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

October 28, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-Oct-28 vol. A (PDF)

L029A - Tue 28 Oct 2025 / Mar 28 oct 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 October 2025 Mardi 28 octobre 2025

Orders of the Day

Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le soutien aux enfants, aux élèves et aux étudiants

Members’ Statements

Community safety

Post-secondary education

Le Mouvement d’implication francophone d’Orléans

Jewish Medical Association of Ontario

Ticket resales

Six Nations Chiefs lacrosse team

Tenant protection

The Great Pumpkin Trail

Housing

Tenant protection

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Immigrants’ skills

Government accountability

Housing

Manufacturing jobs

Government accountability

Affordable housing

Red tape reduction

Foreign-trained doctors

Government accountability

Correction of record

Introduction of Bills

Housing Equity and Rental Transparency Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur l’équité en matière de logement et la transparence dans les modalités de location

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

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

2163694 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Petitions

Education funding

Education funding

Tenant protection

Autism treatment

Social assistance

Health care

Repeal of government legislation

Soins de santé

Health care

Workplace safety

Public safety

Orders of the Day

Time allocation / Attribution de temps

Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le soutien aux enfants, aux élèves et aux étudiants

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le soutien aux enfants, aux élèves et aux étudiants

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 27, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to child, youth and family services, education, and colleges and universities / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives aux services à l’enfance, à la jeunesse et à la famille, à l’éducation et aux collèges et universités.

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

Lorsque le ministre a présenté ce projet de loi au printemps, j’avoue avoir cru—naïvement, peut-être—qu’il allait enfin proposer de vraies solutions aux problèmes criants de notre système d’éducation. Après tout, avec un

titre comme «

loi sur le soutien aux enfants et aux élèves », on avait le droit d’espérer pour des ressources accrues en santé mentale pour les élèves, du soutien pour les enfants ayant des besoins particuliers ou encore un plan d’action clair pour s’attaquer à la grave pénurie d’enseignants qui prend des proportions inquiétantes et affecte directement la qualité de l’enseignement dans nos écoles.

Pire encore, plutôt que de s’attaquer aux véritables besoins de nos écoles, le ministre choisit d’élargir ses pouvoirs. Le projet de loi 33 ne parle pas de soutien aux élèves; il parle de contrôle accru du ministère sur les conseils scolaires. On y trouve des mesures de centralisation qui éloignent la prise de décision des communautés locales et qui risquent d’affaiblir encore davantage la voix des parents, des enseignants et des francophones dans la gouvernance scolaire.

Ce que le gouvernement appelle « responsabilisation », c’est en réalité une recentralisation du pouvoir entre les mains du ministre. Et cela est particulièrement inquiétant pour les conseils scolaires francophones, qui ont été créés justement pour garantir une gestion par et pour les francophones, conformément à nos droits constitutionnels. Chaque fois que le ministère s’arroge un nouveau pouvoir, c’est un recul pour l’autonomie scolaire francophone et pour la capacité de nos communautés à décider de leurs priorités éducatives.

Et pendant que le ministre se dote de nouveaux leviers administratifs, les problèmes réels demeurent entiers : des écoles surpeuplées, des classes combinées, le manque d’appui en santé mentale, les retards dans la construction d’écoles francophones et un personnel enseignant qui est à bout de souffle. Nos élèves méritent mieux que des réformes bureaucratiques qui ne règlent rien sur le terrain. Le projet de loi rate sa cible. Il ne soutient pas les enfants ni les élèves : il soutient le pouvoir du ministre. Et cela n’aidera ni nos enseignants, ni nos familles, ni surtout nos élèves à réussir.

Monsieur le Président, le projet de loi 33 introduit en effet des changements majeurs dans trois domaines essentiels, soit l’éducation, la protection de l’enfance et le postsecondaire. Et bien qu’en apparence ces changements visent à renforcer la transparence et la reddition de comptes, ils traduisent en réalité une tendance inquiétante vers la centralisation excessive du pouvoir au sein du ministère, qui est au détriment de nos communautés locales.

Commençons par le secteur de l’éducation. Le projet de loi accorde au ministre de nouveaux pouvoirs qui lui permettent de procéder à des examens financiers, d’intervenir directement dans les affaires internes des conseils scolaires et même de nommer des conseillers spéciaux qui pourraient contourner les décisions des conseils élus. C’est une ingérence directe dans la gouvernance scolaire locale. Les conseils scolaires, rappelons-le, sont des instances démocratiques élues qui existent pour refléter les réalités de leurs communautés, qu’elles soient urbaines, rurales, francophones ou anglophones.

Les remplacer ou les neutraliser par des directives ministérielles, c’est affaiblir la voix des parents et des éducateurs sur le terrain.

Le deuxième volet touche la protection de l’enfance. Ici encore, le gouvernement justifie ses nouvelles prérogatives par la nécessité d’assurer la reddition de comptes et la bonne utilisation des fonds publics. Mais dans les faits, il s’arroge le pouvoir de nommer des superviseurs, de retenir le financement et d’imposer des directives aux sociétés d’aide à l’enfance.

Or, beaucoup d’entre elles—notamment celles qui servent des communautés autochtones, racialisées ou francophones—sont déjà confrontées à des défis structurels profonds : un manque de ressources, une surcharge des dossiers, difficultés dans le recrutement. Le contrôle accru du ministère, sans investissement correspondant dans les services de prévention et de soutien communautaire, ne fera qu’alourdir la bureaucratie et éloigner encore davantage les décisions des enfants et des familles qu’elles concernent.

Enfin, le troisième volet du projet de loi concerne l’enseignement postsecondaire. Le gouvernement veut imposer que les admissions reposent uniquement sur le mérite. Mais qu’est-ce qu’on entend par mérite? Si le mérite est défini uniquement selon les notes ou les résultats standardisés, alors on ferme la porte à ceux et celles qui n’ont pas eu les mêmes chances d’accès ou les mêmes outils de réussite.

Les programmes d’accès, de transition ou de soutien aux groupes sous-représentés—qu’ils soient francophones, autochtones, issus de milieux ruraux ou à faible revenu—risquent d’être remis en question, voire supprimés. Et en donnant au Cabinet le pouvoir d’imposer des directives aux universités et collèges, le gouvernement menace l’autonomie institutionnelle et la liberté académique qui sont au coeur de la mission éducative.

Monsieur le Président, sous couvert de transparence, ce projet de loi concentre le pouvoir entre les mains du ministre et affaiblit les structures locales, démocratiques et représentatives. C’est une pente dangereuse qui menace la diversité du système ontarien, y compris la vitalité du réseau francophone. Le projet de loi 33 s’inscrit dans une tendance plus large que nous observons depuis plusieurs années, soit la réduction graduelle de la démocratie scolaire en Ontario. Les conseils scolaires, qui devraient être des espaces de représentation et de débat public, voient leur rôle constamment diminué au profit de décisions centralisées à Queen’s Park.

Or, il ne faut pas oublier pourquoi ces conseils existent. Ils sont nés de la conviction que les communautés doivent pouvoir participer directement aux décisions qui touchent leurs enfants : les programmes offerts, les services de soutien, les infrastructures scolaires. Quand le ministre se donne le pouvoir d’intervenir, et ça, sans consultation, de nommer des conseillers spéciaux ou de réviser de façon unilatérale les finances d’un conseil, il envoie un message clair : il ne fait pas confiance aux élus locaux, ni aux communautés qu’ils représentent.

Cette concentration du pouvoir est d’autant plus préoccupante pour les conseils scolaires francophones. Nos conseils ont été conquis de haute lutte par la communauté franco-ontarienne, à la suite de décennies de revendications et de batailles juridiques. Ils incarnent un principe fondamental : celui du contrôle, par et pour les francophones, de leur système d’éducation. C’est une question de droits linguistiques, mais aussi une question de survie culturelle.

Monsieur le Président, la réalité, c’est que les écoles francophones font face à des défis croissants. On a une pénurie aigüe d’enseignants francophones, des manques criants en infrastructures—parce que plusieurs régions attendent encore la construction d’écoles promises depuis des années—et des ressources limitées pour soutenir les élèves ayant des besoins particuliers ou issus de l’immigration récente.

Les conseils scolaires francophones travaillent avec acharnement pour offrir un environnement où la langue, la culture et l’identité francophones peuvent s’épanouir. Mais sans moyens adéquats et sans autonomie réelle, leur mission devient de plus en plus difficile à remplir.

Et maintenant, avec le projet de loi 33, le ministre veut se donner le droit d’intervenir dans leurs affaires internes sans garantie de consultation et sans respect du principe de gouvernance distincte. C’est un recul inacceptable. Ce projet de loi risque d’affaiblir l’un des piliers les plus importants de la vitalité francophone en Ontario.

Si le gouvernement veut réellement soutenir les enfants et les élèves, il doit commencer par écouter ceux qui les accompagnent au quotidien, soit les enseignants, les directions d’école, les conseils scolaires et, bien sûr, les parents. Ce n’est pas en retirant le pouvoir à ces acteurs qu’on améliorera l’éducation, mais en leur donnant les moyens et la confiance nécessaire pour agir.

Monsieur le Président, le projet de loi 33 ne se limite pas à l’éducation. Il s’étend aussi à un autre domaine tout aussi sensible, soit la protection de l’enfance. Là encore, le gouvernement prétend vouloir renforcer la reddition de comptes et la transparence, mais ce qu’il propose en réalité, c’est une centralisation sans précédent du pouvoir ministériel.

Selon ce projet de loi, le ministre pourrait désormais intervenir directement dans les sociétés d’aide à l’enfance, nommer des superviseurs et même retenir ou rediriger des fonds publics à sa discrétion. Or, ces organismes sont souvent déjà fragilisés par un sous-financement chronique et par des demandes de plus en plus complexes : crises de santé mentale chez les jeunes, pénurie de familles d’accueil, manque de ressources spécialisées—je pourrais continuer. Les défis sont immenses. Plutôt que de leur donner plus de moyens pour prévenir les situations de crise, on leur impose plus de surveillance et de contrôles administratifs. C’est une logique punitive plutôt qu’une approche de soutien.

Monsieur le Président, la protection de l’enfance exige de la confiance, de la collaboration et de la proximité avec les familles et les communautés. Une gouvernance trop centralisée risque d’imposer des décisions uniformes et déconnectées des besoins locaux, surtout dans les régions rurales ou minoritaires. On ne protège pas mieux les enfants en éloignant la prise de décision de ceux qui les connaissent et les accompagnent au quotidien.

Si le gouvernement veut vraiment améliorer le système, il doit investir dans la prévention, renforcer les capacités locales et soutenir les travailleurs de première ligne—pas les surveiller davantage depuis Toronto.

Le troisième volet du projet de loi 33 touche au secteur postsecondaire, et là encore, le gouvernement prétend agir au nom de la transparence et de l’équité. On y introduit notamment l’idée que les admissions doivent être fondées sur le mérite et que le Cabinet pourrait désormais imposer des directives aux collèges et universités sur leurs politiques internes.

Mais, il faut le dire clairement, la notion de mérite n’est pas neutre. Dans les faits, elle tend souvent à favoriser celles et ceux qui ont déjà les meilleures conditions de départ : les étudiants qui ont eu accès à de meilleures écoles, à du soutien privé, à des ressources familiales. Le mérite, sans contexte, devient un filtre qui reproduit les inégalités plutôt qu’il ne les corrige.

