario family asked for, a change he didn’t campaign on, a change that doesn’t protect anyone other than big corporate interests.

Families are already getting crushed by high food prices. The last thing they need is a government opening the door to giving the grocery giants power to strip away their reward points before Christmas.

Madam Speaker, can the Premier explain why, immediately after meeting the grocery giants, his government introduced a law that would let them claw back reward points?

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

Hon. Stephen Crawford: I have a recommendation for that member. There’s a great book out there that you should read. It’s called The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I suggest you read that book because it tells a story about kids who tell falsities, and later, when there is a real emergency, people don’t listen to them.

I’ve been very clear in this House over and over, day after day, telling you that the rewards points are not going to be touched—full stop.

We’re bringing in more consumer protections to support the people of Ontario.

Speaker, we will be bringing in more protections so that people, if their points are cancelled, if there’s a dispute, now have a dispute resolution. The company involved will be forced to get back to them and rectify the situation or to at least let them know why the points have expired. That is more consumer protection that sits on the books today.

You need to support this bill.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: I have a book recommendation for the Premier: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Madam Speaker, the legislation is crystal clear: Cabinet can meet, in secret, and write regulations that allow reward points to expire. There is no public vote; there is no debate in the House—just a quiet, closed-door cabinet meeting with the Premier’s ministers, where they can open the door for companies to wipe out a family’s hard-earned reward points.

So I’ll ask again: Why is the Premier giving himself the power to take away the protections around reward points for Ontario’s families if he’s not planning to use them?

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Again, the member opposite has to recognize that your claims are totally out of touch with reality. If there are any secret meetings, then I don’t know why we’re discussing it in the House—it’s clearly not secret. There are no secret meetings.

We are bringing in legislation to support consumers. We are bringing in more protections for consumers.

And if we want to talk about all the great things we’ve done for consumers in the past, I can certainly touch on that.

The previous minister, who sits two seats away from me—the Minister of Infrastructure currently, the Minister of the Environment—did a great job in bringing consumer protections to this province. We banned NOSIs, which was a great success for the people of Ontario. We brought in Bill 194, strengthening cyber security protections.

Speaker, we’ve done a lot for consumers. We’re going to continue to stand up for consumers.

I would hope the opposition would stop crying wolf and support this bill.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: Madam Speaker, I can tell you, the opposition, and I’m sure the media, are very happy to learn that cabinet meetings will now be open to the public.

Families don’t need clever talking points. They need the truth.

Stop the obfuscating. Stop the spinning. Stop the closed-doors process—

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: I withdraw.

Give Ontario families a straight and clear answer.

Madam Speaker, to the Premier: Will you commit right now that you will not use this new cabinet power to allow companies to let reward points expire with the passage of time? And if you won’t commit to it today, tell us why.

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Again, I am committing in the House, as I have for the last several days, that we are not touching the expiry of rewards points—full stop. I don’t know what the member doesn’t understand about that.

Let’s talk about affordability. Let’s talk about all the issues that the Liberals have voted against.

You voted against cutting the gas tax and saving the people of Ontario money. You voted against the low-income tax credit to support low-income families. You voted against the One Fare pass, which helped commuters every single day. You voted against the ODSP inflation increase and 5% one-time increase. You voted against freezing driver’s licence fees. You voted against licence plate sticker fee reductions—which we eliminated. You voted against dropping the tolls on the 412 and the 418.

When we talk about supporting the families of Ontario getting through these tougher times, this government stands with the people—unlike the government which talks a big game and doesn’t deliver.

Education funding

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier.

Parents from Heydon Park Secondary School are here today in the Legislature. They fear that their school is going to be closed because the TDSB has informed them there will be no enrolment of kids in grade 9 and now grade 10. They’ve had no answers and no explanation as to why. Heydon Park is one of the very few schools that focuses on special education, helping our most vulnerable kids.

Can this government work to keep Heydon Park Secondary School open?

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

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, the minister, the parliamentary assistant, the government have been very clear: Everything we’re doing in the education system for that school or every other school—it’s all about putting students, parents and teachers first; it’s putting real accountability and real results. The minister has stood in this place, in regard to the supervisors, the review that they’re doing—everything is about strengthening the system.

I appreciate the fact that there are members from one particular school here today.

Everything we’re doing, regardless of where you live—whether you live in the GTA or any other corner of Ontario—is all about ensuring that school boards have the opportunity to succeed.

The minister stood up and talked about accountability, talked about transparency, the reasons why trustees were removed.

At the end of the day—no matter whether it’s this school or any other school—it’s all about putting parents and the classroom first.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for University–Rosedale.

Ms. Jessica Bell: This issue is very important. I’d really like the Premier to answer this question.

Every school board is not being set up for success. They have seen massive funding cuts under this government year in and year out.

