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

October 27, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-Oct-27 (PDF)

L028 - Mon 27 Oct 2025 / Lun 27 oct 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 27 October 2025 Lundi 27 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

Automotive industry

Housing

Eglinton Crosstown LRT

Peter Hayes

Injured workers

German Canadian Club Hansa

Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp.

Quinte Business Achievement Awards

Erin Fall Fair

Introduction of Visitors

Jim Bradley

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Employment supports

Government accountability

Electricity supply

College funding

Government accountability

Skilled trades

Housing

Government accountability

Small business

Rent regulation

Introduction of Bills

Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la stratégie ontarienne pour favoriser le talent et l’innovation dans le domaine de l’intelligence artificielle

Public Health Accountability Act (In Honour of Dr. Sheela Basrur), 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la responsabilité en matière de santé publique (en hommage à la Dre Sheela Basrur)

1581766 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Stop Ripping Off Fans Act (Ticket Resale Price Caps), 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à mettre fin à la revente abusive de billets (limite sur les prix de revente de billets)

Petitions

Road safety

Transportation infrastructure

Interprovincial trade

Health care workers

International trade

Affordable housing

Tenant protection

International trade

Affordable housing

Affordable housing

Social assistance

Injured workers

Post-secondary education

Orders of the Day

Emergency Management Modernization Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la modernisation de la gestion des situations d’urgence

Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à lutter contre les retards et à construire plus rapidement

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 June 5, 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): I recognize the member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I’ll be sharing my time with the member for London West.

It’s an honour to rise once again on behalf of the residents of Ottawa West–Nepean. I had the opportunity to begin speaking to this bill back in June before the House rose for the summer. When I was speaking about this government’s track record for democracy, which this bill is a part of the context of, I couldn’t have known that my speech was about to be interrupted by a 19-week summer break. The government cancelled the first seven weeks of the fall session, which kind of makes my point about a disrespect for democracy and the rights of people’s voices to be heard by their government and to know that their government is making decisions that reflect their concerns and priorities.

But what that very long break from the Legislature allowed me to do, Speaker, was to spend a lot of time speaking with parents in Ottawa West–Nepean and across Ontario. I can say, fundamentally, that nobody in Ontario is asking for this bill. Nobody in Ontario is asking for the government to take away the rights of parents and communities to have a say in our local schools. What parents desperately want to see is funding to address the many challenges in our education system. They want to see investments that replace the more than $6 billion that this government has taken out of our schools.

More than 40% of boards are running deficits under this government, and that number is going up every single year because of repeated education funding cuts.

You can’t take $6.35 billion out of an education system, Speaker, without having significant impacts on our kids. We’re seeing those impacts every single day with larger class sizes, a crisis in school violence. According to the Auditor General, reports of violent incidents have increased 114% since this government came to power, and that’s just the incidents that are being reported.

We know that many of them go unreported, either because the education workers and teachers feel like nothing happens with their report, so there’s no reason to bother submitting those reports or because those violent incidents are happening so frequently that they could spend all of their time filling out paperwork and they need to just prioritize the most egregious incidents.

We know that our kids are facing a mental health crisis, and yet only one in 10 schools has regularly scheduled access to a mental health professional. Half of our schools have no access at all, which means that our young people, our youth, are being brave enough to say that they need support, and that support is not there for them. They step forward and say, “I need somebody to help me through this challenge,” and we’re leaving them hanging, sometimes until the next school year.

Our kids desperately need more caring adults around them to provide support every single day. We need an emergency plan to end school violence, like the one that the NDP developed in consultation with education workers and teachers who came to us and told us what they need to see in order to tackle the problem of violence in our schools.

Instead of taking that step, what the government is doing, Speaker, is spending only 15.4 cents per student, per day on student well-being at a moment when we have a crisis in violence. They are only spending 22.9 cents per student, per day on mental health and not even all of that money is going into front-line supports in schools. That’s not how you address a mental health crisis for our kids.

These are the challenges that parents and communities want to see this government addressing. They want to see those funds coming back into our schools. They want to see qualified teachers, education workers and mental health professionals. They want to see smaller class sizes.

Instead of that, what this government is doing is trying to distract from their record. They are trying to dodge accountability for what they are doing. Instead of taking these steps that parents desperately want to see, they are conducting a blatant power grab trying to centralize power over our local schools here in downtown Toronto. They are attacking the rights of parents like me, like you, to have a say in what happens in our children’s classrooms. They are attacking the rights of communities to participate in decision-making about our local schools.

This is why local decision-making matters so much, Speaker. You cannot have a minister in downtown Toronto making decisions for students in communities in Kenora, in Cochrane, in Ottawa, in Minden, in Owen Sound and Amherstburg. These regions, these communities, are all so different. They are fundamentally different from downtown Toronto, and they are very different from one another.

We know what we need in our communities. We know what the local concerns and priorities are. We know what programs would benefit our kids. We know how these schools could meet the needs of our community. The minister in downtown Toronto has no idea. What is he doing trying to impose his power grab on our schools, to take away our rights, to say, “This is what our kids need; this is what our community needs”? That is fundamentally undemocratic.

Just to give you an idea of what kinds of decisions the minister is giving himself power over, Speaker, it’s where schools are located; where they’re being built in the first place; which school your kid goes to; what the school boundaries are; what the bus routes are; how your child is going to be able to get to school and how long they spend on the bus; what programs are offered; whether or not they’ll have access to French immersion; whether or not they’ll have access to arts courses and enrichment programs; what resources they’ll have; whether or not they have access to an educational assistant; whether or not they will have access to a small class size for children with disabilities and special needs.

They will decide who is actually even in the classroom, who is hired by the school board and where they are sent by the school board.

Those are all decisions that would be made from downtown Toronto instead of from people who are in the community, who know the community, who are consulting with people in the community and who are accountable to people in the community.

There’s a reason why we have school boards, Speaker. They are actually the oldest form of elected representation that we have in Ontario. They date back to 1816—so over 200 years. Because, for over 200 years, we have recognized the importance of local people, of parents, making the decisions for our kids.

But this Minister of Education thinks that we have democracy only because he lets you have it. This is a quote from the minister’s speech in June: “To be clear, school boards exist because Parliament allows them to exist. That is all.” The Minister of Education thinks that your right to have a say exists solely because he allows it to exist. He is fundamentally disrespecting parents and fundamentally disrespecting democracy by saying he’s letting you have a say. He can take away that right to have a say any time he wants because it exists only because Parliament allows it to.

If this bill passes, the minister will be able to shut us out from having a say entirely. This bill gives the Minister of Education the power to hand-pick a supervisor to sweep away all democratically elected trustees. These supervisors would get 100% of the power over the decision-making affecting our kids with 0% of the accountability. There is no mandate in this bill that this hand-picked representative of the minister has to consult with parents or members of the community.

There is no requirement in this bill that these supervisors have to make their decisions in any way that shows transparency to the public, that allows the public to know what criteria they are using to make their decisions. In fact, there’s no requirement that they even allow the public to know what decisions that they are making.

And they are completely, 100% unaccountable to the public and to parents. We cannot vote them out of office. In fact, Speaker, we cannot even challenge their decisions in court. They are like kings—kings who have unlimited power over our children, and there is absolutely nothing that we can do about their decisions.

In attacking trustees and allowing the Minister of Education to sweep them away with the stroke of a pen, the government is also taking away a fundamental source of advocacy and support for parents. Because elected trustees don’t just make decisions, they help parents and families to navigate the education system. They are a source of advocacy who help families receive the supports that they need for their children.

The Ontario Autism Coalition did a survey of parents of kids with disabilities, and they found that, just in the last school year alone, there were 100,000 kids with disabilities in the province of Ontario who received their supports in school solely because of the advocacy of a trustee. That is what we are talking about losing when we lose democratically elected trustees. We are talking about losing an advocate, a source of support that parents know. They know who their trustee is, they know where to turn to find them. They are publicly present in the community. They are attending schools.

They are attending parent council meetings. And they are also a voice demanding better funding in the system, Speaker. I think that might be why the government is attacking them and trying to take away that voice of advocacy on behalf of students and families and on behalf of our public education system.

Et pour la communauté francophone de l’Ontario, c’est encore pire, parce que le droit de gérer leur propre système d’éducation, par et pour les francophones, c’est un droit constitutionnel, pas juste un cadeau du gouvernement. Même le fait que ce droit est reconnu par la Constitution, ce n’est pas quelque chose qui a été donné par le gouvernement. Ce n’est pas juste parce que le gouvernement est sympa qu’ils ont reconnu le droit constitutionnel des Franco-Ontariens; c’est un droit qui a été acquis après des décennies de bataille acharnée. Les Franco-Ontariens ont dû descendre dans les rues pour avoir leur droit reconnu et le droit de gérer leur propre système d’éducation.

Ils demandent plusieurs choses, madame la Présidente. Avoir le droit de gérer votre propre système d’éducation, ça demande le droit de choisir vos propres représentants. Ça demande le droit d’être consulté sur les décisions concernant vos écoles et vos enfants. Et ça demande la responsabilité, la redevabilité des représentants—que les représentants soient responsables envers vous pour les décisions qu’ils prennent.

Ce que le gouvernement, ce que le ministre veut faire, c’est de remplacer les représentants qui sont choisis par la communauté, qui sont responsables pour la communauté, qui consultent la communauté, avec un superviseur qui est redevable seulement au ministre. C’est le ministre seul qui choisit le représentant. Le représentant n’a aucune obligation de consulter la communauté et il n’est pas responsable envers la communauté. La communauté ne peut pas le remplacer et ne peut pas contester les décisions du superviseur.

J’ai beaucoup parlé avec des parents francophones dans ma circonscription pendant les dernières semaines et j’ai entendu beaucoup de colère qu’encore une fois, la communauté franco-ontarienne doit se battre pour leurs droits. J’ai parlé à un parent à l’école Mamawi qui m’a dit qu’elle a dû quitter le système francophone après la deuxième année parce qu’il n’y avait pas assez de cours pour obtenir son diplôme si elle continuait dans le système francophone. Elle a pensé que ce serait différent pour ses enfants, que leurs droits seraient respectés.