Nos établissements postsecondaires ont développé, au fil des années, des programmes d’accès et d’équité pour corriger justement ces désavantages : programmes passerelles pour les étudiants issus de milieux défavorisés, initiatives pour les jeunes autochtones, pour les étudiants francophones en milieu minoritaire ou pour ceux en situation de handicap. Ces programmes visent à assurer une véritable égalité des chances, et non une égalité de façade.

Avec ce projet de loi, le gouvernement risque de délégitimer ou de restreindre ces initiatives au nom d’une définition étroite du mérite. Ce serait un recul majeur pour la diversité et l’inclusion dans nos universités et nos collèges.

Le projet de loi 33 prétend vouloir soutenir les enfants et les élèves. Mais à y regarder de plus près, ce qu’il soutient surtout, c’est la centralisation du pouvoir entre les mains du ministre, au détriment de la démocratie locale, de l’autonomie des conseils scolaires et de la vitalité de nos institutions francophones.

Ce dont nos écoles ont besoin, ce n’est pas une surveillance accrue depuis Queen’s Park, mais de ressources, de respect et de confiance.

En matière de protection de l’enfance, il en va de même. La supervision ne peut pas remplacer la prévention. Les sociétés d’aide à l’enfance ont besoin de soutien réel pour répondre aux réalités des communautés autochtones, racialisées et francophones, et non d’un contrôle bureaucratique qui alourdit leur travail.

Monsieur le Président, ce projet de loi fait

partie d’une tendance inquiétante : celle d’un gouvernement qui concentre le pouvoir, qui réduit les voix locales et qui prétend tout savoir mieux que les gens qui sont sur le terrain. Mais l’éducation, la protection des enfants et la vitalité de nos communautés ne peuvent pas se gérer à distance. Elles se construisent avec les communautés, pas contre elles.

C’est pourquoi je ne peux pas appuyer le projet de loi 33 dans sa forme actuelle. Je demande au gouvernement de revoir sa copie, de consulter sincèrement les partenaires du milieu et d’intégrer des garanties claires pour protéger la gouvernance francophone, l’autonomie locale et la transparence réelle.

Soutenir les enfants et les élèves, c’est leur donner les outils pour réussir, pas les enfermer dans un système centralisé où les décisions se prennent loin d’eux. C’est leur offrir une éducation de qualité dans la langue de leur choix et un avenir où chaque voix compte.

Alors, je veux vous remercier pour votre écoute, monsieur le Président. Je vais céder la parole à mon collègue d’Ottawa-Sud. Merci.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Merci, monsieur le President. I beg your indulgence just for a second. I just want to say that there’s a terrible storm in the Caribbean right now that is going be affecting a lot of people, particularly in Jamaica but not just Jamaica. We have a lot of families in our ridings who have family back there, so think about them, say a prayer if you pray, and I think as individuals and as a government we have to be ready, because what it looks like is the destruction that’s possible down there is going to be terrible.

I just wanted to say that because I know I have a lot of families in my community who are worried, who are concerned—we all do—and I know that we’re all sharing our concern with them.

I’d like to start talking about Bill 33 by talking about a couple of things in the bill that I don’t find particularly offensive. Often, what isn’t in bills—what we talk about isn’t the important stuff, so I’m going to start with

schedule 1 and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. The changes in there, they look reasonable. There is some grab for power there. They’re not all back; it’s not a surprise. The government doesn’t get it when it comes to children’s aid societies. They actually don’t realize what is affecting the children’s aid societies is the stuff I’m going to talk about later in special education, which is in

schedule 3, I believe—schedule 2, I should say.

Right now, we have a huge increase in the number of families who just can’t cope anymore because their kids aren’t getting what they need, either at school or in services. They are desperate. How desperate are you when you take your child, who’s part of you, probably the most important thing to you in the world, and say, “Please take care of this; I can’t”? And the government is upset because money is being spent at children’s aid societies because we can’t house all these kids who are coming in because their families can’t cope—honestly can’t cope.

All of us know families in our ridings—families that we know that are trying to cope with an exceptional need. For the government to say, “We’re going to audit these guys. We’re going to audit children’s aid societies; it’s their fault.” The Premier is great at pointing a finger, but what I would really hope is that he would just lift a finger to make sure that they had resources that they need to ensure they could properly house—hotel; whatever you want to call it. Provide a safe space. They have to be safe places. You’re not going to warehouse kids.

So I think that the changes here—and you can see where the government is trying to insert more power over children’s aid societies. What I really wish they would do is provide the resources that are necessary to ensure that children—not just children who are there because their parents just are at the point of breaking, but children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves needing us. We’re their parents, the government. We are. That’s what our job is. That’s our responsibility. So I think the government needs to focus more on that responsibility and work with children’s aid societies to provide the resources that are needed.

Now, I didn’t get the answer to this question—maybe somebody can ask this question or answer this in the questions after. We used to have post-secondary scholarships for wards of the crown—I know that; I worked for the Premier who did that. I was talking to someone the other day, and they said, “Well, no, that’s stopped; we’re doing it differently. It doesn’t come from government anymore.

It comes from somewhere else.” I could be wrong, but if that’s the case, I think the government’s missing the point, because they’re certainly missing the point with what’s happening with families of children with exceptional needs who just can’t do it anymore. They’ve given up. It’s too hard. They feel that their child is not safe anymore. They’re exhausted.

I want to talk a bit about

schedule 3.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: What’s that? Sorry. I thought he was heckling, but he was just yelling at his colleague.

Hon. Steve Clark: He was yelling at me.

Mr. John Fraser: He was yelling at you. I heard it. I don’t know why.

Schedule 3, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act: This feels like another heavy hand coming in, a very heavy hand. It’s interesting, particularly with colleges: There’s a difference between colleges and universities. Universities should be independent, right? Governments aren’t the only funders; students and their families are, other people, donors. So the government is trying to assert way more control over something that they don’t fully pay for.

In the case of colleges: The college system that a former Premier, Bill Davis, who I think was a Progressive Conservative, because I haven’t seen a lot of them lately—I remember, back then, he created the college system. It’s something that governments of all stripes continued and built up because we wanted it to be there for our young people.

We had a great college system, but this government is allowing it to wither. Ten thousand people who work at colleges lost their job last year—10,000 people. Algonquin College—it’s not in my riding but it’s in my city. Their first tranche of programs was 37 programs. So all over this province right now colleges are letting go of staff, cutting programs, and guess what? You’ve got a $2.5-billion Skills Development Fund—the thing they do at colleges. But it’s not going to colleges. It’s going to friends and insiders and donors and lobbyists.

So they’re pulling apart our college system, letting it wither, while they’re funding their friends. And you know who’s getting the short end of the stick? Our young people.

Where does skills development mostly happen in this province? It’s happening in apprenticeships at colleges and with trade unions, and it’s happening in colleges, where we can adapt to the labour market. Hello? You don’t need to give $27 million to bars and restaurants and nightclubs in downtown Toronto. You’ve got colleges that can do that. But you’re not doing that. You’re giving it to somebody, and I think what you’re doing is actually just backfilling somebody’s payroll. You’re not really training; you’re just paying for the people who are going to work for them that they have to pay to be trained, that they have to pay anyway. We all know that. It’s not rocket science.

So the government is coming in with its heavy hand in

schedule 3, and at the same time, with its other hand, it’s taking money away. And then it’s passing that money to a whole bunch of people—insiders, donors, friends, people with connections—and our students suffer.

I can’t support

schedule 3, and not just because the government is letting the college system—that one of them, one of the longest-serving Progressive Conservative Premiers, built and started, because he understood. He understood that it’s important for us to do things together for each other that we can count on, that we can make solid, that’s going to be there for the future. This government is letting it wither.

I’m just going to go right on to

schedule 2 now. It’s actually ironic—totally ironic—that the egg farmers are here today. Because if the Minister of Education wants to make an omelette out of school boards, it only needs four ingredients: It needs to be local, democratic, transparent and effective. I don’t care what it looks like: Make the omelette. That’s not the problem in our schools.

Governance always has to be fixed, it always has to be worked on. For God’s sake, in here, our governance—we didn’t sit. We sit for 14 weeks. We have a $230-billion corporation here. That’s what we run. The government doesn’t think they have to be here. It’s like, “We don’t have to have a board meeting. It’s not important. Nobody gets to ask any questions.” So, again, he wants to make an omelette? Make sure it’s local, democratic, transparent and effective. That’s what governance should be.

Schools belong to the families and the communities they serve. It’s been that way for 200 years. It’s been that way for 200 years for a reason: because that’s how it works best. Schools are local. The idea—the minister’s idea, and it’s very clear in this legislation—that we’re going to run everything from downtown Toronto and that’s going to be okay for Timiskaming or Essex or Niagara or Brantford: It’s not going to work. On top of that, 90% of the decisions—maybe not quite 90%; maybe 85% of the decisions—and control over education is already there, and it’s not working.

Our problem is, we don’t have safe schools, and we don’t have safe schools for three reasons. Class sizes continue to grow. Special education is in a mess. Boards—they’re not short $1 billion; they have to find $1 billion somewhere else—$850 million, but it’s probably more like $1 billion. They get $850 million less than they need to serve the kids who have the highest needs.

We have a mental health problem in our schools that’s just a reflection of the society that we live in. By that, I mean—I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but when I go into a bank or phone my insurance company or walk on a bus, I see a sign or I hear the message, “Foul language and harassment won’t be tolerated.”

We’ve got a problem, and it’s in our schools. It’s not the kids’ fault. We just came through a pandemic. The mental health needs of our children are not being met in school. They’re not even being recognized. There’s lots of lip service—tons of lip service, tons of historic investments. Every investment is historic, folks. I’m glad you’ve stopped saying that, or at least I think you’ve stopped saying that.

I went to Hamilton; I went to Brantford—I did a little local matters in education tour. I went to Niagara; I went to Thunder Bay; I went to Windsor and a bit of my city of Ottawa, and I heard the same things—a lot of the same things. And you know one of the things I heard consistently? “We don’t have enough adults in the school.” There are not enough adults in the school to manage what’s going on. That’s incredible.

The government has got a piece in here about policing in schools. I’ve always had a good, healthy relationship with the police. I do believe that we should have healthy, strong relationships with the people whose job it is to protect us. The most important thing we do in here is public safety. So we have to build those relationships. But simply using police in schools as just another adult—that the government doesn’t have to pay for, by the way, that somebody else pays for—is not the right way to go. You need mental health workers. You need social workers. You need youth workers.

It’s no good doing that, it’s no good policing in schools if you’re not going to have the other things, because they need those tools. For God’s sake, we have mental health workers with police in the community, right?

I know the government likes to push these buttons by saying this, but what I’d really like for them to do is to have a coordinated plan that dealt with this, that dealt with mental health. It’s a big problem. It’s a really big problem.

The ministry and the boards across the province are leaning really hard into a policy of inclusion and I think that that’s important. But what it’s done is, when you have inclusion and you have children with exceptional needs and you don’t meet the needs and you include them, that’s not any good. It doesn’t work.