Special education is seeing the worst cuts. We just got the EQAO results yesterday, and it shows that our schools are failing our kids who are in special education. They are not meeting learning outcomes in math, in reading or in writing. Properly investing in schools like Heydon Park, a school that specializes in special education, is the answer.

To the Premier: Can this government commit to keeping Heydon Park Secondary School open?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Markham–Unionville.

Mr. Billy Pang: The facts are clear: Every single year our government has been in office, we have increased education funding—including a more than 36% increase to special education funding that has helped hire over 4,000 additional educational assistants to support the most vulnerable learners.

But increasing funding alone isn’t enough when the school board trustees continue to fail students. We have seen examples across Ontario where mismanagement and infighting have diverted attention away from the special education and classroom supports. It is unacceptable.

We will continue to invest, continue to support teachers, and continue to hold school boards accountable so that every dollar we invest goes to supporting students in the classroom.

Education funding

Mr. Ted Hsu: I want to go back to classrooms. I know we’re all worried about what’s holding kids back. That’s what the minister says he’s worried about. We’re all worried about that.

This week, there was a parents’ forum in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, and one of the things they talked about—maybe it’s evacuations. This is when a kid becomes violent and we have to move all of the students out of the classroom for one or two hours before they can come back. It happens about once per week, on average, in my riding. Maybe that’s disturbing education.

Another thing that came up in the parents’ forum: Many of the little kids are seeing that something is going to happen, and they try to prevent problems; they try to prevent things from escalating to violence. People are generally good, and even the little kids know when something is wrong, and they try to fix the situation. People are basically good.

You’re spending money on a lot of things. Minister, why can’t we have more adults per student in our schools?

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you for the question.

To address rising violence in our school communities, our government has increased funding for school safety initiatives to the highest in Ontario history—including more funding to hire psychologists, social workers, child youth workers, and educational assistants. They are adults who enhance direct service for students.

The rise in school violence also coincides with the short-sighted decision by many school boards across the province, starting in 2017, to end the school resource officer program in schools.

This is why our government has introduced measures that will require school boards to work with police services to develop school resource officer and youth engagement programs that will help foster positive relations between students and law enforcement while making schools safer.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Ted Hsu: You know this is not working.

At the same parent forum that we had in Kingston and the Islands, we had some educational assistants. One of them just showed everybody the scars on her hands from students—little kids—gouging them. They’re suffering physical as well as verbal abuse. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I know the minister realizes this.

What’s going to happen? Our kids are about the same age—the Minister of Education and I. What’s going to happen to all these little kids who are violent in the classroom and disrupting the education of everybody because there are not enough adults to supervise them? What’s going to happen when they grow up? What’s going to happen to our society when all these kids grow up?

I really want a good answer from the minister. Why won’t you increase the adult-to-kid ratio in our schools right away?

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you again for the question.

As I mentioned earlier, those short-sighted trustees removed adults from schools—they are police officers. A short-sighted decision made by school boards to remove school resource officer programs has made schools less safe for students, and teachers as well—the adults. The teachers are adults. When they remove the school resource officers, even the adults are in danger.

We need to remove politics from the classroom and focus on policies that will help keep students and teachers safe.

Working with police officers through the student resource officer program helps build relationships between youth and police—activity promotes positive behaviour and creates a culture of mutual respect that will help keep students and teachers safe.

Small business

Ms. Laura Smith: My question is for the hard-working Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Amid global economic uncertainty and the trade disruptions caused by President Trump’s tariffs, Ontario must look to new ways and new markets to grow our trading relationships. The supply chains many Ontario businesses have long relied upon are shifting, and with that change must come a proactive strategy.

A few weeks ago, I had the very great privilege of attending the first Ontario Together Trade Fund recipient announcement in my riding of Thornhill. This fund is a key pillar in the $30 billion in tariff relief and supports our government has put forward to protect Ontario workers and businesses.

Speaker, can the minister please tell the House more about how our government is protecting businesses and workers across this province?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we have a $150-million Ontario Together Trade Fund that is enabling businesses to make investments to reshore supply chains, diversify export markets, and bolster interprovincial trade. It was great to be with the member from Thornhill a couple of weeks ago to celebrate three companies in her riding. Together, we announced three of the first eight recipients.

Burnco Manufacturing, a great steel fabricator there—$8-million investment, 75 new jobs, 215 jobs protected. They’re now going to be able to reduce dependence on the US market and support Canadian suppliers.

Heali Medical, a health producer in her riding—a $5.7-million investment. They will reshore production from China.

Letar, an aircraft/telecom component maker—a $2.8-million investment. They are establishing a facility and reshoring their operations from the United States.

Together, we’re protecting Ontario.

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

Ms. Laura Smith: It was great to join the minister to announce these important investments in my riding.