Et au lieu de ça, elle est dans une situation où son droit de participer dans la gestion des écoles francophones peut être retiré à n’importe quel moment. Elle m’a demandé : « Pourquoi est-ce que nous devons nous battre toujours pour nos droits? »

Surtout, c’est la communauté qui sait ce dont elle a besoin, pas ce gouvernement et surtout pas ce ministre qui menace de mettre les conseils scolaires sous supervision s’ils continuent à insister sur leurs droits.

Let’s talk about what this bill includes and what it will mean for kids and communities. As I said, Speaker, this bill allows the Minister of Education to sweep away democratically elected trustees to take over a school board at any moment for any reason that the minister wants. The bill says that the minister can do this for a matter of public interest—and how does it define “public interest”? It says public interest is anything that the minister decides it can be.

The minister can literally feel that public interest is, did a trustee say something mean to him? And that counts. Did a trustee insist that the rights of children were not being respected? The minister can say that’s a matter of public interest, and the rights of parents and communities to have a say in their local schools is gone, Speaker. This power is completely unlimited, it’s completely unchecked and it’s completely unacceptable.

When the minister makes that decision that he’s going to put a board under supervision, the minister gets to pick the supervisor. Parents and communities no longer get to participate in the choice of who is going to make the decisions for their kids. And there’s unlimited power for this hand-picked puppet to make all of the decisions for our kids about what our kids need, what our kids get, what will be available and accessible in our community.

And we can see already what our future holds from what’s happening in the four boards that the minister put under supervision in June and from the board that the minister put under supervision earlier this year. That’s boards in Toronto, in Ottawa, Dufferin-Peel and Thames Valley. The supervisors that the minister has selected are not people who have extensive experience in education. They are not people whose careers have demonstrated an interest in children and their well-being. What the qualifications of these supervisors seem to be, Speaker, is their ties and connections to the government.

We have a former Conservative MPP who is also a campaign manager; a former federal Conservative candidate—a serious donor; thousands of dollars. We have a former federal Conservative candidate who has also made extensive donations to the government. We have a Conservative donor who’s given thousands of dollars but also happens to be a buddy of the Minister of Education, Speaker. And, finally, we have a former adviser to Stephen Harper who advised on how the former Prime Minister could privatize public assets and take things that were owned by the people of Canada and hand them over to private interests to make profit off of. He was also a member of Tony Clement’s leadership campaign.

You can see the through thread here, Speaker, that it seems to be donations to the Conservatives. It seems to be running for the Conservatives, representing the Conservatives and an interest in privatizing public assets. These are people who will always pick up the phone if it is a Conservative calling to offer them a lucrative public-paid position. But apparently, they can’t pick up the phone when it’s a parent calling.

These supervisors—again, hand-picked by the minister—are making decisions in the dark. There is no public process. They are not sharing with people what decisions they are considering. They are not holding public consultations to allow parents to have any input into these decisions. Some of the supervisors are not even posting decisions that they are making publicly, so parents don’t even know what they’re deciding.

In the Toronto District School Board, the supervisor is only posting the decisions that he’s making because the democratically elected trustees got together and sent a letter to the ombudsperson to say that there is a fundamental principle of transparency, and parents should at least know what decisions are being made about their children’s education. The supervisor is still taking his own sweet time to post those decisions.

This refusal to demonstrate any transparency or any accountability extends to refusing to attend the committee meetings that are still taking place in public. There are three committees that are mandated to continue meeting—the audit committee, the parental involvement committee and the special education advisory committee—but the supervisors aren’t bothering to show up at the special education advisory committee meetings, even though these committee meetings discuss the conditions that are affecting our most vulnerable children in the system. They just can’t be bothered to attend those meetings and to hear what parents have to say.

In fact, it’s not just a matter of not being bothered to participate in meetings where parents are present, but they’re trying to make it harder for parents to participate in those meetings. The supervisors have banned livestreams, which have been a way that, for years, parents have been able to use to participate in public meetings of the school board, particularly for the special education advisory committee, Speaker.

This is incredibly important because parents are doing a million different things: We don’t always have time after a school day—in between trying to get supper and homework done, take kids to a sport practice—to actually make it out in-person to a meeting. That doesn’t mean we don’t want to participate in these meetings. But for parents of kids with disabilities, it’s even more difficult, because it’s more difficult for these parents to find somebody who can come in and provide the care that their child needs while they go to attend a meeting.

These livestreams are fundamentally about equity—equity of access to the decision-making that is affecting their children, and this government has banned that. These supervisors who are selected by the Minister of Education do not want that to happen. The supervisors are making misleading statements about what things are actually happening, what decisions that they’re actually making. They are refusing to answer questions.

The supervisor in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board told parents that, after extensive consultations, he had decided he was going to eliminate the changes that were resulting from the program review. Immediately, parents across Ottawa said, “What consultations? I wasn’t consulted. I don’t know anything about consultations.” There was no public invitation to participate in a consultation. There was no invitation to submit written comments to this consultation.

For 10 days, Speaker, parents were asking, “What consultations was this based on?” For 10 days, parents were asking, “What changes is the supervisor actually going to make?” Because the supervisor didn’t just say he was cancelling program changes, he said he was going to make some of his own. And parents I was talking to said, “I don’t even know what school I should be sending my child to. I selected the school that they’re at because of the program changes that were coming; now, I don’t know if they’re at the right school anymore. I don’t know if my kid is going to need to change schools again next year.

I don’t know if I should be changing schools for my child right now.”

The supervisor didn’t think that parents deserved any clarity on that, Speaker. In fact, he didn’t just refuse to answer questions from parents, he refused to answer questions from the media and he said publicly that he did not have to answer questions. He told parents at the parental involvement committee, which he had actually deemed to attend, that they could submit questions in writing, the small problem being that the supervisor was not responding to peoples’ emails. He told the media that he had no mandate to answer their questions and therefore did not need to respond to them.

Finally, after 10 days of parents demanding better, the supervisor managed to send us an email with some further information about the program changes that he was considering and, in that email, he admitted that he had not conducted any consultations. He was basing his decision on the previous consultations, in which he did not participate.

He did not tell us how he reviewed any of those consultations, whether he was reading all of the written submissions that were sent in, whether he was reading summaries of the public meetings that took place, which, of course, would have included meetings that were held by trustees in their communities that were not part of the large public meetings that were held. The supervisor didn’t tell us any of this, but what was clear was that he had not consulted, despite what he had said in his previous email.

We’ve had supervisors who are going to great lengths to hide their email addresses. Parents have had to engage in detective work to try to find out the email addresses of supervisors so that they could reach out to them with their questions and concerns. When people were able to find one of the supervisor’s email addresses, he told people, “Don’t use it. I don’t want you to email me at this address.” They have refused to answer phone calls from questions.

The supervisor in Ottawa also made another misleading statement, claiming that he had met with every parent who had asked for a meeting. Immediately, Speaker, parents said, “I asked for a meeting three or four times and I didn’t even get a response.” He had clearly not met with every parent who had requested a meeting.

They are hand-picking who they are actually meeting with, in fact. The Ottawa-Carleton supervisor this week is having a meeting with parent council representatives, but he sent an email to parent councils telling them that they can select one person to meet with him, who has to be a member of the parent council, and they have to RSVP with the email address that he sent the invitation to. So this is a very representative meeting, a very representative consultation, since he’s basically hand-picking who he will meet with and closing the door to everybody else.

Besides this lack of transparency, what we’re seeing is supervisors making decisions that are already harming our most vulnerable children. The very first thing that the Toronto District School Board supervisor did was to increase class sizes for kids with special needs, a measure that trustees had voted against after consulting with parents and experts because they knew the harm that this would cause to these kids. The supervisor didn’t care. The very first thing he did was take away supports for kids with disabilities and special needs, impacting their ability to actually learn while they’re at school and to keep them safe while they’re at school.

In the Thames Valley District School Board there are kids with disabilities who are sitting home right now—they are not attending school—because the supervisor can’t be bothered to consult, can’t be bothered to conduct the needs assessments to even figure out what measures they need in order to be able to be at school, let alone provide those measures so that these kids can be at school safely.

We can also see from other provinces what happens when you take away democratically elected trustees. Parents in Nova Scotia and Quebec, where this has happened, are experiencing incredible frustration. They cannot find somebody who will even answer basic questions.

I held a town hall this past week and Jesse LeGallais, who is a parent in Halifax, attended, and he spoke about the fact that a new school was supposed to be built for his school district where his son attends. That school building was supposed to be opened for September this year. It is not open, but nobody would even provide a straight answer to these families. And they had nobody to turn to because there’s nobody who is responsible to parents for these decisions. There’s nobody who’s consulting with parents on these decisions. It’s a black hole and parents get informed—the school building is open; the school building is not open—that’s the full extent of the public engagement.

The majority of parents there want to see school boards reinstated because their level of frustration is so high. They have lost a voice of advocacy and support.

We are also seeing that there’s an interest already in closing schools and selling off school properties. The supervisor in Ottawa has already said he’s selling off a school property. I think when you see people appointed who have no experience in education but have experience in privatizing public assets, that certainly suggests that’s what’s coming. So are we going to see the land from under our kids’ schools just sold out—from right under our kids’ schools?

Another part of this bill allows police forces—not parents or experts or communities or democratically elected representatives but police forces—to make the decision about whether or not there will be school resource officer programs. I just want to be clear, Speaker: We do have a violence problem in our schools, but policing kids is not the answer. Supporting and investing in them is. We have a violence problem because of the cuts that have come, because our kids aren’t receiving the supports that they need academically, emotionally, psychologically.

When you don’t have mental health supports, when you don’t have special education supports, when you have large class sizes, kids get frustrated, and a frustrated child may react violently. The answer to that is not to punish them for failing when we set them up to fail. The answer to that is to provide the supports that they need. It’s not to put them in handcuffs after a violent incident; it’s to prevent the violence from happening in the first place. It’s to help dysregulated kids regulate their system. Police officers don’t have that experience in helping a dysregulated child.

They’re not mental health experts. They’re not academic experts. They’re not education workers. They can’t replace any of that.