I talk to parents and educators and kids, and I’m going to tell you, every day in every board in this province—maybe more than one in a board—there’s a classroom that’s evacuated because a six- or seven-year-old is dysregulated, or a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old. That’s what happens.

I had one mom say to me, “They called me because it happened at the school and I got the message.” We’ll say little Billy; I can’t remember his name. “Billy came home, and I said to Billy, ‘How was your day at school?’ Billy’s usually pretty forthcoming and he basically said, ‘Well, I had to do this with Bobby in the schoolyard’ and this and that. He didn’t even talk about the fact that his classroom was emptied out.”

I talked to a principal who lives in my riding—a really good principal, one of the best principals I’ve ever met. He says, “We’ve got a problem.” I said, “Well, explain it to me.” He said, “Well, this is just this week. Thursday, I had a desk thrown at me by a 12-year-old.” A 12-year-old, okay? And then he said, “It was just another day.”

What’s happening in our schools, especially in the elementary panel, is shocking. I’ve got a sister who’s an educational assistant, an SSL, they call them as well. She’s been doing that for six or seven years. The incivility, the physicality—people are getting injured. People are being threatened—teachers, other kids. There’s a problem, folks, and we’re not paying attention to it. It’s just not happening.

There’s a whole cohort of kids who are struggling because of the pandemic. They’re struggling with their mental health. They’re struggling with special needs. They’re struggling with getting caught up on math and reading. They’re struggling and there’s no plan for them.

But the government wants to say, “These bad trustees.” You know what? Yes, what they did was bad. I’d actually say stupid in the case of the trip. But we’ve got a bill and we’re perseverating on this stupid mistake while hundreds of thousands of children with special needs aren’t getting what they need because the government is not giving enough money per student. It’s that simple.

Don’t say funding formula. I’m tired of hearing funding formula. It’s not the formula, it’s the factor. It’s the amount of money that you’re using per student.

If boards in this province are spending $850 million more than you give them to help those kids, where is that money coming from? Anybody have an answer? No answers? Class sizes. It’s coming from class sizes. Classes are getting bigger—split grades, right?

I’ve got a school in my riding between grades 2 to 7. They’re all split grades. What’s that all about? I don’t know when you went to school—I mean, I did go to school in an urban school, so I can see that happening in a rural school where you really didn’t have enough to have a classroom. But this is an urban school where there’s enough to have a classroom of grade 5s or grade 6s. You don’t have to split them up.

Why does that happen? The government is not paying attention to what’s happening in schools. Because you know what the problem is right now? This government, although it likes to tout itself as great fiscal managers, is approaching half a trillion dollars in debt and they created for themselves a revenue problem. But you know what, Speaker? You got a free licence plate or two. But in your riding right now there’s a child with special needs not getting what they need.

I don’t know about you, Speaker, but I don’t mind paying for my licence plate if a child is going to get what it needs—not just because it’s nice, not just because it’s the right thing to do, which it is. It’s because it’s the smart thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do.

The smart thing to do is invest in people, to make sure that child can succeed, that that child will be successful. You got a free licence plate, but there are two million people out there who can’t find a family doctor. I’m happy to pay for my licence plate if they’re going to get a doctor. You know what? I want there to be enough adults in school and enough EAs. You know what? I don’t need a free licence plate. I need for those kids to have the help that they need. I need for them to have a smaller class size.

The government is missing the boat on the things that are important and focusing on, “Look at these folks over here”—pointing the finger—“they’re the problem; they’re the problem; they’re the problem.” The government makes 85% of the decisions in education; trustees have like this much. I’m not going defend the stupid things that some of them do, but there are a whole bunch of good ones out there too. People do stupid things in here all the time. The Premier is not pointing the finger at them, like the Minister of Labour and the Skills Development Fund. But we won’t go into that.

But here’s the thing: What’s the Premier’s priority this week? Not education and kids. No—not even close. He wants donation rates to go up by 47%—raising the limits. I guess they’re not getting enough money in the Skills Development Fund.

While kids in schools are not getting what they need, when there’s a mental health crisis in our schools—and there is. Everybody, you might want to pooh-pooh it and say, “No, you’re exaggerating”—there’s a problem. While we have that, the Premier’s priority is, “Let’s change election dates and raise the donation limits.” I’ll tell you what: With all this stuff going on, that one thing that I just said, what the Premier is doing, is all you need to know about him.

He’s not worried about the kids in school, he’s not worried about the 700,000 people out of jobs, he’s not worried about the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of kids who have to rely on a food bank. He’s worried about his party, he’s worried about his donors, he’s worried about his friends. What the heck is that all about? Honestly.

Our kids are not getting what they need. We built this province on education. We had a great education system. This government has allowed it to wither. You know one of the builders of that great education system? Bill Davis—Progressive Conservative. Again, I haven’t seen one in a while—well, I’ve seen a couple. I’ve got to be fair; I’ve seen a couple over there. I can spot them. They’re good people—they’re all good people.

Educating people, investing in our kids, investing in our young people is the smartest thing we can do. It’s not just the right, moral thing to do—it’s smart. Because the most valuable thing in a global economy—it’s not minerals, it’s not water, it’s not oil. It’s us. It’s people. We’re the most valuable thing. Our kids, our children: They’re the most valuable thing. What that is is that the most highly educated, highly trained workers are where people want to go.

Now that we’re in the midst of this trade war, the government is allowing, and actually encouraging, the diminishing of our systems of education by—quite openly, with the Skills Development Fund—sending $27 million to bars and restaurants and night clubs, giving it to a law firm, giving it to a dental clinic, giving it to harness racing.

You’ve got a college system—and an elementary and secondary system—that was amongst the best in the world. You’ve allowed it to wither because the government is just happy to hand out money willy-nilly to whoever hires Kory Teneycke or Michael Diamond or Nico Fidani-Diker or—I mean, the list goes on. I don’t have time to list them all.

I’d like to encourage my colleagues to spend a morning in a school. Go into an elementary school and talk to elementary teachers, talk to SSLs, talk to principals. Talk about what happens in our schools. If you take the time to do it, you’ll be shocked.

We don’t actually have the context because when we were in school, the things that are happening in our schools right now didn’t happen. It’s not because the kids are any different. They’re kids; they just have different pressures. When they’re not getting what they need, and they have an exceptional need, it makes it really hard for them. When they’re suffering and having mental health problems—because it’s pervasive; it’s throughout our society—we somehow try to believe that it’s not happening in our schools because it didn’t look that way when we went to school.

Go into a school. Talk to a teacher; talk to SSLs. When they say that there’s stuff happening in schools where people are getting injured and hurt—whether they’re an SSL, an EA, a teacher or a principal—they are. There’s a problem in our schools. The biggest problem is—it’s not the boards of trustees; it’s safe schools. They aren’t safe places to work. They aren’t safe places to learn.

The minister and the government are missing the point. While they try to have us focused over here on governance, all this other stuff is happening. This part’s easy and political. You don’t have to do a lot of work; you just need to make a lot of noise. That’s what the government is doing and that’s what the minister is doing: just making a lot of noise.

The hard work is, how do we actually make sure that every child is getting what they need? Or almost what they need, which they would be happy with right now, because some of them are getting nothing. The harder

part is, how do we actually get back to smaller class sizes? It costs money. It requires thought and effort.

The mental health problem that we have in our schools, which is just reflective of what’s going on in the broader society, and is maybe a bit more acute because of that cohort of kids that have gone through the pandemic and their learning being messed up—figuring that out is hard. But it’s easy to point the finger. It’s easy to make a lot of noise. It’s easy to stand, puff yourself up, point the finger at somebody else and go, “You’re the problem.” No. The problem is bigger than that, folks. It’s way bigger than that. And our kids are hurting.

The hard stuff that needs to be done is that we need to fund special education properly. Like I said, Speaker: I don’t know about you or anybody else in this room—well, I do know about a few; I’m hoping everybody feels the same way—I can pay for a licence plate if that child that needs the EA for half a day is going to get that EA. I’m happy to pay for my licence plate if my grandkids’ kids’, my grandkids’ or any child’s class is smaller and better. I’m glad to pay for that if the mental health needs that are in our schools are being met—that we’re investing in people there, that we’re investing in people like mental health workers, youth workers, social workers.

I’m getting close to the end of my time.

Interjection: Yay.

Mr. John Fraser: Yay. There we go.

There are three things I want you to remember, okay? Number one: Our schools are not safe to work or learn in, and that’s because class sizes are growing, special education needs are not being met—that’s the government’s responsibility—and we have a mental health crisis in our schools that’s reflective of what’s going on in broader society, but may also be more acute because of the impact the pandemic had on a cohort of kids.

What I would strongly suggest to all of you, if you haven’t done it—I know some of you have done it, and I know some of you have probably seen what I’ve seen, and you realize that it’s a big problem, and you realize that it’s going to take a lot of work: Get into a school. Spend half a day there. Go and talk to people. Talk to educators, SSLs, EAs, principals, vice-principals, teachers. They know what’s going on. They’re not the enemy. Talk to kids, because the paradigm of schools that we have in our heads isn’t matching what’s going on today. We have no context.

I’ll leave seventeen seconds on the clock.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Questions?

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the member from Ottawa–Vanier. As Ontario students and families across the region of Durham navigate through times of economic uncertainty, they deserve to know exactly where their post-secondary fees are going. Last year, the government took action to make the cost of textbooks and other learning experiences and resources more transparent, to give students a better idea for their post-secondary planning. With members from both the NDP and the Liberal Party voting against Bill 166, it’s evident that they stood against the idea of fee transparency, in addition to policy supporting student mental health and combatting hate on campus.

But as we take fee transparency one step further this time, the opposition, third party and independent members—they’re going to get another chance to demonstrate their commitment to hard-working Ontario students.

Will the member opposite, Speaker, through you, support Ontario students by voting to enhance fee transparency and student choice?

M me Lucille Collard: Thank you for the question. I’m all for transparency. I think transparency should apply to everybody, including the members of the government that are doing shady deals on the backs of Ontarians and abusing public funds.

Do I want transparency? I do. But, through you, Speaker, what you need to do is really trust our institutions. My colleague said, “We built our province on education.” We’ve created those institutions, those school boards, those colleges and universities. Well, give them trust, and give them the resources that they need to accomplish their mission. That’s how we’re going have a better system.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Questions?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’ll address my question, in this case, to the member from Ottawa South.

The persistent underfunding of schools is having a devastating effect on all students, but especially students with special needs. Disability advocate David Lepofsky has pointed out that every board has a special education advisory committee for students with disabilities that advocates for reforms, hears from parents with gut-wrenching stories, and has active engagements with senior board officials.

But now that livestreaming is forbidden, parents of children with disabilities are being blocked from accessing critical information about their school, their children and the work of the advisory committee. In your view, is there any justification for the Ford government’s decision to cancel the livestreaming of school board meetings in Toronto or anywhere else?