Ontario manufacturers have literally built our province into the economic powerhouse it is today. From steel and aluminum to lumber and critical minerals, Ontario is known around the world for producing the goods the global economy depends upon.

But amid growing uncertainty and shifting export markets, small and medium-sized Ontario businesses, the backbone of our economy, are feeling the pressure to adapt and compete.

Speaker, can the minister please share why it’s so important that our government launch these programs, like the Ontario Together Trade Fund, to help these businesses succeed in a changing global economy?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We stand at a very defining moment for Ontario’s economy, with President Trump taking direct aim at very specific sectors.

The Ontario Together Trade Fund is helping Ontario businesses protect jobs, grow our trade capacity with others, and stay competitive amidst all this uncertainty.

We announced the first round of the OTTF. Those eight companies that we announced are investing $120 million. That’s the confidence that these companies are showing in the province of Ontario. We are making a $16.5-million investment in those projects. They are creating over 300 new jobs in Ontario and protecting 1,200 jobs.

This is a once-in-a-generation threat that we are fighting together to protect Ontario.

Public transit

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

Speaker, don’t ever let anyone tell you that miracles can’t happen, because, after these many long, difficult years of construction and delays, the Finch West LRT is finally opening this Sunday. We’re all happy about it.

But it hasn’t been an easy road for the people along Finch, and I think they deserve something special on day one—something to help them celebrate and to thank them for their patience.

Will the government work with the city of Toronto to ensure that rides on the Finch West LRT are free on opening day, this Sunday?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’d like to remind the member that, as part of the Toronto-Ontario new deal, we are covering operating expenses for the Finch West LRT. That was a commitment we made as a government, as part of the Ministry of Finance’s deal with the city of Toronto, including record and historic investments into the city of Toronto—billions of dollars to support the construction of public transit all across the city, and millions of dollars in support to make transit more affordable—like launching programs like One Fare, with the extension of that just two days ago for an additional two years, saving commuters over $1,600 a year.

We’re committed to continuing our investments into public transit. Thankfully, we’ve got a government that wants to build and get these projects done, unlike the members opposite, who have voted against continuing construction on the Finch West LRT—

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

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Speaker, the opposition votes against the government’s budget because it’s so full of bad things. In fact, if the minister actually read his own budget, he’d vote against it too.

When the Toronto subway Line 1 extension opened in 2017, rides were free for all to enjoy. Historically, it has always been this way, so why not now? The people along Finch have endured years of nightmare traffic and even worse during the construction of the LRT. They deserve a break, and that important gesture would be a sign of respect for their patience and a big draw on day one.

I ask you again—no excuses; let’s get it done: Will you work with the city of Toronto to ensure that rides on the Finch West LRT are free on opening day, this Sunday?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Madam Speaker, I’ll ask that member, who is an MPP in Toronto, to look at the deal that the government made with the city of Toronto with respect to transit funding and operational funding for lines like Finch and Eglinton, as well as the historic investments that we’ve made.

That member’s record on public transit and that party’s record on public transit is, unfortunately, very disappointing, whether it is the Finch West LRT that they voted against, the Eglinton West extension that goes into that member’s own riding that he voted against, or the Scarborough subway extension.

For 15 years, the Liberal government ignored the people of Scarborough.

But we’re investing in places like Scarborough. We’re building the Ontario Line that’s going to move 400,000 people every single day. We’ve got record investments into public transit.

It’s a shame that the NDP and Liberals don’t support public transit.

Madam Speaker, we’re going to continue to work towards delivering these projects.

Finch West is a huge milestone, and we’re excited for the people of Finch who would like to ride —

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Water quality

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Water is a human right and was officially declared as such by the United Nations General Assembly in 2010. Everyone is entitled to safe, accessible and affordable drinking water.

And yet, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is refusing the Auditor General’s recommendations in a recent report to analyze our current lead-in-drinking-water standards. At present, Ontarians are being exposed to double the Health Canada level of five parts per billion. Officials at the ministry met back in 2021 to discuss reducing the province’s lead level of 10 ppb to the federal standard of five. Apparently, consultations were in the works. However—surprise, surprise—nothing is happening.

My question to the Premier: When will he clean out his ears, listen to experts, and give children in Ontario safe drinking water?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: I thank the member for Beaches–East York for the question.

I can say, on behalf of our government, that we’re proud of the fact that Ontario’s drinking water is among the safest and most well protected in the world. The numbers speak for themselves:

—99.9% of drinking water tests from municipal residential drinking water systems meet the drinking water quality standards;

—99.6% of drinking water test results from non-municipal, year-round residential systems meet the standards; and

—99.7% of drinking water tests from systems serving facilities such as schools and health care centres meet the standards.

Our comprehensive legislati