This part of the bill fundamentally disrespects communities, because there are communities across Ontario who have been very clear that they do not feel safe with police officers in schools; that their children do not feel safe. This government is completely overriding those communities, taking away their right to have a say in the decisions that affect their children and that affect their schools.

Even the Ontario Human Rights Commission is saying this is incredibly problematic because parents in communities and experts should be involved in these decisions. What the expertise and what the evidence shows is that police in schools are not the best solution to challenges of violence. They cause disproportionate harm to students with disabilities and students who are Indigenous, Black, racialized, LGBTQ. Just over three weeks ago, we celebrated the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation; it is not a step towards reconciliation to put police officers in schools when Indigenous kids are saying they do not feel safe with them there. We need to respect the voice of communities.

Another thing that’s kind of shocking about this is that this would make the police the only service or agency that schools are mandated to work with. Public health agencies in Ontario are mandated to work with schools, but schools are not in return required to work with them. So we’re not prioritizing the health of children to the point where we say, “Yes, the school board has to work with them,” but somehow we’re prioritizing police officers in that way. This is just not how we address the well-being of our children, Speaker.

The last measure of this bill on K-to-12 is about school names. This allows the Minister of Education to sign off or not sign off on any school name—new schools; renaming. This is completely and utterly ridiculous, Speaker, when we have such massive challenges in our province and in our education system, that one of the burning priorities for this minister is that he gets to participate in the naming of every school. I guess it’s a good thing that there are already so many St. Pauls. Maybe we’ll see more. But maybe we’ll also see more St. Dougs. I’m not Catholic, so I actually don’t know if there’s a St. Doug.

But this is an utterly ridiculous thing for the Minister of Education, in downtown Toronto, to be spending his time on when we have a mental health crisis and a violence crisis. Let’s let communities decide who they want to honour and what is the appropriate name that reflects the priorities, the values, the culture of their community. This is utterly ludicrous when we’re talking about $6 billion taken out of our education system, Speaker. Talk about red tape.

There are many other sections of this bill that also cause incredible harm to our children and youth. I’m not going to go into all of them now, but I’m going to turn it over to my colleague from London West to talk about the incredibly harmful components of this bill addressing post-secondary education.

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

But in our colleges, Speaker, we are seeing job loss at an alarming rate. We know that there are already 10,000 college workers who have been laid off or are about to lose their jobs. We know that more than 650 programs have been cut. We have seen campuses closing in Perth, in Barrie, in Orillia, and there is definitely more to come.

That has an impact, Speaker. It has an impact, as I said, on students. It has an impact on employers who look to those colleges to fuel the local economy and provide the graduates that in-demand sectors need. It has an impact on communities. These post-secondary institutions are anchor institutions across the province in terms of access to employment and also participation in community initiatives. And, of course, it has an impact on the economy.

But the crisis in post-secondary is not just being felt at the college level; it’s at the university level as well. This government well knows that its own hand-picked panel of experts pointed out that at least $2.5 billion was needed to stabilize the sector—and that was before the federal government announced the changes to international student admissions, which have had a very serious financial impact on the sector.

In 2023, in response to the blue-ribbon panel’s report, this government provided short-term funding that was less than half of what was recommended by the blue-ribbon panel. We always have to keep in mind that Ontario provides the lowest per-student funding in Canada: just 44% of the Canadian average for colleges and just 57% of the Canadian average for per-student funding for universities.

The result is that right now in Ontario universities we have 28,000 unfunded domestic students. These are students who are attending and there are no dollars attached from the province to provide their education. This is not sustainable, Speaker. You can’t expect colleges and universities to operate at a loss to accommodate the domestic students who want to attend post-secondary—and we want them to attend post-secondary as well. We want them to graduate and come into our workforce.

The Council of Ontario Universities has sounded the alarm, pointing out that there are 80,000 Ontario students who won’t be able to get a seat at university over the next five years because those 80,000 spaces that are needed received no funding whatsoever from this government, and certainly we know that any concerns about students not being able to access post-secondary education have directly to do with the lack of funding. It has nothing to do with admissions policies, which is one of the key measures in this bill, and I will get to that shortly.

So does

schedule 3 of Bill 33 do anything to address the very serious issues that we are seeing in the post-secondary sector? The answer is absolutely not. What it does instead is offer a distraction from the funding crisis. It’s like this government wants to pretend the funding crisis doesn’t exist and, as I said, the issue is around admissions policies for colleges and universities, or the issue is around the ancillary fees that are charged for students when they go to attend post-secondary education.

What this bill does instead of addressing the real issues: It centralizes power over our post-secondary sector in the hands of the province. It grants the government the ability to dictate admission policies and the management of student fees. We have heard from experts—Glen Jones; anybody who’s involved in the post-secondary sector knows him as a very highly respected expert. He has described it as “one of the most egregious interventions in university autonomy we have ever seen in Canada.”

It’s not too often that legislation comes forward—actually, it is, unfortunately, too often under this government that legislation comes forward where stakeholders unite in opposition to what government has proposed, and I just want to share some of the commentary that we have heard from stakeholders that are involved in the delivery of post-secondary education in Ontario.

The Council of Ontario Universities says that Bill 33 “risks undermining institutional autonomy, eroding student services and duplicating existing accountability structures. Rather than imposing new administrative burdens and red tape, the government should work in partnership with the sector to address the real barriers facing students—especially the urgent need for sustainable funding, expanded enrolment capacity and continued support for a secure and world-leading research ecosystem.”

OCUFA, the union that represents university faculty in Ontario, raised concerns that “rather than supporting Ontario’s universities amidst mounting financial uncertainty,” Bill 33 amounts “to yet more costly red tape and bureaucracy, creating potential distractions from the core mission of our publicly funded universities.” They repeat the call that COU had put out for an increase in the number of funded domestic student spots; for increased long-term, stable funding for universities; and for increased access to funding supports for students, including converting more student loans to grants.

And it’s not just university faculty and administrators who are concerned about Bill 33. Student organizations in the province are very concerned about the impact of the measures in Bill 33 and what it will mean for post-secondary education.

I just want to go in some depth on two of the three main components of

schedule 3 of Bill 33. The first is around merit-based admissions. The government has announced with this legislation that admission to college or university in Ontario must be based on merit.

Now, I don’t know if the government understands this, but decisions about admission to post-secondary education in this province are already based on merit. No student is admitted to a college or university in Ontario without meeting the academic qualifications for the program to which they are applying. There are robust admission policies already in place.

At the university level as well, Speaker, governing legislation for each individual university in Ontario gives universities the autonomy to determine their own admissions criteria. This is consistent internationally. This is a best practice in higher education governance, to allow institutions to determine their own mission, to determine their own mandate and to determine what admission criteria they will set to not only ensure that students are academically qualified for the programs to which they are applying, but also that the mission of the institution is advanced.

There is detailed information already available about admission criteria. It is published on institutional websites, academic calendars, print materials and other places.

So one has to wonder why the government introduced this new provision about merit-based admissions when that is already how institutions govern themselves in this province. There are some legitimate concerns that have been raised—concerns that I certainly share—that this is a way for the government to narrow access for historically marginalized groups who want to be able to pursue post-secondary education. It is very much an echo of what we are seeing down south in the United States with the attack on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Speaker, we know that it is important to ensure that there are pathways for students who are under-represented in our academic institutions. So Indigenous students, students with disabilities, mature students, youth in care—our institutions have an obligation to make sure that pathways are available for those students when they are academically qualified to get into the programs that they are applying to. But this bill would regulate those pathways potentially out of existence.

I want to spend some time on the ancillary fees part of Bill 33, of

schedule 3 in this legislation. The legislation allows the government to determine what ancillary fees can be charged to students when they are attending post-secondary and what ancillary fees can be made optional so that students can, when they get enrolled in a post-secondary institution, say, “No, I don’t want to pay that fee.”

Unfortunately, Speaker, what we are hearing overwhelmingly from both students and institutions is that this measure poses a significant risk to services offered on campus, organized by student unions and student associations, that provide a direct benefit to students. I held a town hall. We had representatives from over 30 colleges and universities in Ontario attend the town hall. They detailed for me what programs and services are in jeopardy if this goes through and if the government decides that no ancillary fees can be charged or they’re going to be significantly limited.

The services include mental health and counselling—there’s peer counselling for mental health—transit passes; food banks; health and dental benefits; grants and bursary programs; laptop rental programs; clubs and activities funding; co-op housing partnerships; campus radio and newspapers; sustainability initiatives; legal aid services; health centres; tax aid clinics; subsidized, student-run restaurants on campus; LGBTQ+ services. They have also pointed out that the loss of these services also would mean a reduction in opportunities for leadership and employment for students.

If these services are no longer offered on campuses because this government has decided to completely destabilize the funding that is available to student unions, it means that there will be increased pressure on already overextended community-based services. We have post-secondary students as one of the fastest-growing groups of food bank users in Ontario. In Toronto, one out of every three food bank users is a student. There are campus-run food banks on every institution in Ontario, and without access to food on campus, these students are, of course, going to turn to the community to address growing food insecurity.

There’s also concerns about the increased pressure this is going to put on community mental health supports, housing advocacy, our health care system. These are all areas in this province that are already struggling to keep up with demand. With such a serious funding crisis facing our institutions, with layoffs of staff in many areas of post-secondary education, it will increase the pressures on our post-secondary institutions to fill some of the gaps and ensure that students get the supports that they need on campus.

I want to point out to the minister, who has said that we need these changes to the governing of ancillary fees because we need more transparency—that’s what the minister has said. I want to make sure that the minister is aware that there is already, just like with admissions policies, complete transparency at the post-secondary level as to what ancillary fees are charged and where the ancillary fee dollars that are collected go. Most, if not all, student associations already show students exactly where their money is going.

There are publicly available fee breakdowns that describe exactly how many dollars of ancillary fees are going to which services. Most fees offered by student associations are passed via democratic vote of all students or passed by a council, a representative body of elected students and/or the board of directors at a given student union. So students already have a say in what ancillary fees are collected and what those fees are used for.