Mr. John Fraser: I don’t think there is a justification but there is a reason. And the reason is, they don’t want people to see. They don’t want people to watch. They don’t want people to know what’s going on in schools. They don’t want to know that children with exceptional needs—their needs aren’t being met. They’re afraid of criticism. It’s actually quite shocking. The most vulnerable children in school, whose parents are there and they have a life of advocacy—they’ve got to do it every single day for their kids—this government is shutting them down, shutting them out, trying to put them under a bushel basket and keep them in the shadows. It’s despicable.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member for Beaches–East York.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. It’s great to see all of you.

This is to either of my colleagues from the Ottawa area, so they can arm wrestle over it. This government is messing around with things like bike lanes, road safety, speed cameras and things that are not broken when they should be focused on fixing things that are broken. What do you think this government should be focused on right now for Ontarians?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m glad you brought up automated speed enforcement cameras. I talked about safe schools, and the thing that’s kind of shocking to me, at least in my city: Those cameras keep the schools safe, the streets safe in front of the schools. Smyth Road: two high schools, one elementary school. Alta Vista: one elementary school and two high schools. Walkley Road: French elementary school. Heron Road: French elementary school. They’re there to keep our kids safe, keep our roads safe. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, why didn’t the Premier just get it right? Why does he want to make the streets less safe for all our kids?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further questions? The member for Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you, Speaker. And through you, please, to the member from Ottawa South.

As the government continues to make strategic investments in our world-class institutions, we’re also ensuring that the most qualified students will be fuelling the workforce of tomorrow. Through Bill 33, we’re going to be consulting with the sector to understand all of their current admission policies and how we can provide better transparency for prospective students looking to study in Ontario.

We’ve heard from the students and their families that the current process is still unclear to them. And students applying to our post-secondary institutions, like Ontario Tech and Trent Durham, deserve to know the objective evaluation criteria that is directly related to their academic achievements and potential for success at an institution.

For the member opposite, support Ontario’s most qualified students by voting in favour of a more transparent admission process to colleges and universities.

Mr. John Fraser: What they deserve first is a college to go to, a program to have. That strategic investment? That meant 10,000 people are out of jobs in colleges—10,000 people. Where does that go? Is that the Premier’s job creation plan? They deserve a place to go to school and they deserve the course. Yes, you wave your hand. Wave your hand all you want, but that’s what’s happening. Those are the facts. You know it; I know it.

Algonquin College, first cut: 37 programs—37 programs, 10,000 people. If that’s your strategic investment, you can take your strategy and—thank you very much, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member for Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to give the member from Ottawa South an opportunity to complete his sentence, but he ran out of time, I guess.

From 2010 to 2018, I was a TDSB trustee, and every year, the TDSB trustees were forced to make cuts because of a funding shortfall.

Since then, the Conservative government has taken over and they’ve cut another $6 billion out of our education system. You mentioned an $850-million shortfall in special-ed services. That’s just based on what the school boards are using, what they’re paying for those services, versus what they’re getting. But it doesn’t actually meet the needs of the special-needs students.

I look at Bill 33 and the takeover of the school board trustees in four different boards. I think this government is trying to privatize our education system. I think that’s the goal. The students who are suffering in our schools right now are just pawns in this privatization scheme. Do you agree?

Mr. John Fraser: I don’t give them that much credit for thinking, because it’s rather obvious.

I think what it is, is they’ve got themselves in a bind. They’ve spent money on things that aren’t important. They’ve foregone revenue on things that aren’t important like licence plates.

And so, what ends up happening is now they’re—who are the four supervisors? What are the most distinguishing things about the four supervisors? Well, they’re all Conservatives pretty deeply, and they’re all CPAs—nothing against CPAs for all of you folks over there who are CPAs, or over here. CPAs are good people. But if you’re going to send somebody in to fix something, you wouldn’t go to General Motors and send a CPA in who didn’t know anything about building cars.

So it’s obvious what the government is doing. They see our school system as an accounting problem, not a people problem. That’s what the problem is with this government. They’ve got to figure that out. It’s about people. It’s not about the ledger sheet.

And you know what’s going to happen? Here’s what’s going to happen: The supervisors are going to go in, because I’ve seen it before—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): You ran out of time.

I recognize the member from Mississauga–Malton.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Thank you, Speaker. I was waiting for the temperature to cool down a little bit. Thank you, sir.

It’s always a pleasure to be here and to continue presenting on another key component of the Supporting Children and Students Act.

Before I start, I want to tell you: I still remember the journey when I became an MPP in 2018. We walked into those doors knowing almost nothing. And then slowly and steadily we read it, we understood it, and today we can proudly say, after seven years, we have a system which we are so proud of.

Let’s look at the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Within Ontario, we have 23 publicly assisted universities, 24 publicly assisted colleges and over 600 private career colleges. And there we have over 524,000 students in publicly assisted universities, over 350,000 students in publicly assisted colleges and over 100,000 students in private career colleges. And it doesn’t stop here. We have over 75,000 STEM graduates.

Speaker, this data which I just gave you is not just data, it is the future of our province. When you know you have a strong future, a bright future, you want to make sure that you’re investing into that future.

Thank you to Premier Ford and our Minister of Colleges and Universities, who’s been working tirelessly this summer meeting all the colleges and universities. We can give him a round of applause if you think he’s doing a good job.

We made notable investments of $750 million over five years to fund 20,000-plus STEM seats annually, and it doesn’t stop here. All the time we hear from the other side, “Are we making investments?” Yes. We have a debt, yes. We know the value for the money. We want to make sure, at the same time, that we make strategic investments. That’s why we invested $1.3 billion to stabilize and modernize the post-secondary sector. And we didn’t stop here: over $5 billion annually to publicly assisted colleges, universities and Indigenous institutes through operating and capital grants.

So, Speaker, this bill—I will be talking primarily on what is the impact on the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, and if I do have time, I’ll briefly touch education as well.

Over the last seven years, if you look at the post-secondary institutions, research institutes, hospitals, they have generated substantial research output. More than ever, our government needs to keep this momentum to protect Ontario.

We hear it all the time about the investments. Are we making enough investments? I’ll share the data and you can make that opinion.

Since 2018, we have invested over $2 billion into the research sector, supporting 1,600 research projects. If you look at the data, and it’s very simple: There are 5,000 universities in world, but when it comes to health research, we have University of Toronto, who is ranked seventh and ninth in two different sectors. That is the strength of the education sector that we have in our province.

With the investments that we’ve made, we are successfully leveraging an additional $1.5 billion in federal and private sector funding. With all this money coming together, we’re able to support world-class research. This funding is attracting and developing top talent, supporting state-of-the-art facilities and enabling the discoveries that will drive our economy forward and make a real difference—not just to the people of Ontario, but to the people across the globe.

I had the opportunity to visit some of these places with the minister. I do remember we went together to the University of Toronto. We met organizations like HDAX Therapeutics—wonderful work they’re doing—along with SpinUp, the program that they have.

These are the things which we are doing helping support these organizations. What happens is a virtuous cycle. We hold their hand, we give a little bit of funding, they take that money, they invest into the research, they come up with a great idea. When they take this great idea and commercialize it, we’re increasing the revenue—not only for the students but for our province.

We’re making sure all these technologies, all these discoveries, are helping support not just Ontario but across the globe. That’s why our investment has driven more than 120,000 training opportunities for research and students across the province, supported 406 patents, resulted in more than 70 start-up companies and created multiple jobs. These are the results—that our research sector is not just a key driver of innovation; it is actually helping support commercialization and the economy. We are contributing to protect Ontario’s long-term economic growth.

Let’s talk about the research institutes that we have. We are protecting Ontario’s global competitiveness productivity through our support for research institutes and by investing $117 million to support eight leading research institutes in our province. We have a unique mandate to support the centres of excellence.

A great example I can talk about is the Ontario Institute of Cancer Research—something which, again, the minister and I had the opportunity to visit, and to see first-hand how they were supporting the discoveries of new medicine. For example, OICR, in partnership with University of Toronto, recently launched OncoGAN, a new AI tool that generates synthetic cancer genomes to aid researchers in testing and improving algorithms without using real patient data. What does that mean? It helps to do things faster with less destruction, making sure we achieve those results at a speed, resulting in faster innovation, early cancer detection and more effective cancer treatment for the people of Ontario.

I recently was at UHN and I was looking at—they have seven Tesla MRIs. I do remember when Dr. Andrew Smith talked to me with a passion about how it is important. He said, “Typically, we have two to three Tesla MRIs. But with this, it’s not increasing the wavelength or frequency to twice, but it actually gives five times better results.” I stood up, I thanked them and I said, “It’s not five times better results; it’s actually five times better hope that you give me.”

I’ll give you a small example, Speaker. My own father-in-law was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. By the time we found out, we only had four and a half months before he passed away. Think about these things with the innovations and discoveries our wonderful youth, our students in the universities, are doing. Even if we were able to increase that by a month, this is a second life, 25% more than what we got. Every second counts at that point of time.

Speaker, our investment in research does not end here. We have recently announced $18 million to support the expansion of the McMaster nuclear reactor. Thanks to this investment, the reactor will be able to expand its operation to 24 hours, seven days. Many of my colleagues were there. We all went together to see first-hand the impact it creates to address the growing demand for affordable, patient-specific cancer treatment.

The reason I’m saying all this is to convey to the people of Ontario that we have a colleges and universities system which is designed to give back, to support the world—not just Ontario—making a difference in the lives of nearly a quarter of a million Canadians who are diagnosed with cancer each year.

That’s why, at its core, Bill 33, the Supporting Children and Students Act is about ensuring the safety, integrity and accountability of Ontario’s education and research systems. The legislation focuses specifically on research security, recognizing that while collaboration and innovation remain the backbone of our progress, they must be protected from interference, misuse or theft. You understand, Speaker: When we know interference, somebody having their own interest can result into something which could mean somebody is going to take away that research, demoralizing the researchers, who are not able to come back and are not able to build something to support.

That’s why, through this bill, our government is proposing to require all publicly assisted colleges and universities to develop and maintain institutional research security plans. These plans will outline how institutions assess risk, safeguard sensitive information, and train researchers to identify and manage potential security concerns.

We’re not doing it alone. We’re doing it with collaboration. We’re doing it with transparency. The Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security will work closely with these institutions, security experts—somebody I actually met at the University of Guelph—and research organizations to develop clear guidance and share best practices.

I think about a situation when—I remember I was talking to the VP of research at the University of Guelph. You have your researchers doing the research. All of a sudden, your data is hacked, your data is manipulated or your data is removed. Either you have to start again or you just shelve it. It’s not shelving the project; it is shelving the hope. It is shelving those not able to bring the technologies to the world, to serve the communities. That’s why regular updates and reviews will help ensure that these measures evolve alongside global research trends, emerging technologies and new security challenges.

Simply put, Bill 33 strengthens our ability to support open, world-class research while protecting the intellectual property, discoveries and data Ontarian researchers work so hard to create. We’re here to support that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Sorry to interrupt the member, but that has completed our time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Community safety

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to share with my colleagues that the Durham Regional Police Service will shortly be receiving additional money to continue the great work that they’re doing, keeping the region of Durham safe. And part of that money is going to be part of our government’s more than $91-million investment to help protect hard-working families and their communities. This funding is being delivered through the Community Safety and Policing Grant Program and will build on the work that began with Project Salus and the 2022 community safety and policing grants.