I know that this government had a go at this back in 2019 with the Student Choice Initiative, when they tried to do the same thing through ministerial directive and allow the government to determine which fees students could opt out of. The Supreme Court struck down the government’s action, and the Supreme Court, in the ruling, had some advice that I really encourage this government to listen to.

The Supreme Court ruling noted that, “Mandatory fees for student associations—collected by universities and remitted to the student associations—have been in place in universities since the 1960s.” They go on to say the existing “funding structure has permitted student associations to play important roles in university governance....

“Indeed, given the role played by student associations in university governance, the framework is a profound interference in university autonomy—not a mere fettering of the universities’ discretion, as the minister submits.”

The students who attended my town hall also shared that some of them had some institutional knowledge of the fallout of the Student Choice Initiative back in 2019. They told me that the result was that many students opted out of services without really any understanding of what those services were for. This resulted in many students being excluded from campus services and programming after their parents had opted out of fees on their behalf. And student associations were unable to do any long-term planning because they had no idea how much money they would be able to collect in a given year, and that had many impacts on the delivery of programs that they were involved in.

Speaker, one does wonder why the government is attacking student organizations in the province of Ontario. Some people over there may have received a fundraising letter from the Premier back in 2019 when the Student Choice Initiative had been introduced. The Premier defended the attack on student organizations, defended the attempted defunding of student organizations in the province by saying, “I think we all know what kind of crazy Marxist nonsense student unions get up to. So, we fixed that.” That’s what the Premier said at the time.

Speaker, I do not think that student unions are up to “crazy Marxist nonsense.” I know that student unions in Ontario are directly involved in the provision of vital student services for college and university students so that they can be successful in their academic program and they can graduate and fuel our economy.

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

M me Lucille Collard: I want to thank my colleagues for that hour leadoff that certainly underlines very convincingly some of the pitfalls in that legislation.

To me, the most concerning aspect is really the centralization of powers here at Queen’s Park, which seems to be a trend. That will have some negative effect on our education system.

So to my colleague from Ottawa West–Nepean: Can you point out those negative impacts that risk very much falling from that centralization of power here at Queen’s Park?

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Thank you to my colleague from Ottawa–Vanier for the excellent question.

We are already seeing what kinds of negative consequences the centralization of power in Toronto will have for our children in boards such as the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, where the minister has already swept away democratically elected trustees. We are seeing cuts to programs and supports that allow our most vulnerable children, kids with disabilities, to actually be at school and to receive academic support so that they can learn. We are seeing program changes announced with zero consultation, without any clarity or even answers for parents about what those changes will mean for our kids.

We’re seeing decisions made in the dark, without those decisions ever being shared or being shared with any kind of clarity or straightforwardness to parents. We’re seeing parents barred from participating in public meetings.

This is not how you make decisions in the best interests of our children and in the best interests of our communities.

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

Mr. Billy Pang: Parents deserve confidence that school boards are making decisions in the best interests of their children’s education. This is why we are strengthening accountability and transparency across Ontario’s education system, to ensure that every dollar invested delivers real results for students. These new measures build on our previous action to improve governance, enforce compliance and focus school boards on what matters most: supporting students, parents and teachers. We are making it clear that school boards must put students first, not politics, not bureaucracy, and that we will act decisively when we fall short of that responsibility.

When there are school board trustees who burned millions on lawsuits and internal investigations over trustees’ misconduct, why does the opposition believe school board trustees should be above basic accountability?

Ms. Chandra Pasma: What we’re seeing already from this government’s hand-picked supervisors—who, again, have zero qualifications in education and have demonstrated zero interest in the well-being of our children—is that they are not putting our children first, Speaker. In fact, they are making decisions in the dark that are harming our children every single day.

But you know, it’s funny that the member opposite would speak about accountability, because what this government has just done is shovel hundreds of millions of dollars out the door to their PC donors, to organizations that are connected to this government, to people that the Minister of Labour is partying with at the George V in Paris. This government seems to be all about: transparency for me, accountability for me, but not for thee.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: It’s also interesting that the member for Markham–Unionville criticizes school board trustees when your very own Premier is under RCMP criminal investigation.

My question is to the member for London West and it’s about tuition costs. I recently had a town hall that I attended in my riding. It was hosted by the Graduate Students’ Union at the University of Toronto. We heard students talk about the impact of this bill.

They emphasized to me that students already decide the student fees through a democratic process, through referendum. They emphasized to me the programs that student fees support: food banks, the legal clinic, the radio, the newspaper, mental health programs. And they also emphasized to me that the cost of student fees is minuscule—minuscule—compared to the cost of going to school at the University of Toronto. It’s absolutely miniscule.

So my question is to the member for London West. Can you outline to me how high tuition fees are these days and why are they so high?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you very much to my colleague from University–Rosedale for the question. Ontario for decades had the reputation of having the highest tuition in Canada, as well as the lowest per-student funding. This government’s decision to cut and then freeze tuition fees back in 2019 had a little bit of an impact on that. We are still at the bottom, but we are not the worst in Canada in terms of tuition, but there’s no question that tuition is a barrier for many students, particularly under-represented students.

That’s why the Ontario NDP has been pushing so hard for the conversion of student loans to grants, so that any student in financial need is able to attend without worrying about carrying a huge debt burden after they graduate from post-secondary.

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

MPP Stephanie Smyth: This is for the member from Ottawa West–Nepean. I just wanted to ask you about a bit more about this bill and how it could be disguising underfunding and what we’re seeing in the school system right now with the real issues plaguing education or the underfunding of schools and post-secondary institutions, and not only that, ignoring staffing crisis. We’re being told, “Look over here,” but all this continues to grow. Can you talk more about that?

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Thank you to the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s for that question. This bill is fundamentally about the government trying to distract from their record on funding and all of the challenges that that has created for our children every single day in school.

The government has taken more than $6 billion out of the education system since they came to power.

Let’s be honest, it’s not like the system was perfectly funded when they came to power, which means that our children are dealing with severely negative consequences every single day because of the government’s cuts—large class sizes, a shortage of qualified teachers and education workers because 45,000 teachers have left the education system because of the working conditions this government has created, far too many kids without access to special education supports or mental health needs, crumbling school buildings.

They can’t even have the school buses running on time because they’ve cut funding for that as well.

This is fundamentally not about supporting our kids. It is about a power grab by this government and a refusal to take accountability for their own decisions and actions.

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

MPP Bill Rosenberg: My question is to the member from London West. As this government continues to make strategic investments into our world-class institutions, we are ensuring that the most qualified students will be fuelling the workforce of tomorrow. Through Bill 33, we will be consulting with the sector to understand all of the current admission policies and how we can provide better transparency for prospective students looking to study in Ontario. The NDP have made their stance on this item clear, calling it “US-style rhetoric,” when in reality that could not be further from the truth.

My question to the member is, will the member opposite support Ontario’s most-qualified students by voting in favour of a more transparent admission process to colleges and universities?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m not sure if the member was listening to my remarks, but I did point out that there is already almost complete transparency over admission criteria at our public colleges and universities.

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

M me Lucille Collard: I will start my remarks by indicating that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa South.

I’m standing here on behalf of the people of Ottawa–Vanier to talk about this education bill, Bill 33. I have to admit that when the minister introduced the bill back in the spring, I was actually hopeful. I mean, I should have known better by now, but I actually did hope that, given the state of our education system with all the dire needs that exist within our system and in all our schools, the minister was going to come up with some good measures to help in those areas.

I was hoping that the bill would address the important and concerning shortcomings of our education system, such as the shortage of teachers, for example. It exists in our anglophone schools, but in the francophone schools, it’s a crisis and it does affect the quality of education.

I was hoping that there would be some measures for mental health support, because all of the children in our schools are being challenged. They’re going through a lot of hardship and, post-COVID, that has become even worse. I do have four children in our school system, and I can tell you that it doesn’t matter what kind of household that they live in or the income that their parents might have—mental health support is so important. Right now, that capacity doesn’t exist in our schools. There is simply no service available.

The only thing that you can do if you want help for your child, you actually need to go to the private sector and hope that you will find somebody good enough to help your child.

And what about our crumbling infrastructure? There are many schools in Ottawa–Vanier that are very old, that don’t have air conditioning, that are overcrowded with portables all over the schoolyard. And yet, we don’t see any significant investment in our school infrastructure. And I was certainly hoping that the minister would recognize that and do something meaningful in that regard.

Again, there is not enough support for special needs in our schools. Teachers are left struggling with trying to teach and helping every student in the classroom, without the adequate support.

So no, this bill doesn’t do any of that. And because of that, I’m very disappointed. Because what this bill does is—while the government frames it as a measure to support children and students through accountability and oversight, we must not allow that language to mask a sweeping power grab. It is a trend. We’ve got many examples of that. The question before us, therefore, is not merely about oversight, but about who holds power, who gets to decide and whose voices will be heard.

I come to this debate from a Franco-Ontarian perspective in a riding where French-language education and community institutions are vital and where local autonomy and cultural rights matter deeply. The concern over centralization is really great, but what also concerns me a lot is the lack of consultation that conducted to the drafting of this bill because I haven’t heard people in school boards, I haven’t heard teachers, I haven’t heard school staff saying that they wanted that centralization.

Now, I do understand that there’s been some concerns with some school boards in the province, but why punish everyone? Why not recognize those school boards who have excellent governance practices, that don’t get into trouble, that look at their finances in a professional way, in an accountable way?

But no, we see something that is disturbing in some areas, and then we unfold a blanket that will apply to everyone with the negative impact that this may comport without regard to the school boards that are doing well.

I’m just going to summarize this very quickly, what Bill 33 introduces in terms of significant changes, and those are in three main spheres.

Obviously there’s education, with the new ministerial powers over school boards through financial reviews and through interventions by the government.

We haven’t talked about it that much, but there’s also child welfare that’s being affected. The bill is enabling direct oversight and funding control and intervention in children’s aid societies.

Finally, post-secondary: The bill is prescribing that admissions be merit-based, granting cabinet authority to override institutional policies and ancillary fees, and deem them non-essential, with the risk to marginalized and minority-language students.

So at face value these provisions may appear to improve transparency and accountability. But the centralization they push is alarming and carries significant risk. Regarding our school boards and local democracy, what we see is the erosion of local authority.

Trustees and locally elected school boards are meant to represent the voices of parents, educators and communities. Bill 33 undermines that by allowing ministerial intervention, bypassing consultation and imposing directives. In many cases, boards already operate under funding constraints. We all know that. That’s why they can’t do as much in the classroom as they would like to do. But adding top-down mandates without tailored flexibilities may hinder—not help—performance. Unfortunately, that’s what this bill is proposing to do.

Now, I’ve mentioned a bit the francophone school boards, and they are at risk in this bill. French-language school boards serve smaller, geographically dispersed populations, often with fewer resources. The imposed directives from Queen’s Park may not reflect their realities. Decisions such as program offerings, staffing, special services or language supports could be overridden, weakening the unique identity and capacity of Franco-Ontarian education.

The risk is the marginalization of French-language governance under the guise of uniform standards. So that’s the point I was referring to: When we want to uniformize practice, we may not take into account some specificities that need to be taken into account.

On the child welfare powers, is it really oversight or is it overreach? The bill allows greater ministerial control over children’s aid societies, including supervisory appointments and withholding funds. But many CASs are already under strain, particularly in Indigenous, racialized and francophone communities. Systemic issues such as poverty, mental health and housing cannot be solved by top-down interference.

Madam Speaker, effective change requires investment in prevention, community-based supports and collaboration, not heavier oversight without resources.

Now I want to turn to the post-secondary education and how the interference and merit-based admissions may have a negative impact on our colleges and universities. The notion of merit-based admissions sounds fair, but merit is not value-neutral. It often privileges those with more preparation, more—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Automotive industry

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: Madam Speaker, General Motors CAMI plant has been a proud backbone of the Ingersoll community since 1989. For more than three decades, hard-working men and women from across my riding have built GM vehicles, powering our local economy and putting Ingersoll on the map as a leader in auto manufacturing.

Unfortunately, GM’s decision last week has put a pause on this success and brought the economic uncertainty of Trump’s tariffs close to home.

Our government is in close contact with GM and our labour partners, and we are using every tool we have to protect and support the workers and their families. GM knows that their Ontario operations are crucial to their success, which is why they are exploring new opportunities for the CAMI plant.

As we face a once-in-a-generation threat from south of the border, our government will always stand for the workers in Oxford and across Ontario. We will continue working to position the community for growth and prosperity for decades to come.

Housing

MPP Robin Lennox: Over this past weekend, I had hundreds of emails—as I’m sure many of my colleagues did—from people who rent their homes terrified about the implications of Bill 60 and what it would mean for them and their ability to stay housed.

I heard from one senior in my riding who was spending 70% of her monthly income on rent, and without rent control and security of tenancy, she was at risk of losing her home. I heard from a single parent working two jobs just to get a two-bedroom apartment in downtown Hamilton, and a group of tenants who are fighting their second above-guideline rent increase this year, despite their building falling into disrepair and corporate landlords raking in profits.

Bill 60 is the opposite of what a real response to the housing crisis should look like. We need more affordable housing, more affordable rental units. We need non-market housing options and supportive housing so that we can end encampments in a way that is safe and dignified for everybody. Above all else, we need to protect tenants’ rights with stronger rent control, banning AGIs and protecting tenants from renoviction.

My hope is that this first action by the government to walk back its horrible proposed policy on security of tenancy is that this government will commit to meaningful action in addressing the housing crisis instead of continuing to show your disregard for tenants across this province.

Eglinton Crosstown LRT

Mr. Adil Shamji: My constituents in Don Valley East are frustrated. They are frustrated at how difficult it is to access health care, at how unaffordable a home is and how unsafe their communities feel.

But if there is one issue that cuts through our riding—both literally and figuratively—it is the unending delays, lack of accountability and relentless frustrations surrounding the Eglinton Crosstown. It has inflicted irreversible damage to businesses and caused untold levels of congestion. Furthermore, we have not seen the promised community benefits or quality jobs that were promised.

I have personally witnessed traffic accidents at Metrolinx construction sites amidst the chaos and am mortified that there have even been occasions when ambulances with emergency lights activated have been stuck in traffic.

Last week, we learned of even more delays, and we know that more chaos awaits with construction on the Ontario Line.

That is why we in Don Valley East are demanding four things:

(1) a public inquiry into how this catastrophe has unfolded;

(2) a mechanism for compensating businesses and businesses and neighbourhoods that have been impacted;

(3) meaningful, binding community consultation into the remaining stages of construction that also informs future Ontario Line work; and

(4) a timely, transparent mechanism to rapidly fix problems that arise after the Crosstown opens to minimize community disruption.

My community and constituents deserve nothing less.

Peter Hayes

Mr. Ric Bresee: Speaker, today I rise to honour volunteer firefighter captain Peter Hayes, a veteran firefighter and an amazing community volunteer and advocate.

For more than 37 years, in Greater Napanee and the township of Stone Mills, Pete was that steady voice on the radio, the first to shoulder the heavy work and a mentor to recruits.

He helped launch the local charity car wash, decorated and drove trucks for the Santa Claus parade, supported the “touch the truck” events and captained the assistant safety crew at the demolition derby. As a captain in Newburgh, he kept training the next generation. He drove the engine on Canada Day and was a fixture at Canal Bash, proudly peeling about 700 pounds of potatoes for French fries every year.

Speaker, in 2023, while fighting colorectal cancer, Pete asked our government to strengthen support for the firefighters facing illness from years of exposure, and he lived to see those improvements in the Working for Workers legislation. Unfortunately, Speaker, on August 17, 2025, Peter succumbed to his cancer.

He often said that he had no regrets about serving. May his memory be a blessing and an example to us all. Today I’m honoured to share that his widow, Louise McKee, is in the gallery with us. I want to thank Louise for sharing Pete with us for all those years and honour Pete for his tremendous service.

Applause.

Injured workers

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Injured workers are demanding an immediate audit of the WSIB, following a report that confirms what injured workers already know: WSIB’s so-called surplus has been created through systematic denials of compensation and benefits. Over $20 billion in corporate rebates and premium cuts have been issued while thousands of injured workers remain in poverty.

Following the same pattern we are seeing with the Skills Development Fund, the Ford government is using WSIB dollars as a political slush fund, rewarding business allies instead of restoring justice to injured and disabled workers.

It is in this context that I want to recognize an incredible warrior for workers, Moses Sheppard, who passed away this month. Moses led the investigation into workers with lung cancer made ill while working in mines in Timmins, Cobalt and Kirkland Lake. This resulted in significant compensation awarded to survivors and their families.

A navy and air force veteran, Moses volunteered his time to represent injured workers at appeals and tribunal hearings because he was appalled at the treatment so many workers received at the hands of the WSIB.

I can’t use one of the words Moses asked to be put on his gravestone, but I can deliver the censored version: Don’t let the so-and-sos get you down.

Thank you for your inspiration, Moses. We will never stop fighting for justice.

German Canadian Club Hansa

Mr. Deepak Anand: Madam Speaker, Ontario’s story is the story of immigrants, people who came here seeking opportunity to build a better life and to raise their families. Through their hard work and generosity, while building the province, they created spaces for everyone to cherish.

In Mississauga–Malton, one such community landmark is the German Canadian Club Hansa, called Hansa Haus. For over six decades, it has been a place where culture, friendship and community have thrived. As a non-profit organization, Hansa Haus promotes understanding and connection through cultural events and charitable work.

Sitting on six and a half acres of land, it features a banquet hall for up to 400 guests and outdoor spaces for festivals and community gatherings. Conveniently located off the 401, it is an ideal venue for weddings, cultural events and social occasions. Considering that land is scarce, it is six and a half acres, which makes it easy for outdoor events. Hansa Haus welcomes everyone to join its public events, no membership required. Every last Friday of each month, one cherished tradition is Schnitzel Friday.

I want to thank president Karin Walter-Muller and vice-president Ekko Hildebrandt for their leadership and for creating a space where people come together to celebrate and connect. May God give you all the strength to keep supporting the community.

Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp.

MPP Catherine McKenney: I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp., known locally as CCOC, in addressing Ottawa’s affordable housing crisis. For over four decades, CCOC has been a leader in creating safe, affordable homes for Ottawa residents. This community-driven organization has developed more than 450 affordable housing units across Ottawa’s diverse neighbourhoods, providing stable homes for seniors, families and individuals who might otherwise face housing insecurity.

What sets CCOC apart is their holistic approach. They don’t just build housing, they build community. Their properties include community spaces and programs that help residents thrive, not just survive. Recently, CCOC has continued to expand, developing new affordable units, even as construction costs soar and funding challenges mount.

Speaker, organizations like CCOC are essential partners in our efforts to ensure every Ontarian has access to safe, affordable housing. Their dedication, innovation and compassion deserve our recognition and our support. I ask all members to join me today in thanking CCOC’s staff, board members and volunteers for their tireless work in building not just homes, but hope for our community.

Quinte Business Achievement Awards

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate all of the award winners from Friday night’s Quinte Business Achievement Awards. All of the award winners and nominees are truly outstanding in their respective fields.

Without further ado, here are the winners:

—for retail business of the year, J&B Books;

—for hospitality and tourism business of the year, Chilangos Mexican Restaurant;

—for regulated professions business of the year, Chad Buell and Associates Inc., Co-operators;

—for specialized services business of the year, SafeStart, a division of Electrolab Inc.;

—trades and construction services business of the year, Strong Bros. General Contracting Ltd.;

—manufacturing business of the year, Donmac Precision Machining;

—young entrepreneur of the year, Marley McFaul;

—new business of the year, Alliance Patient Transfer Inc.;

—not-for-profit of the year, Trenton Memorial Hospital Foundation;

—tech sector business of the year, Big Red Bow Digital Marketing;

—business person of the year, Jeff McKerracher from A1 Plumbing;

—agribusiness of the year, Eco Mulch;

—health and wellness business of the year, The Gym in the Armoury;

—sustainability of the year, Rocia Naturals;

—trailblazer of the year, Wander the Resort; and

—the business excellence award this year went to BCS Automation Ltd.