This project focuses on protecting our borders through the expansion of marine patrol, enhancing monitoring through the integration of video technology and strengthening the gun and gang unit of the Durham Regional Police Service and developing a new field intelligence officer program. The Durham Regional Police Service project is one of 127 projects being funded across Ontario for 2025-26 with the leadership of the Solicitor General.

Without a doubt, our government is proud to invest in projects to support our police and help keep people safe across the region of Durham. The grant initiatives build stronger partnerships between the police and community, improve crisis response and harness new tools to fight crime and keep communities safe.

Post-secondary education

Ms. Chandra Pasma: The Academic Assistance for Adults with Developmental Disabilities program at Algonquin College has been supporting young adults with developmental disabilities for nearly 30 years. The program allows these young people to continue their academic studies beyond high school, while also teaching critical life and employment skills and offering job placements.

I had the opportunity to meet with students and their families over the past few months and all of them have shared just how much the program means to them—getting to go to college like their peers to study, to work and to develop strong friendships.

But all of this is going to be lost for young adults in Ottawa. The AAADD program will be closing because of budget cuts at the college. Thanks to underfunding of post-secondary education by this government, Algonquin is facing a deficit of $60 million. They are closing more than 40 programs as well as the Perth campus.

The AAADD program is one of these cuts, but this cut is uniquely harmful, Speaker, because there is literally nothing else for these young people. Come next May, these students and others who were hoping to attend will no longer have access to post-secondary education.

The biggest shame of it all, Speaker, is that the difference between what students are paying in tuition and what the program costs is just $80,000. Eighty thousand dollars, and the government could save the program. I hope they will find it in their hearts to do just that, Speaker, and to protect the right of all young people in Ottawa to pursue post-secondary education.

Le Mouvement d’implication francophone d’Orléans

M. Stephen Blais: C’est avec fierté que je prends la parole aujourd’hui pour souligner un développement important pour la communauté franco-ontarienne d’Orléans : le nouveau centre culturel du MIFO.

Hier, j’ai eu le plaisir de participer à la première pelletée de terre du nouveau MIFO. Le MIFO est un pilier de la communauté franco-ontarienne d’Orléans et de l’est de l’Ontario depuis qu’un groupe d’étudiants a lancé ce mouvement en 1978. Merci à la communauté franco-ontarienne, dont la détermination et l’engagement ont permis cette réussite exceptionnelle.

Le nouvel édifice de trois étages sera près de quatre fois plus grand que le site actuel. Il comprendra un gymnase, une salle polyvalente, un studio insonorisé, des salles de classe, une galerie d’art, une école de musique, un café, un jardin et des bureaux administratifs.

Cette expansion offrira beaucoup plus pour notre communauté, créant un lieu de rassemblement vivant, dynamique et intergénérationnel.

Le MIFO est un symbole de fierté pour les Franco-Ontariens d’Orléans et de l’est de l’Ontario. Le MIFO continue d’affirmer la fierté, la richesse culturelle et la force de l’identité franco-ontarienne à Orléans pour aujourd’hui et pour demain.

I’d like to thank Minister Lumsden, whose ministry helped fund MIFO 2.0, for his support. In gratitude, I’d like to challenge him to a friendly game of pickleball when the minister comes to open the new MIFO facility in the fall of 2027.

Jewish Medical Association of Ontario

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: Last week I had the privilege of attending a screening of the film The Road Between Us, by Barry Avrich—this was in the riding of Eglinton–Lawrence—a powerful and moving film that has sparked conversation around the world. The movie challenges the audience to confront difficult truths of a father trying to rescue his son and family from the horrors of October 7, 2023.

The Road Between Us had been the subject of, surprisingly, controversy prior to the premiere at TIFF. and after public and worldwide outcry in support of the film, it was premiered and then went on to win the TIFF People’s Choice Award, showing how deeply its message resonated with audiences.

The event was hosted by the Jewish Medical Association of Ontario, who are in the House today. This organization brings together health care professionals to reaffirm our shared commitment to inclusion, respect and the values that define this province.

The Jewish Medical Association of Ontario is made up of dedicated Jewish medical professionals who have come together in response to the rise of anti-Semitism they have faced in their profession.

When we choose courage over silence, compassion over division and respect over hate we build a stronger Ontario for everyone.

Ticket resales

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Speaker, we’re all cheering for the Jays, and their World Series run is a story for the history books, with moments of both excitement and heartbreak. It feels like the 1990s all over again and there’s hope in the air.

But Speaker, in the 1990s, you could buy a World Series ticket in Toronto for 30 bucks. Today, that won’t even get you a hot dog and a beer at the game because ticket resale prices are out of control. This isn’t a free market; it’s a rigged market. You think you can click faster than a bot? Think again. You want to take your child or your dad to be a part of history? Get ready to pay in the thousands. These resellers are like greedy vultures circling over every special moment. They swoop down and put their hands so far into your pockets, they’re stealing your socks.

And Speaker, this government is a part of the problem. They helped create this greedy and rigged resale market. There was a cap on ticket resale prices, but this government ripped off the cap so that resellers could rip us all off.

Speaker, it’s time to level the playing field. It’s time to fight back against this greed and end this rigged game. It’s time to put fans first and support our motion to ban ticket resale prices above face value in Ontario. Let’s get it done.

Six Nations Chiefs lacrosse team

Mr. Will Bouma: I am honoured to rise and acknowledge the historic achievement of the Six Nations Chiefs lacrosse team, who have secured a third consecutive Mann Cup championship.

In a thrilling game 7 showdown which saw the game tied until early in the third period, the Chiefs were able to pull away and defeat the New Westminster Salmonbellies.

Congratulations to the Chiefs players, coaches, staff and the entire community of the Six Nations of the Grand River on what is an extraordinary milestone in Canadian box lacrosse.

By completing the revered three-peat and winning the Mann Cup for the third straight year, a feat achieved by only a select few in the history of the sport, the Chiefs have not only upheld their legacy but elevated the standard of excellence in lacrosse.

The perseverance, talent and teamwork shown throughout this championship run reflects values that align closely with the values that many of us in the Brantford–Brant community cherish. The Chiefs serve as an example of the very best Brantford–Brant has to offer. This victory honours tradition, inspires the next generation of athletes and reinforces how sport can unite and uplift.

On behalf of the of Brantford–Brant and the government of Ontario, we thank the Chiefs for their dedication, congratulate the team on this landmark achievement and look forward to cheering them on in their future endeavours. Thank you, Speaker. Go, Chiefs, go!

Tenant protection

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, never has my office received such a deluge of calls and emails as over the last few days since this government tabled a bill that would strip away key tenant protections and open the door to ending rent control as we know it. Thousands of London West tenants have reached out, terrified that they will be homeless if this government gets its way. I’ve heard from seniors and others on fixed incomes, working families struggling to afford rent, parents with adult kids who can’t move out, tenants who prefer to rent and those who are saving to buy.

Bill 60 is an attack on tenant rights and it comes in the midst of a housing and homelessness crisis in London, with more and more Londoners worried about the rising cost of living and how they will pay the bills.

This government made a mess of the Landlord and Tenant Board, and now they want us to believe that the only way to fix it is by taking away tenant rights. There is nothing in this new bill to stop unethical landlords from making bad-faith evictions. There is nothing about unnecessary rent evictions and demovictions. There is nothing to prohibit sky-high, above-guideline increases for unnecessary work.

Speaker, people in London West want rental fairness, they want housing stability and they want solutions to our homelessness crisis. Bill 60 is the exact opposite.

The Great Pumpkin Trail

Ms. Natalie Pierre: I rise today to recognize one of Burlington’s most cherished fall traditions: the Great Pumpkin Trail at the Royal Botanical Gardens.

From October 16 to 26, the Hendrie Valley at the RBG was transformed into a magical autumn experience, illuminated by the soft glow of thousands of jack-o’-lanterns guiding visitors through the trails. This annual event brings together families from across Ontario to celebrate the season with live entertainment, delicious fall treats and pumpkin-themed activities that highlight the creativity and the community spirit of Burlington.

This year, the Royal Botanical Gardens took things to the next level, featuring over 14,500 pumpkins arranged in stunning artistic displays throughout Hendrie Park, creating an unforgettable experience for guests of all ages.

The dedication of the RBG staff, the volunteers and the local partners made this event a signature celebration of the fall season, drawing visitors from across the province of Ontario and showcasing the beauty of Burlington.

Thank you to everyone involved in bringing the Great Pumpkin Trail back to life again this year, and for continuing to make Burlington a vibrant and welcoming destination for everyone.

Housing

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Today, I have the pleasure of informing this house of some historic news. Under the government’s Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, millions of dollars are available to municipalities to build infrastructure to build housing.

This summer, in the town of LaSalle, I had the pleasure of announcing the number-one largest grant that the town of LaSalle has ever received from the government of Ontario. The town of LaSalle, under the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, will be receiving $22 million to build water infrastructure to solve problems related to flooding, and to build thousands of new homes—homes of every type: semi-detached homes, single-family homes, multi-residential homes.

That means, if you’re from the town of LaSalle, you will find a home that is right for you. You will be able to stay in the town of LaSalle, stay close to your children and your grandchildren, and retire and live your best life.

I want to congratulate the town of LaSalle and thank Mayor Crystal Meloche for working with us on this fantastic, historic grant.

Tenant protection

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Today, I want to congratulate the tenants of 250 Frederick Street in my riding. Recently, they faced a year-long battle—assault—from a landlord that they’ve never met named Michael Klein, also known as the “king of renovictions.”

After being served N13s—a piece of paper anybody could print off—they were bullied and lied to, maintenance issues were ignored, and they were locked out of their parking garage.

I spoke to so many tenants who were exhausted by the attacks, and so they quit. They left to pay higher rents and move out of their community. Others lost sleep, had panic attacks and moved out for fear of becoming homeless.

These are rent-paying seniors, newcomers, folks with disabilities, students—people who are paying their rent and are being attacked by a famous misuser of N13s.

I want to thank Waterloo Region Community Legal Services, ACORN and the social development centre, Les, Thelma and Louise, Nancy Drew—you know who you are; we organized.

But now Mr. Klein is back. He has hired a fancy Toronto lawyer, allegedly, to appeal this LTB decision.

I call on the government to listen to these tenants and act to stop these bad actors who are clogging up the LTB with fraudulent claims, harassing tenants. Stop blaming tenants for the housing crisis. Help these people who are tired and who are sick of being held hostage by their alleged landlord.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Please join me in welcoming a visitor to the Clerks’ table today. Visiting from the Alaska state Legislature is Keira Alkema, deputy secretary of the Alaska Senate.

Keira is with the Office of the Assembly this week as part of the Association of Clerks-at-the-Table Canadian-American exchange program.

Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Hon. Trevor Jones: Let’s welcome our Egg Farmers of Ontario—chair Scott Helps, vice-chair Dan Veldman, CEO Ryan Brown, and the entire team with the golden aprons—for sharing your insights with us today and cooking us a beautiful breakfast. Welcome.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: It’s my pleasure to welcome and introduce my niece Victoria and the entire Ms. Ryner class from Branksome Hall, as well as my sister-in-law Katy Mulroney. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I am very proud to stand to welcome a number of people who are gathered here in the chamber. They sit on both sides of the gallery today. There are over 50 people from the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program who submitted their application, and they’re waiting for the government’s reply.

I look forward to meeting all of you this afternoon. I recognize that there will be a protest outside to call for speedier approvals.

I want to say a special welcome to my constituent Vincent, who’s one of the applicants, his Canadian-born daughter and his family.

Thank you very much for being here.

MPP Billy Denault: It’s my great privilege to welcome, in the centre gallery, to question period a fellow young lad from the Ottawa Valley: William Moreau, who’s the son of my constituency assistant Krystal, back in my office in Pembroke.

William and I have a couple of things in common: (1) our first names and (2) he’s a bit of an enjoyer of all things political at a young age, as I was and still am. So you never know; he might be the next Billy the Kid from the Ottawa Valley.

William, welcome to your House, and enjoy question period.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I’m pleased to welcome Scott Brookshaw from the Egg Farmers of Ontario, who is from the Bruce county area and is representing up there, and also has the largest egg-breaking facility right in Etobicoke–Lakeshore. So, welcome, to Scott Brookshaw—and also to Joshua Zhuang, who’s a very dedicated volunteer in Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Welcome, Joshua.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce members of the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce who are with us this morning—if they’d stand and be recognized.

Thank you to all the members who took time to come to their reception this morning.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today I’d like to introduce Heather Kenny and Katrina Dollano from Traditional Chinese Medicine Ontario.

I would like to invite everyone to the dining room this evening for their reception.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I want to wish a warm welcome to my cousin Joanne and my cousin Dennis Duquette, military service members with the Canadian Armed Forces, along with their beautiful daughter Lilly.

Having retired three years ago as a sergeant major—Dennis served for 30 years, and Joanne has been serving for 26 years in our air force as a sergeant.

Thank you, both of you, for being here. Welcome to your House. And thank you for all your years of service for our great country.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’d like to introduce visitors joining us today from the deaf-blind community, hosting today’s reception focused on intervenor services, following question period in rooms 228 and 230: the Canadian Helen Keller Centre, the CNIB Deafblind Community Services, DeafBlind Ontario Services, Lions McInnes House, and Sensity Deafblind and Sensory Support Network of Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: I’d like to welcome Patrick J. Dillon, the former business manager and secretary-treasurer of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, and Michael Martin Dillon. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

MPP Wayne Gates: Joining us from the Niagara Prostate Cancer Support Group is David Flus, Gord Strain and Rod Hudson. Thanks very much for coming to the press conference this morning, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I want to welcome the Jewish Medical Association of Ontario sitting up here in the House, Dr. Aaron Orkin, Dr. Ayelet Kuper, Dr. Lisa Salamon, Dr. Jessica Gilbert, David Belous; and from Baycrest Health Sciences, Michael Ferman. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the parents and family of our page Mansahaj Sandhu, who is also acting as a page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’m delighted this morning to welcome my friends from the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations: Ali Demircan, Bilge Işikdoğan and Bariş Kafadar, who is also joined by the consul general for Türkiye, Mr. Can Yoldaş. I look forward to joining them later today for the Turkish flag-raising. Welcome to Queen’s Park and happy Republic Day, even though it’s one day in advance.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member from Ajax on a point of order.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: I’m seeking unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, the order for second reading of Stop Ripping Off Fans Act (Ticket Resale Price Caps), be immediately called; and

That the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for second reading of Bill 63 without debate or amendment; and

That upon receiving second reading the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order shall be immediately called; and

That the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for third reading without debate or amendment; and

That the votes on second and third reading of the bill shall not be deferred; and

That if a recorded division is requested on the second or third reading votes on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Mr. Cerjanec is seeking unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, the order for second reading of Stop Ripping Off Fans Act (Ticket Resale Price Caps), be immediately called; and

That the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for second reading of Bill 63 without debate or amendment; and

That upon receiving second reading the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order shall be immediately called; and

That the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the motion for third reading without debate or amendment; and

That the votes on second and third reading of the bill shall not be deferred; and

That if a recorded division is requested on the second or third reading votes on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

I heard a no.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. My question is to the Premier.

Last year, when Ontario Health atHome switched its medical supplies vendor to Bayshore Ltd., patients all across this province saw dangerous shortages. We’ll remember that. Remember? Seniors and palliative care patients went without wound care, without bandages, without basic medical supplies. One patient with three forms of stage 4 cancer was left waiting for supplies that were intended to ease that end-of-life pain. Those supplies didn’t arrive until 10 minutes before that patient died. A doctor involved said the patient “died choking and in pain.”

So how can the Premier justify giving Bayshore Ltd. over $18.6 million through the Skills Development Fund?

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

Hon. David Piccini: This government has been focused on improving our health care system. That member is right: That’s unacceptable. That’s why, Speaker, we work hard every day to make sure we have talent pipelines to support a next generation of health care workers; 52,000 have been trained through the Skills Development Fund.

I think to PSWs in my own community who’ve been trained to care. We have an aging population, without question. That’s all over Ontario in communities like mine. We have to support a next generation of PSWs.

I think to groups like SEIU. This was a group, colleagues, that protested outside my office, but we sat at the table with them, we worked with them and we’ve reduced dependency on agency staff through supporting them for meaningful careers. I’ve quoted in this House what the president of SEIU had to say about the Skills Development Fund. We’ll keep working. Without question, we have more to do, but we’re relentless in our pursuit to make things better for the people of Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I don’t understand how things get better for people if you’re giving them $18.6 million to accompany with that kind of record.

The government members say they want us to talk about people; I’m going to do that. A 61-year-old patient who relied on catheter supplies was given the wrong-sized tubing. That patient suffered excruciating pain. Just imagine the suffering for a moment. The government knows these stories because we raise them with you day after day after day: patterns of mismanagement; patterns of neglect.

Back to the Premier: Please explain. How did Bayshore Ltd.—after these cruel, absolutely catastrophic failures—qualify for $18.6 million in funds?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I think it’s important to work with every single health care partner in the province of Ontario to make care better, closer to home, for the Ontarians we serve.

In my own community, I think of the challenge we had with nursing staff. I think of the merging of the in-patient units under the previous Liberal government. We sat down with them and we worked hard to reduce dependency on agency staff. We worked hard to train more nurses. This government is relentless in that, sitting down and working with partners to improve it.

Through the Skills Development Fund, as I said, 52,000—we’ve taken 100,000 people off of unemployment, given them meaningful careers.

We’ve got to attract people to care for our aging population. Not everyone wants to do it, but this government is supporting meaningful pathways for those meaningful careers. We’re going to stay focused on doing that.

Every single investment we’ve made in health care—increasing the number of hospitals, long-term-care facilities—they voted against.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m at a loss, Speaker. That was a pretty straightforward question. Ontarians deserve to know how this decision was made. The minister will not give us a straight answer, but I’m going to tell you. I’m going to tell you why: Bad actors like Bayshore Ltd. continue to benefit from this government because they are represented by Upstream Strategy. That is a lobbying firm that—guess what—is owned by the president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, Michael Diamond. That’s who represents Bayshore Ltd.

The Premier and his minister need to come clean. It is absolutely clear that decisions are being made based on preferential ties to the Conservative Party. This is absolutely indefensible. Will the Premier demand his minister’s resignation?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Education will come to order.

I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I’ll tell you how things get better: When we face unprecedented economic threats south of the border, when we face the economic turbulence we’ve seen, we roll up our sleeves and get to work. The Premier took this plan to the people, a plan to bolster our health care system. We’ve got more hospitals under construction today in this province than at any point in Ontario’s history—any point.

I’ll tell you how things get better. Things get better through working with groups of people who previously protested you, Speaker; rolling up your sleeves, making unprecedented coalitions with organized labour—groups like SEIU—to make things better; to sit down with them; to acknowledge where things went wrong in the past and to do things better. That’s exactly what this government is doing, Speaker.

But when we make these commitments for new hospitals, when we make these commitments for new long-term-care beds, they vote against every one of these measures. They vote against the men and women who get a paycheque to go to work building these hospitals. We’re going to keep focused on that. I was just in Ottawa, saw the new hospital this government is building, supported by local energy systems—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s getting a little tired, Speaker.

Look, it’s really something: Communities across Ontario are being devastated by the collapse of our auto sector, the loss of forestry jobs, the absolute jobs disaster that is this government, but still, this government’s priority seems to be, how do we make our friends and family richer? Was the Premier’s response to fire his minister because of this scandal that he’s immersed in? No. Do you know what, instead? He decided to up the annual donation limits—that’s right—to $5,000, a 47% increase. He is widening the trough so more of his friends can sidle on up to that trough right now.

Instead of cleaning up the mess, the Premier is just raising the ticket price for his pay-to-play government. Can the Premier explain this, please?

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

Hon. Doug Downey: As we talked about yesterday, we’re following several of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of reform, in bringing balance to public and private and how the spending works in elections.

The opposition want to talk about the economy and they talk about logging and they talk about the automotive sector. They would have our government just roll over—we will not do that. We will fight for our economy, we will fight for the auto sector, we will fight for the forestry sector, the mining sector, the skills sector. We will fight for every sector in Ontario while they’re focused on minutia and distractions.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Okay, democracy is minutia, right? Okay, great.

While the government members talk about how to make more money, well, I’ll tell you what; I’ve been talking to workers. What I’m hearing is that people are terrified. They are terrified. They are losing their jobs. People are putting their groceries back on the shelves because they can’t afford them, and now, because of this government, they are wondering if they’re going to lose their very home. And what is this government’s preoccupation? How to funnel more ad dollars to their friends, how to help out the lobbyists who run their campaigns.

So to the Premier: Do the people of Ontario have to hire one of his lobbyist friends to get the attention of this government?

Hon. Doug Downey: Madam Speaker, if we did nothing, nothing would get done, and that’s what the NDP would have us do. The party of no is the party of do nothing. We are fighting hoof and tong with the American instability situation. We are working very hard to make sure that the auto sector workers, the workers in every sector—the service industry that they tried to crop, but at the expense of manufacturing—we’re supporting manufacturing in every sense. We’re supporting training. We’re supporting the trades. We are supporting every part of our sector, and we’re being loud about it—and being loud takes money.

We are investing in the interests of the people of Ontario, and we will not apologize for that.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: That’s the question, isn’t it, Speaker? How much money does it take to buy this government’s decisions? That’s what it takes.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Withdrawn.

All I’m seeing from where we sit is a government that has completely lost touch with the people they are supposed to support. While 800,000 workers are lying awake at night wondering how they are going to pay their bills, this jobs-disaster Premier is busy rewriting the rules to make it easier for his friends and his donors and his well-connected insiders to cash in. With the latest changes to donation rules, the Premier has just slapped a for sale sign on the future—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Response?

Hon. Doug Downey: I notice the Leader of the Opposition is quietly cashing the Elections Ontario addition to her bank account in Davenport to the tune of $11,700, in 2024. She hasn’t said anything about that, Madam Speaker, and yet she throws daggers that we go to the public. Some people participate by knocking on doors; at least for our party we come knock on doors. Some people participate by policy development. Some people participate by donating. It’s important that we allow people to participate in the way that they want.