Congratulations once again, and thank you all for the great work that you do in our community.

Erin Fall Fair

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I had an incredible summer and fall visiting dozens of community events and festivals in my riding, listening to the concerns of residents in Wellington–Halton Hills. A highlight for me was the opportunity to attend all of the fall fairs in my riding. These are special celebrations of our rural way of life and of our heritage.

Today, I wanted to specifically congratulate the Erin Agricultural Society for a successful event, which was their 175th Erin Fall Fair. This milestone was celebrated earlier this year as well in July with a tractor parade from Hillsburgh to Erin village.

From music to dog shows, there is always so much to see at the Erin Fall Fair. The home crafts displayed were a dizzying array of baked goods, vegetables, antiques and, of course, quilts. Thousands of residents came out to see the demolition derby, and a personal highlight of mine is all of the animals and livestock that are there.

Events like these are vital for our community and they run on volunteers. I want to say thank you to the board and all of the volunteers that make this event possible. You are what makes our community so special. I want to encourage residents new and old to get involved, so that we can see this incredible event continue for years to come. Thank you once again to all of the volunteers and I’m already looking forward to next year.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Joining us in the Speaker’s gallery today, we have the Honourable Yasir Naqvi, who was the member for Ottawa Centre in the 39th, 40th and 41st Parliaments, but his most important job is as the father of page Rafi Naqvi. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: With me today in the east members’ gallery are guests from the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce and other organizations: Carrie McEachran, chair of the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce; Shauntelle Sandrin, also with the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce; Sue Burgel, Express Employment; Matthew Slotwinski from Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership; and Shauna Carr with Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership. They’re here for the next two days and they’re serving breakfast in rooms 228 and 230.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I want to start by welcoming Leigh Sandison, Sara Restani and Tommy Wharton, who are here from KidSport today. I look forward to meeting with you this afternoon.

I’d also like to take a moment to welcome USW National Local 1944 president Michael Phillips and lead organizer Corey Mandryk, as well as Kim Hume, my good friend from the USW National office, who joined us this morning in the media studio, calling attention to ongoing job losses and the impact on worker

Ms. Laura Smith: It is my very great honour to welcome the team from Mackenzie Health. I just got back from Mackenzie Health. I want to thank them for their great service.

I want to welcome the wonderful leadership team, Mary-Agnes, David, Allison, Greg, Bill, Julie and Christina, all up in the gallery in front of us. Thank you so much for all that you do.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I would like to formally welcome page Finley Booker, who’s here from Thunder Bay–Superior North, and his sister Lisa Booker and his mom Felicity Booker. Welcome to your House. I look forward to meeting with you later.

Hon. Graham McGregor: I’m introducing some visitors on behalf of the member for Cambridge this morning, namely the Harris family: Lorraine Harris, Michael Harris and Given Messam-Harris. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d like to welcome my best friend Rebecca Reaume, and her mom Sue Cook, who are here to celebrate page captain Simone Reaume.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I’d like to welcome Erika Hildebrandt, Ekko Hildebrandt and Amjad Rana from German Canadian Club Hansa for the first time at Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to welcome Jean Ardila and Fabian Ardila to the House, as well as my long-suffering husband Dale Fife.

Hon. David Piccini: It’s a pleasure to welcome Marc from Building Up to Queen’s Park today. Marc does an incredible job at inspiring the next generation to enter rewarding careers in the skilled trades.

I also want to welcome Michael, Terrance and Glenda from Merit Ontario, also doing a phenomenal job to support our construction shortfall.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: I’d like to welcome representatives both from Brock University and Niagara College that are here for today for meetings as well as the Niagara reception this evening.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to recognize April Jeffs and Dan Grubb from Brock University.

I also want to welcome everyone to Niagara Week and the MPP reception at Queen’s Park this evening. I’m sure there’s going to be some local wine from Niagara. It’s 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. tonight. Welcome, all residents from Niagara region.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to welcome members of Life Sciences Ontario: Mark Smithyes, James Brodie and Dr. Jordan Thomson. We had a great meeting this morning. I invite everyone to visit their reception at 5 p.m. in the dining room.

MPP Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome April Jeffs, who I know is here from Brock University, having a meeting at 1 o’clock, and my good friend Josh Upper, who has worked in my constit office; he is now working with Niagara Health. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I would like to welcome Life Sciences Ontario, including my constituent Mark Smithyes. I look forward to meeting you later today.

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: I would mention Daniel Grubb and April Jeffs from Brock University as well Mabel Watt from Niagara College, but a couple of people already have, so I won’t welcome them.

But I do want to welcome Michelle Seaborn from Niagara region, Albert Witteveen from the Niagara region, Pat Chiocchio from the Niagara region and Tim Whalen from the city of Niagara Falls. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Everyone else, join us for Niagara Week reception tonight from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. It’s going to be a good time.

Jim Bradley

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I rise today to ask for unanimous consent for a moment of silence to mark the passing of Jim Bradley, regional chair of Niagara and long-time MPP for St. Catharines. Jim Bradley dedicated over four decades to public service representing his community with integrity and deep respect for this Legislature.

In recognition of his lifetime service, I ask all members to join in a moment of silence in his memory.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for St. Catharines is asking for unanimous consent for a moment of silence to mark the passing of Jim Bradley. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. It’s been quite a week since the Legislature finally resumed after that very long break. Last week, the Premier repeatedly refused to fire his Minister of Labour or hold him accountable, and we still have no answer to the questions that we raised. So today my questions are going to be to the Minister of Labour, and I hope to finally get some answers.

Let’s review what we know, shall we? The Auditor General reported that staff in the minister’s office misrepresented the scores of some applications to the Skills Development Fund, presenting them as higher-scoring applications when they were low- or medium-scoring. The Minister of Labour then admitted that he hand-picked winners and losers, backing low-scoring applications over the higher-scoring ones.

So Speaker, did the minister or anyone in his office direct staff to interfere or alter the rankings?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, that’s incorrect. When we look to worthwhile projects to support Ontarians with training, we assess it based on a variety of factors, things like: Does it support our infrastructure bill, $200 billion to actually build a better tomorrow—roads, hospitals, schools—Speaker? Does it support the Housing Supply Action Plan by my colleague here to build more affordable rental units? These are the priorities that we look at when we assess projects—projects that are transforming lives.

We’re joined here by Marc from Building Up, who is doing an incredible job inspiring a next generation—predominantly under-represented groups—entering the skilled trades to build.

We know the opposition doesn’t support building. They’re against mining. They’re against building. They’re against building highways and roads. How did that work out for them in Brampton, Speaker? They didn’t win a single seat when they opposed Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: You know what we’re against, Speaker? We’re against corruption. How about that?

The minister says one thing one day, another the next. One day it’s yes; the next day it’s no.

I want to tell you: In one example that was cited in the Auditor General’s report, a project that scored 47 out of 100 was rewritten as a high-priority application and then approved for millions of dollars. Another ranked near the bottom was bumped up in an official briefing note after ministerial staff—the minister’s staff—noted that it now suddenly fit government priorities. That’s from the Auditor General’s report, Speaker.

This sounds like a deliberate manipulation of official records to funnel public money toward politically connected projects. Who authorized the applications to be re-ranked?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, when we talk about projects, worthwhile projects for funding—the Auditor General noted the strength of the KPIs and how we assess that.

Let’s talk about projects, Speaker. We’ve got incredible projects supporting a next generation of electrical workers. The only political linkage there was that Chris Borgia and Jamie Nye both ran for the NDP, but that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, Speaker, because the incredible work they’re doing bringing mobile training into Indigenous communities is supporting a next generation of tradesmen and women.

We’re prioritizing that. They don’t support this kind of stuff, because they don’t support building. They were very clear when they had the opportunity, holding up the previous Liberal government. They didn’t support building highways. They didn’t support building roads, bridges or anything of the sort. That’s why they lost every single seat in Brampton when these members campaigned on the 413 and the Bradford Bypass. We need men and women to build these things, to get this stuff done, and that’s what we’re focused on, Speaker.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Desperate, desperate responses over there, Speaker.

The minister said himself previously that he ranked these applications. The Auditor General has confirmed already that these were altered rankings, and they weren’t isolated incidents, but they were part of a pattern of political interference in decision-making.

And you know what’s really too bad, Speaker? It’s that the minister’s actions are casting a shadow over the entire application process and fund. It is like déjà vu all over again. They have learned nothing from their greenbelt scheme. Once again, political interference from the minister’s office is putting insiders ahead of Ontarians.

If the minister thinks this is really the right thing to do, then he should release the scorecards that they used to determine how they distributed that $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. Or will this minister keep treating tax dollars like a friends-and-family fund?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker—full of inaccuracies. We don’t rank applications. What we do is we review them and assess them against government priorities like our Housing Supply Action Plan, like our plan to mine critical minerals in northern Ontario to make sure we’re supporting worthwhile career opportunities in the north.

They don’t support that. They voted against mining in the north every time we’ve brought it to the floor of this place. They don’t support those workers.

They don’t support us building a self-reliant economy, being energy independent, because what else don’t they support? They don’t support new nuclear, like our plan to build new nuclear, like our plan to build small modular reactors. Well, guess what? All of those projects are going to take a next generation of young men and women in rewarding careers. They’re against all of that, and it’s not surprising. They voted no every single time.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: If they didn’t stack the deck with their friends, why not open the books? What do you got to hide?

Let’s get a little more specific, shall we? Because I’m having a hard time understanding why the minister decided to bump some of these projects up, aside from their connections to the Premier’s campaign manager or his buddy the Paris groom.

I’m going to give you an example here: The Ontario Harness Horse Association received over $6 million through the Skills Development Fund over multiple rounds of funding. My question to the minister is, before political staff from his office got their hands on that application, did it score high or low?

Hon. David Piccini: When we select these projects for funding, as I said, we assess it against the criteria of priorities of this government, Speaker—things they don’t support. They don’t support mining. They don’t support building.