She would be shocked to know that Manitoba, Alberta and Nova Scotia all have similar limits. It’s just shocking to me that she’s out of touch with the rest of the country.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: I know you were all up late last night watching TV—and not the Premier on Fox News. But I was watching TV, and I was thinking about old movies. Has everybody seen the Wizard of Oz? Yes? Right, we know the Wizard of Oz. So there’s Dorothy and the Tin Man and the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion, and they go in search of the wizard. This wizard is this big, blustery thing—there’s smoke coming out, lots of noise, really scary—kind of like the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

Mr. John Fraser: And then they actually find that the wizard is not this big thing that they see; it’s somebody behind the curtain. And you know what? Guess who’s behind the curtain here? Kory Teneycke. We like to call him Premier Kory or Kory Teneycke, depending on the day.

So, to the Premier: Why is he allowing the Minister of Labour to reward lobbyists like Kory Teneycke while hundreds of thousands of children are relying on food banks in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I don’t want to start warning members, but I will.

I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, that’s a great movie. I’m glad the member brought it up. It’s one of my favourites.

But what’s very serious, that we’re focused on, are the economic headwinds that are coming our way and have come our way because of President Trump’s tariffs having a very real effect on workers. That member doesn’t choose his opportunity to ask a question about those workers, about the round table we just had with Unifor workers, about the Premier who visited the Brampton plant, who sat down with their business manager and spoke with them, who visited Windsor, who sat down with the team in Windsor about how we can support their workers. That’s what we’re focused on.

This Premier has created a low-tax environment. I know they don’t want to talk about it, because they elevated taxes and drove industry out. This Premier has brought manufacturing back to Ontario. They don’t want to talk about it, because they have to confront their 300,000-plus jobs disaster when they were in charge.

We’re going to keep working hard for workers, the talent—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: We’re on Jeopardy! here—and we’re stuck on TV shows, okay? For $200, has anyone seen Better Call Saul? A few of you have. Well, if you haven’t, we have a saying over here: “Need a Skills Development Grant? Better Call Saul. Looking to Free Up Your Land in the Greenbelt? Better Call Kory. Need an MZO? Better Call Kory.”

If you’re one of the 700,000 people out of work in Ontario, don’t bother calling Kory.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Is your favourite movie Dumb and Dumber?

Mr. John Fraser: That’s when I direct the questions to you, Minister.

Speaker, 700,000 people are out of work in Ontario, and they’ve got nobody to call. So, to the Premier: If they can’t call Kory, just who can they call?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, they could call their MPP. In the case when you’re a max-out donor to a leadership candidate, you call the Liberal MPP and ask him to push favours for a fund. So they have no credibility on this.

The bottom line is, when people call our Premier, when they text our Premier, they get a response right back from our Premier. This is the most accessible Premier we’ve ever seen in the province of Ontario. Doubt it? Just text him.

Speaker, what he’s focused on is actually standing up to President Trump. When everybody is putting their elbows down, this Premier is standing up to President Trump. He’s fighting for our auto workers. He’s fighting for the workers at Diageo who have called on him and thank him for his support. He’s fighting for those workers by offering meaningful training opportunities by creating the conditions—

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

Mr. John Fraser: The Premier’s ad was about the Premier playing checkers while everybody else was playing chess, but I’m not going to go any further on that.

If you want to get something done in this government, call Kory Teneycke. I’m just saying the quiet part out loud, because all you ministers know it: Anything that gets done here, if you need something, you’ve got to call him. It’s Premier Kory, Premier Teneycke. Lobbyists are running this government. You all know what I’m talking about, because I can see in your eyes when I tell you. I can see in the cabinet ministers’ eyes. They know it.

The problem is 700,000 out of work, hundreds of thousands of children rely on food banks, two million people are looking for a family doctor—and they can’t call Kory. He’s too busy representing Skills Development Fund clients.

So, Speaker, to the Premier: Just how long have lobbyists been running your government?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, he’s far too familiar with this, because that’s how they operated when they were in power for over a decade.

What we’re focused on—what he can do, he can speak to the workers, the workers we’re fighting for, the workers in the manufacturing sector who have been given a job thanks to the work this Premier is doing to attract investment—an automotive sector slated for zero investment because of their disastrous legacy. We’re fighting for those workers, Speaker.

When we talk to building, what does he have to say to the workers we’re putting through training to actually build? He’d have to be confronted with his reality that they didn’t build long-term care, they didn’t build hospitals.

They closed schools in rural Ontario. In Norwood, they were going to close the high school. We’re building high schools, like the new one in Newcastle in my own community—schools all over ridings.

He’s going to have to say to those workers, he’s confronted with the ugly truth: He doesn’t want to support those construction workers who are building the 413, the Bradford Bypass, because they voted no to every one of these measures to build a more self-reliant and a stronger Ontario, Speaker.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: Again, back to the Premier: It’s been a really busy week, the Premier inserting himself in trade negotiations and, as I said, playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess. You’ve got the never-ending story of the Skills Development Fund, which feels a lot like Dean Del Mastro’s in-and-out scheme. You’re from Peterborough, right, Minister?

So the government tries to distract us by threatening renters, right? And then, as if this isn’t enough—and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this—the Premier is raising donation limits by 47%—47%. That’s his priority.

So, Speaker, through you to the Premier: Is the Premier raising donation rates because the Skills Development Fund is not meeting the PC Party’s fundraising expectations?

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

Hon. Doug Downey: Madam Speaker, we’re aligning with Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia—several jurisdictions—in terms of what they do for donation limits and then indexing it for the future.

We’re following several of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, as we discussed yesterday, in terms of tightening up third-party advertising and third-party participation. We’re building trust in the democratic system by being transparent and fair and current.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing else to this. They’ve read it in the papers. You know, it’s quite simple: We’re just aligning with other jurisdictions, and there’s nothing extraordinary about any of the rest of it.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The Skills Development Fund is rotten. It stinks. We know that. But it’s really telling that, with this mess going on, all that we’ve been talking about for the last six days that the Premier is raising donation rates in the middle of a fundraising scandal.

There’s 700,000 people out of work, hundreds of thousands of children visiting food banks in this province, more than two million people are still looking for a family doctor—40,000 of them in the Premier’s riding—our schools are crumbling, and the Premier’s priority is raising donation rates and changing election rules.

I think that tells you all you need to know about this Premier: He’s taking care of his friends, he’s taking care of insiders and he’s taking care of his party.

So through you to the Premier: Is the Premier raising donation limits because the Skills Development Fund has not met the PC Party’s fundraising expectations?

Hon. Doug Downey: The leader of the third party forgot to turn the page. He asked the same question twice, so he’s going to get the same answer twice.

We are following several of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of making the system tighter and more relevant. We’re aligning with other jurisdictions in Canada: Nova Scotia, Alberta, Manitoba. Madam Speaker, we’re making sure that the system works on a go-forward basis by indexing those increased limits. And we’re extending the per-vote subsidy to all members, and beyond members that are in this Legislature, for parties that get a certain percentage of the vote, to make sure that we have a healthy democracy and a good debate.

That is what’s happening in the proposed future legislation, and I’d be happy to take more questions if he wishes. But I would like a different question.

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

Mr. John Fraser: He wants a different question because he can’t answer this one, because it’s obvious what’s happening here. Premier Kory has upped the ante, right?

I’ve just got to say this—I’m trying to say to you, the Premier is doing this stuff to help himself, his party and insiders, while there are hundreds of thousands of people in this province going to food banks—a million of them.

And you know where the Premier lost me? It’s not on this. Three or four weeks ago, when he was telling people while he was eating an ice cream bar that he had one every night—he was bragging about it, and he was answering questions with a mouthful of ice cream. I said, “This guy is out of touch. This guy doesn’t know what’s going on in this province. He doesn’t know that people are going hungry. It’s like he doesn’t care. He’s out of touch.”

So I’ll ask the same question: Is the Premier raising donation limits because the Skills Development Fund has not met the Progressive Conservative Party’s fundraising expectations?

Hon. Doug Downey: Madam Speaker, when I was a very young child, my grandmother told me, “There are two ears and one mouth.” So I’ve answered the question. He doesn’t appear to hear me.

We’re raising the limits to catch up with the cost of things. We’re raising the limits to align with other jurisdictions—those massive, massive provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta. We’re making it possible for people to participate in our democracy in the way that they choose. Some knock on doors. Some do policy.

I’m refraining from recounting the 15 years that that government was in government. I will not go through the litany—because I only have a minute—of all of the things that they did. And so it’s a little bit rich coming from them in imputing motive. I would rather have an ice cream in my mouth than what’s coming out of there.

Immigrants’ skills

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Speaker, the Premier’s jobs disaster is far-reaching, and some of the people most hurt are sitting right here in this gallery. These skilled labourers were invited by this government to apply to the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program. They followed every rule, they paid their fees, and they have been waiting for over a year for an answer that was supposed to come in 150 days.

Their work permits are expiring, but we can ask the federal government to extend them. Please—their lives are on hold. Their employers need them. Their families are counting on them.

When will the minister act to end the insufferable wait and save their jobs?

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

Hon. David Piccini: You know, Speaker, as the grandson of an immigrant who came here to work hard to contribute to this economy, I appreciate the value immigrants bring to this country, and I appreciate the work that’s done.

I think it’s important for the member—and I appreciate her advocacy on this. In 2024, we met our full allocation: over 21,500 through our draw. That’s 21,500 people we can nominate to the federal government through the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program. That was then, midway through this year, cut after draws etc. were made by this government.

So what you have is you have a case of more people who have been offered draws than spots we have. What we have said—and we had a meeting of ministers of immigration last year. We talked about making sure we’re extending permits for those who are currently employed. We launched an employer portal so that employers can nominate people directly through our government. It’s the first time we’ve done it.

We’ve made improvements to our system to bring more integrity to that system, and I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Toronto Centre.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: This government talks a big game when it comes to workers, but they still haven’t fixed the problem. After inviting skilled and qualified workers to apply for the OINP, this Premier then ignores them and their ready-to-hire employers, who have now been waiting one, two and three years.

My constituent Vincent, a construction supervisor with SKYGRiD, builds the much-needed homes that we want in Ontario. But because of this government’s mismanagement, delays and silence on his OINP application, his work permit has now expired.

Vincent is now in the gallery with his family and his new Canadian-born daughter, and they’re waiting for one question to be asked. And this question, to the Premier, is, instead of blaming others, when will his government take responsibility, fix the OINP backlog and approve Vincent’s application?

Hon. David Piccini: As I said, Ontario has a limited number of allocations, which were cut in half by the federal government. We’ve advocated to grow our autonomy, to grow our allocation.

Citizenship is a privilege. It’s not a right. That’s why we have a robust system that goes through—that works. We added measures to this system to work with employers to prioritize employers and folks with active jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order. The member for Toronto Centre will come to order. The member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas will come to order.

Hon. David Piccini: They’re not interested, Speaker, because, knowing that, we’ve prioritized health care workers. We’ve prioritized workers in the skilled trades. We’ve prioritized workers in technology applications. We’ve increased administrative monetary penalties. We brought in amendments to the act to increase fines for bad actors to ensure we have integrity in the system. And we’re working hard to meet our allocations, which we will meet this year—allocations that were cut in half by the federal government. We’re working hard to make sure we meet those drops.