But you know who else supports the work we’re doing? Gemma Hall, who is an NDP candidate for Windsor–Tecumseh. She’s director for Women’s Enterprise Skills Training, who received $700,000 to help train women in the skilled trades, in air conditioning, refrigeration and sheet metal work. All of these concepts are foreign to them because these are the unions that turned their back on that party because they don’t support the men and women earning rewarding careers in these trades.

We also have Amanda Robertson, who ran for the opposition in the Bay of Quinte. She’s a board member and treasurer for the John Howard Society, doing remarkable work.

Again, Speaker, none of that matters. It’s about the scoring and it’s about the incredible work being done to train a next generation of young men and women. This is what we look to when we make these remarkable investments that are changing lives. It’s a shame they don’t see that.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister seems to be spending a lot of time doing research. Maybe he could save some time by just opening up the books. Just share it with us. Just show us everything.

But here’s the thing, Speaker: This organization, the Ontario Harness Horse Association, is represented by StrategyCorp. That’s a lobbying firm whose roster—and they would know this—includes former senior government staffers, Conservative Party insiders, campaign advisers.

There are nearly 800,000 Ontarians out of work in this province, and at a time when we should be going all in for workers, the minister is backing the wrong horse. He is focusing on insiders and lobbyists over workers and their families.

Can the minister tell us how many workers were trained through the $6 million that went to the Ontario Harness Horse Association?

Hon. David Piccini: All the guidelines, all the program criteria are public. They’re public for everyone to see. It’s there online, Speaker. It’s a real shame.

Let’s look at another worthwhile project. One of the NDP candidates for Markham–Stouffville is a social worker at Community Living York South–Weston. They received more than $129,000 through the Skills Development Fund to support high school internships including for individuals with intellectual disabilities.

These are some of the priorities and important projects that we’re funding. We review them, we assess them to make sure they’re supporting adults with intellectual disabilities. They’re supporting our Housing Supply Action Plan.

These are important projects, and it’s a shame they’re denigrating it, but, you know, it doesn’t matter that a whole wide variety of their former candidates support SDF-funded projects because we assess them on their outcomes and their merit and the ability to change lives. That’s what we’re investing in when we—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister doesn’t want to talk about the results, doesn’t want to talk about this project. Why? Why? What is he hiding?

The thing is, Speaker, it’s not about the applicants. It’s about the politicians. And I’ve got to tell you, they have sent a pretty clear message to people out there, to their insiders, their campaign managers: Pony up. That’s what they’re sending the message about.

This association received millions while public colleges and trade programs struggle just to keep the lights on. The association’s president, their general manager, their executive director have all donated to the Conservative Party, Speaker. Their president and his family donated about $43,000 to the Conservatives—wow.

My question to the minister—you’ve got one more chance, Minister, to actually answer the questions this time—how can Ontarians trust this government when they keep seeing insiders get the fast track while they fall behind?

Hon. David Piccini: I just got something sent to me. One of the members of the harness horse racing association with their arm around former MPP for Essex county, Taras Natyshak, who, of course, left. He left that party because they turned their back on rural Ontario. They turned their back on worthwhile, important drivers of rural Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

Hon. David Piccini: —things like harness horse racing and other drivers in rural Ontario. They could care less. They turned their backs on those members of rural Ontario. We won’t, Speaker. We’ll make investments in worthwhile careers that support a vibrant economy in rural Ontario, and we’re not going to apologize for doing it.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. But you know, if you watched the World Series this weekend, you would have learned two things: It’s going to be a really hard-fought series, and you would also learn how much the Premier loves to spend money on television ads to make him look good. So $75 million for two spots—that’s got to be a record. It’s not as much money, though, as the Minister of Labour likes to dole out to insiders, friends and donors.

So, Speaker, through you, which does the Premier prefer: spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ads that make him look good, or his Minister of Labour doling out funds to his friends?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Madam Speaker, number one, it wasn’t hundreds of millions of dollars. It wasn’t $75 million. Our intention was to get the message out. It was the most successful ad in the history of North America—not just here. We had over one billion impressions, meaning one billion views—and it’s still counting—from around the world. I was getting calls from people who had relatives in India, in Portugal, in Italy, in Scotland, over in the UK. Every outlet—small, large, medium—in the US was talking about the conversation about it’s better to get rid of any of the tariffs.

President Trump wants to attack our country, but the leader of the third party, the minivan party, he has no solutions. He believes in raising taxes, making us less competitive.

We believe in lowering taxes, creating an environment for companies to come here and thrive and prosper. But I’m never going to take a back seat to President Trump, never take a back seat to our opposition. We’re going to continue working for the people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Mr. John Fraser: Back to the Premier: I just want to say that if Kory Teneycke is listening, Kory, please, on behalf of all Ontarians, please don’t let the Premier have matches or run with scissors anymore.

Because here’s what Mark Carney said this morning: That there is a series of detail-specific “comprehensive discussions, negotiations ... up until the point of those ads running ... take the President at his word” as to why the talks ended and tariffs went up—the ad. Those in the room exchanging term sheets had been making progress, and then the ads came, and we’re here.

Speaker, I don’t think the Ontario taxpayer should be funding this Premier’s desire to become the Prime Minister of Canada. He’s doing damage, so will he stand down and stop doing this?

Hon. Doug Ford: After earning about $300 million to $400 million of earned media—and for the people watching, that’s free media—we’ve been waiting for this deal month after month after month after month. We’ve been waiting for this deal.

But this deal has nothing to do with protecting auto workers. We’re here to protect the auto workers, and I don’t think a fair deal is that the Americans charge us a 50% tariff on steel. We charge them a 25% tariff on steel.

My job is to protect the people of Ontario. That’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’m going to continue protecting the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, Ontarians paid for those ads, and that’s $300 million to $400 million of unearned media. Well, Ontarians paid for those. They are going to pay for them with their jobs.

The Premier has decided that he wants to be Captain Canada and that he’s going to do whatever he wants. I don’t know who is speaking over there, but we’re dealing with Donald Trump. So you want to attack—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Energy and Mines will come to order.

Mr. John Fraser: What did you get, Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Energy and Mines will come to order.

Mr. John Fraser: —and the tariffs went up. Good job, Premier.

Ontarians are paying with their jobs for what you just did.

Hon. Doug Ford: The tariffs aren’t going up, and they aren’t going to go up. We want zero tariffs. That’s what I’m fighting for.

But what it did do, Madam Speaker, is it created a conversation with every Republican and Democrat governor, Congressperson and senator. That’s what it created.

As we’re out there fighting on the front lines, you’re sitting back, and all you do is criticize. Why don’t you join Team Ontario? Why don’t you join Team Canada like the rest of the Premiers? Why don’t you get onside? Like my good friend Wab Kinew is onside, or Premier Eby from BC who’s onside? I spoke to every single Premier. They’re onside. The exact words are, “Don’t stop; keep fighting for Canada.” That was a message I got from all the Premiers that I spoke to.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: I don’t know if I want to join the Premier’s team because I know he knows that there’s no I in team, but he knows there’s an M and an E, and that’s evidently what happened here.

Let’s just recap what we went through last week. We learned that the Auditor General said that the Skills Development Fund was neither accountable nor fair nor transparent. And we know that the minister awarded a $7.5-million contract to a company that was being represented by his close, personal friend. There was a Paris wedding. There were Leafs tickets. The minister’s riding association donations went from $50,000 to almost half a million after he was made minister. And we know that in the latest round, $345 million, 63% of that went to people who donated $1.3 million to the PC Party.

So Speaker, is this minister getting fired, or is the Premier going to keep him just to keep the gravy train rolling?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, again, let’s summarize what we saw last week from the opposition. They went against David O’Neil, who ran for them in the last election, who is of course on the board of the Quinte Economic Development Commission, who have supported folks getting into the manufacturing sector.

But there’s a cognitive dissonance there because they didn’t support the manufacturing sector. That’s understandable: They drove hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs out of this province. So it’s not surprising that they’re not supporting projects that are getting people back into manufacturing. It’s not surprising that they don’t support projects that get people into construction.

They are turning their backs on the workers of this province, the workers who will build Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, the workers who are joining the ranks of the new manufacturing jobs created because we created a low-tax environment to attract investment. These are all things that they could have done when they were in government. They never did. They drove out jobs. We’re turning the course, investing in workers, creating a stronger Ontario. And we’re going to keep working—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: We also know that $27 million went to bars, restaurants and nightclubs in downtown Toronto with connections to the Premier. It went to law firms, it went to vet clinics, it went to dental clinics, to a harness association—the list could go on—all with deep connections to the Premier or one of his ministers.

So the rot runs deep in the Skills Development Fund. It’s the same rot we saw in the greenbelt, MZOs, Ontario Place. Speaker, this government’s not open for business; it’s for sale.

Hundreds of millions of dollars went to companies represented by the usual suspects: Kory Teneycke, Amin Massoudi, Nico Fidani-Diker, Michael Diamond. All the while the minister is shovelling money out the door to make already rich people even richer.

Speaker, is this minister going to get fired or is the Premier just going to keep him here so the gravy train won’t stop rolling?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, every dollar went to training, worthwhile training. So while that member denigrates people who serve for a living, who clean rooms for a living, maybe he should consult a former senior Liberal staffer in Kathleen Wynne’s government who works for that organization, the union who supports those workers.

But you know what, Speaker? I saw a remarkable young man standing up for men and women in the hospitality sector. I didn’t give two hoots who he used to work for. I saw a worthwhile project helping women get employed, helping people who were underemployed find better employment, helping women rise through the ranks of the employment sector and supporting a beleaguered industry hit hard by the pandemic.

He can denigrate those workers all he wants. That’s why these unions and the men and women who stand up for those remarkable workers are backing this Premier and this government, because we support them every day of the week.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The minister missed the point. I’m not denigrating workers. I’m just pointing out all this money is going to make rich people even richer—friends of the government. We know those usual suspects. That’s what’s happening. It’s been happening again and again: the greenbelt, MZOs, Ontario Place.

We did learn one other thing: The minister’s fundraiser suddenly got postponed. In the heat of the moment, it got postponed. But I don’t want Kory Teneycke or Amin Massoudi or Nico Fidani-Diker or Michael Diamond or any of the other hangers-on who do good business with this government to despair, because round 6 of the Skills Development Fund will be open on November 19 at the leader’s dinner. So get your chequebooks out.