Government accountability

M me Lucille Collard: This government constantly talks about accountability: accountability for school trustees, for city councillors and anyone in public office. But while they lecture others, they actually turn a blind eye when it comes to their own.

The Minister of Labour was caught using the Skills Development Fund as a political slush fund, rewarding donors with taxpayer money, and yet he remains in cabinet. So, Madam Speaker, if this government truly believes in accountability, why is the Minister of Labour still in cabinet?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, that’s incorrect. The premise of that question is incorrect. What this government has done, in the face of unprecedented economic uncertainty, is we launched a fund in the wake of the pandemic to make sure workers had the ability to be trained.

Then we saw President Trump’s tariffs, and we added additional priorities—which occurred midway through the fund—which focus on tariff-impacted jobs like our steel sector, like our automotive sector. The Auditor General acknowledged that that is the prerogative of a government, to look at those priorities that we were duly elected on, to make sure we stand up for those workers, to make sure we have training pathways for those workers, like the Unifor workers who we’ve supported through the Skills Development Fund in increasing access to training.

They want their jobs, Speaker. That’s why this Premier is fighting to create a low-tax environment to attract manufacturing investments—manufacturing investments that they drove out of this province. We’re going to keep fighting for those workers, regardless of what President Trump throws our way, and make sure we have the training to have their backs.

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

M me Lucille Collard: Madam Speaker, this government further claims that centralizing control over education, city planning and public sector wages ensures accountability and transparency. But here’s the problem: They clearly don’t apply the same standards to themselves. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, right?

So I ask the Premier, how can Ontarians trust this government when it refuses to hold its own Minister of Labour accountable?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as I said, that member needs to talk to the actual workers who have been supported through this fund. I’ll give you one who’s here. Greg Horton, head of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, is here. Their program—how do you put a score and a value on saving a life?

This Premier said, and took it to the people, that we would prioritize our first responders. That’s what we’ve done. We’ve brought training closer to home; we’ve launched mobile training sites—all of these things they don’t support.

They don’t have the backs of first responders, Speaker. They don’t have the backs of our police officers. They want a revolving door of justice because they don’t support bail reform. They don’t support our police officers. They don’t support our first responders who need better training as they run into danger while we all run from it.

We’re getting tough on crime, trying to keep our communities safe. They fight against each and every one of those measures, and when they had the opportunity to advocate to their federal cousins, they didn’t, Speaker. They turned their backs on Ontarian families.

Housing

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: My question is for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Speaker, Ontario’s economy depends on a strong housing market. Too often, municipal red tape and overreach have stood in the way. Under the previous Liberal government, housing starts fell behind, red tape piled up and families were priced out. In my community of Mississauga, former mayor and still Liberal leader Bonnie Crombie talked a lot about housing but built very little, including just two housing starts in one month.

Our government knows that to protect Ontario’s economy, we need to build more homes, not more bureaucracy. Speaker, can the associate minister please share how our plan is cutting red tape, restoring fairness and helping build more homes across Ontario?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Thanks to the great member for the question. Listen, Speaker, our government has been clear: It’s time to build homes, not more bureaucracy that stands in the way. So we are ending the misuse of enhanced site plan controls that have allowed municipalities to demand costly cosmetic design features that do nothing, frankly, to improve safety or livability. But it does drive up costs and threaten the viability of projects.

Too many builders have been forced to meet unnecessary Cadillac design standards which make homes less affordable and delay construction for months. This is ending. Our government will ensure that by the next building season, every builder in Ontario will operate under one clear, consistent standard. We’re giving home builders certainty, we’re giving homebuyers choice and we’re making it faster and more affordable to get homes built across the great province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: Thank you to the associate minister for his continuing leadership. Speaker, Ontarians are counting on us to build homes faster and more affordably. They don’t want more red tape, more costs or more delays caused by municipal overreach. They want a fair consistency that lets builders build and families move into the homes they need. But for too long, local red tape and previous Liberal government mismanagement have stood in the way. They’ve driven prices up, delayed projects and made it harder for families to find a place to call home.

Speaker, can the associate minister please share how these new changes will make it faster, simpler and more affordable to build homes right across this beautiful province of Ontario?

Hon. Graydon Smith: Listen, the member is absolutely right: Ontarians cannot afford more delays or costs driven by unnecessary municipal overreach. That’s why our government is continuing to bring back common sense to the housing system: removing redundant site plan controls, standardizing building requirements across Ontario. We’re saving builders time; we’re saving home builders money. Again, Speaker, it’s just common sense: cutting costs, reducing duplication, ensuring every municipality plays by the same clear rules—one building code, one standard, one Ontario.

Our message is simple: We will not stand by while some municipalities impose expensive, unnecessary requirements that drive up costs and hold back construction. This is about building homes for people, not barriers for builders. We’re going to get it done for the builders and the people here in Ontario.

Manufacturing jobs

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: For over three years, I’ve worked with Biolyse Pharma, a St. Catharines-based oncology drug manufacturer who is losing procurement bids to overseas international companies. Their loss in revenue has caused a situation where moving their operations out of Canada seems to be the only viable option. For three years I’ve stood up, I’ve written letters and demanded the Premier work directly with Biolyse to prevent brain drain from Ontario, but nothing else has been done.

My question is to the Premier. Will you commit once and for all to implementing buy-Ontario policies that support homegrown companies like Biolyse and keep jobs here in Ontario?

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

Hon. Stephen Crawford: I can certainly commit to that. There are two types of people in this world, Speaker: We have leaders and we have followers. We have a leader in Premier Ford, who is leading Ontario, charging Ontario, promoting Ontario across Canada and the world. Let’s make that very clear. We have the opposition talking a big game, but they’ve voted against every piece of legislation that we’ve put through this House supporting Ontario and Canadian businesses.

The Premier has said over and over again it’s time for Ontarians, it’s time for Canadians to stand up. Guess what, Speaker? They are doing that. For example, let’s take a look at the LCBO right now. You live in the Niagara region. You should be very happy to know wine sales from Ontario companies have skyrocketed 69% in the past few months. That’s a direct result of Premier Ford taking action, supporting Ontario and Canadian businesses.

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’m going to tell you something, to the minister: Biolyse has stepped in and saved the day more than once—I’ll say, probably more than this Premier—when local hospitals in Niagara ran out of life-saving cancer drugs during the pandemic. We don’t have to rely on other countries for critical health care needs.

To the Premier: Will you support our local manufacturing sector, save hundreds of local jobs in Niagara and introduce buy-Ontario strategies for hospital procurement?

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Again, I want to reiterate that we’ve been a leader in “Buy Ontario, Buy Canada.” In fact, having travelled across the country, met ministers in other provinces—I was out in Kananaskis just back in September—I can tell you, everybody across Canada is looking to Ontario as the leader in Canada for procurement.

Speaker, it doesn’t matter what sector. Whether it’s the auto sector, the health sector, the alcohol sector, we are supporting Ontario businesses. In fact, we have legislation right now before the House, the Building a More Competitive Economy Act. I hope the opposition will support this legislation, buy Ontario and Canadian-manufactured vehicles. Support this legislation. Join us instead of chirping from the opposition benches with all words and no action.

Government accountability

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for recognizing my hard work with Habitat for Humanity yesterday. I’m proud to have worked with an organization that makes home ownership a reality for families across Ontario, including in the minister’s riding of Northumberland–Peterborough South.

Unfortunately, though, I can’t say the same for this Conservative government, who have failed to meet their own housing targets year after year after year. In Ontario, housing starts have ground to a halt—the lowest in this country—and 700,000 families are without a job. Yet for some reason, this Minister of Labour’s priority is to continue to shovel out millions of taxpayer dollars through well-connected Conservative lobbyists to applicants the minister himself called “low-scoring projects.”

Minister, will you finally clear the air and publicly release the SDF scoring card so we can finally move on?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I’m glad the member brought up Habitat for Humanity. I’m glad, and I appreciate the work he did with Habitat for Humanity. What that member needs to acknowledge is that’s a group we’ve supported through the Skills Development Fund. When we look at things like our Housing Supply Action Plan to make sure we have the young men and women to support that, we invest in projects like Habitat’s project that’s giving youth in my own community, in the Baltimore area, actual skills to enter a trade—a trade and apprenticeships, whose numbers were abysmal under the previous Liberal government.

Supporting Habitat in regions like Halton: The incredible member here from Burlington, who brought me down, who introduced me to the team who are inspiring our next generation of youth—women entering the trades; folks between the ages of 15 and 25 who are registering for apprenticeships—all to build houses and infrastructure.

It’s a shame they vote against every one of those measures to support those infrastructure projects.

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

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Speaker, I just don’t think the minister gets it. The program is not the problem; you are.

Speaker, while the minister scrambles to pin the blame—

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

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Direct your questions through me.

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Thank you, Speaker. Right now the minister is worried about defending himself, but who he should be worried about is Ontario families. They’re worried about how they’ll make ends meet; they’re worried if they’ll even have a job tomorrow. But instead of showing leadership—leadership that the people of Ontario deserve—this minister is again busy shovelling out the cash to well-connected Conservative lobbyists and insiders.

I’ll put the question to the minister through you, Speaker: Minister, if you’re not going to release the scoring criteria, then will you at least do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. David Piccini: They like the home run; they just don’t like the batter. They struck out when it came to supporting our first responders. They struck out when it came to supporting our miners. When it came to supporting the men and women of our energy sector, whom they had the opportunity of supporting, they didn’t.

They wanted to shutter Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. They don’t support new nuclear build. They want us to be dependent on other countries. When it comes to supporting our miners in the north, they voted against each and every measure. They don’t want us to be energy self-sufficient. They don’t want us to be an energy superpower. When it comes to building highways, like the 413 and the Bradford Bypass, they don’t support them. They don’t support those young men and women getting training through programs like Habitat for Humanity, because they’re anti-worker.

They’re why organized labour abandoned that party in the last election: because they know when it comes to who’s going to protect their members and their paycheques, it’s Premier Ford and this government.

Affordable housing

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. Millions of people in Ontario are going hungry—4.1 million food bank visits in Toronto last year alone, a shocking 340% increase since this government was elected. It’s only going to get worse with over 800,000 people out of a job. Even if you have a job, you can’t afford food in this province because this government’s housing policies have resulted in the worst housing affordability crisis in Ontario’s history and the worst of any province in the country. The housing and hunger crisis is a policy choice and a policy failure.

Speaker, will the government reverse course, help people afford a home and put food on the table by cracking down on above-guideline rent increases and reversing course in bringing back rent control in Ontario?

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

Hon. Rob Flack: Let me begin by saying we have a great piece of legislation before this House that is being debated, and I look forward to the members’ comments and debate throughout.

That being said, it takes too long and it costs too much to get all kinds of housing built in this province. He may not have seen, but today we’re lowering the cost of building by announcing that we’re reducing the provincial portion of the HST, providing the federal government works along—we’re confident that with their budget in November they will do just that.

That is why we introduced Bill 17: to reduce the cost and the time it takes, deferring DCs—eliminating DCs on long-term-care homes. We’re creating these conditions. In Bill 60, we’re going to continue on that path.

As the associate minister said earlier today, we’re getting it done for the people of Ontario. Costs are