Speaker, back through you to the Premier: When is this minister going to get fired, or is the Premier just keeping him on to keep the gravy train rolling on?

Hon. David Piccini: Let’s talk about another remarkable group supporting carpentry and welding. One of their staffers, one of their folks working and affiliated with that organization, is the Liberals’ very own VP of fundraising.

We can play this game all day, but the bottom line is people have careers. The bottom line is this government looks to support rewarding training that’s going to help people land a better job with a bigger paycheque.

Again, we can play this game all day—Joshua Bell. We could look to one of the members of your caucus who worked for Habitat for Humanity. They’re supporting a next generation of workers into rewarding careers in the trades. MPP Tsao is right there, and he worked for Habitat for Humanity.

What I’m trying to establish is that when you support rewarding training opportunities to help people land a better job with a bigger paycheque, we build a stronger Ontario. And that’s exactly—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Sudbury.

Employment supports

MPP Jamie West: My question is for the Premier. There are over 100 Ericsson employees in Ontario who are going to lose their job on Friday. Most of them are right here in the GTA. These workers perform critical telecommunication infrastructure work for Rogers. These workers have sent dozens of emails to the Premier’s office asking for help, but no one replied, so today they came to Queen’s Park to beg for help.

My question, Speaker: Will the Premier call his donors at Rogers and Ericsson, demand that these workers stay in Ontario and save these workers?

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

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for the question.

As the Premier has said many times in this House, our government is laser-focused on jobs and job creation. I appreciate the fact that the member opposite has this group. We’re always open to have those conversations.

I’d love to talk to the member after question period and get a little more information. Obviously, those folks are not from good old eastern Ontario, but we as a government are committed to ensuring, in the face of Donald Trump and in the face of all the tariffs, that no matter what corner of the province we’re in, we want to make sure that we stand up for jobs and stand up for Canada.

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

MPP Jamie West: Back to the Premier, who seems laser-focused on his emails right now: Speaker, the Premier has been a jobs disaster. He talks a good game, but Ontario keeps losing jobs. There are 3,000 Stellantis workers in Brampton. There are 1,200 GM workers in Ingersoll. There are 160 Diageo bottling workers in Amherstburg. There are 160 sawmill workers in Ear Falls; 130 Halstead furniture workers in Lindsay. But unlike those companies, Speaker, Rogers and Ericsson aren’t responding to tariffs. They’re just making a quick buck. They’re choosing to give these jobs away—good-paying Ontario jobs—to other countries.

My question is, this Friday, another 100-plus workers in Ontario will lose their jobs. Yes or no, Premier, will you save them?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, thank you to the member opposite.

Every job in this province matters, and that’s why, since we got elected, we’ve created the conditions for almost a million new jobs in this province. That’s a million people who have the opportunity to put food on the table, to pay the mortgage, to pay the rent.

Madam Speaker, under that Liberal government, supported by the NDP, we saw 300,000 tail lights go south of the border. We created the conditions that bring back manufacturing jobs, lower costs for people and for businesses. Madam Speaker, $13 billion back in the pockets of every hard-working person in Ontario; $12 billion back in the pockets for businesses through cuts of taxes and fees. That’s why we have a $1.2-trillion economy in this province from $850 billion—one that they didn’t support.

Government accountability

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Speaker, the Auditor General uncovered that more than half the money given out from the Skills Development Fund went to lower-scoring projects. She described the process as not fair, not transparent and not accountable.

We know that hundreds of millions of dollars were awarded to companies who were friends, donors or hired lobbyists who are friends of this government. Speaker, the government is planning to dole out another $800 million in the next two rounds of skills development funding. And yet the Minister of Labour hasn’t once apologized for passing over high-scoring applicants in favour of his friends. We can’t count on this minister not to once again reward those well-connected insiders.

So my question to the Premier: Will he fire his Minister of Labour?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as I said, we’ve established that former candidates work for organizations that received SDF funding. They’re VP of fundraising organizations that received it. That’s not what this is about; what this is about is training folks for better jobs.

It’s not surprising. They had the opportunity to create the conditions for job growth, for economic growth. They had the opportunity to lower taxes. They had the opportunity to back manufacturing workers in my riding.

Under their watch, Kraft left Cobourg. Under their watch, manufacturing jobs fled Ontario. All we could see were the red rear-view lights. That’s their record, Speaker. They had the opportunity to stand up as a million more people entered this province and say, “Hey, we’re actually going to build some roads and highways.” They were against that too. That’s why they didn’t win a single seat in Brampton.

They’re against mining in northern Ontario. They don’t support nuclear. I don’t know what they want us to heat our homes with—light a fire in the fireplace? We’re supporting new nuclear. We’re supporting SMRs. They want—

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Speaker, we know exactly what this is about. We know the reason the Premier won’t answer the question and doesn’t want to fire his minister. It’s because he thinks the Skills Development Fund is his government’s own personal piggy bank to reward and enrich their insider friends.

Right now, over 700,000 people are looking for work. Excluding the pandemic, that’s the most ever in this province. That means 700,000 families are worried about paying the rent and putting food on the table. There’s another $800 million on the line that could retrain those workers and help them find jobs.

My question, back to the Premier: Will he commit today not to enriching his insider friends, but to giving the next $800 million in SDF money to high-scoring applicants so that the workers who need help can get it?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I look forward to working with that member to get folks into rewarding careers.

Let’s talk about numbers: 100,000 workers got a job within 60 days of completing their training, more than 8,000 workers are now apprentices and more than 260,000 workers are from marginalized communities. This is the track record. This is what our government is proud to do.

I think back to stories. I think about the Jennifer story that I’ve told in this House before. She’s working on a mine in northern Ontario. She’s breaking down barriers, saying to more women, “Hey, you can get in this career too.” She’s standing as a role model.

It’s not surprising they don’t support that; they’re against mining. It’s not surprising they don’t support the next generation of millwrights, a project that supports a priority sector, our energy sector, because they’re against that too. They wanted to shut down Pickering. They wanted to shutter our nuclear plants.

We’re going to make sure we support these workers and the industries they work—

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

Electricity supply

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. As the world faces growing economic instability, Ontario must be ready to stand on its own. Donald Trump’s threats of new tariffs and trade barriers show how quickly our economy can be put at risk. That’s why building a stronger, more reliable energy system is so important: because when we power Ontario with clean and affordable energy, we protect Ontario jobs and our economy from outside pressures. Yet the opposition Liberals and NDP continue to oppose the very projects that keep our lights on and our people working.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government’s plan to expand Ontario’s energy grid is protecting jobs, families and our province from future global economic uncertainty?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I want to thank the great member from Whitby for that question. He is right: We are expanding our energy grid today to ensure that we meet the demands of tomorrow.

Unlike the Liberals and New Democrats, who would have rather seen 2,000 people out of work, our government reversed the decision to close the Pickering nuclear generation station, saving 2,000 jobs and ensuring clean, reliable and affordable energy for years to come.

We’re also looking to build the largest nuclear generation station in the world at Wesleyville, which would have enough power for 10 million homes.

Madam Speaker, while we’ve made lots of progress, there is still more to be done, but under the leadership of Premier Ford and the Minister of Energy and Mines, we will continue to protect Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for his response.

Speaker, Ontario’s energy leadership is being recognized right across Canada and around the world. While others talk about clean power, Ontario is building it. From Pickering to Bruce to Darlington, our workers are leading the way and delivering clean, reliable and affordable energy. We’re not just keeping the lights on, we’re helping our allies to do the same.

But Speaker, while our government is taking action to protect Ontario’s energy security and support jobs, the opposition continues to vote against these important projects.

Can the parliamentary assistant please share how Ontario’s nuclear partnerships with other provinces are helping strengthen our energy system and, Speaker, protect Ontario’s future?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Just last week, the Minister of Energy and Mines signed two landmark agreements in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They will unlock the potential of Ontario’s clean, reliable and affordable nuclear energy. They position Canada as a global energy powerhouse.

In Nova Scotia, our government signed an MOU to help deploy a small modular reactor. In New Brunswick, we signed a $60-million agreement through Ontario Power Generation to help New Brunswick Power improve performance and operations at their nuclear generation station.

But it doesn’t stop there, Madam Speaker. We’re helping to move forward with small modular reactors in Alberta, Saskatchewan and countries around the world.

Ontario is ready to help ourselves and our allies so they too can benefit from our clean nuclear advantage. And I always say, the world is watching Ontario at the present time.

College funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, this Premier is a jobs disaster, and no one knows that better than the 10,000 college workers who have lost their jobs or will soon be laid off.

Chronic underfunding under both the Liberals and the Conservatives has caused a complete crisis in our college system. But instead of investing in our public colleges, this government is forcing colleges to compete with private colleges for access to skills development funding through a process the Auditor General has described as not fair, transparent or accountable.

Speaker, why doesn’t this government just provide the public funding that our colleges urgently need?

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

Hon. Nolan Quinn: I’d recommend the member opposite read the budget 2025. We’ve invested over a billion dollars this year alone into 100,000 new seats. Whether that’s 20,000 new STEM seats, 75,000 for construction-related programming, 7,800 seats, $56 million for nursing, as well as new teaching seats, Speaker, we’ve invested over $2.3 billion into our publicly assisted college and university system right across the province in the last 18 months. It’s a significant investment. That’s on top of our $5 billion we invest into the sector every single year.

Speaker, funding is higher than it’s ever been in Ontario’s history when it comes to post-secondary education. We’ll continue standing by the sector to ensure that we have a world-class education system for decades to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, I did read the budget, and I noticed a $1.2-billion cut to post-secondary education over an extra year.

Speaker, we know from the Auditor General that the labour minister’s office was directly involved in the selection of SDF projects for funding, with money doled out to Conservative friends and insiders even when projects ranked low and often when a paid lobbyist was involved. We know that several SDF projects involving private colleges have been approved, that the former labour minister’s wife is the executive director of Career Colleges Ontario and the current labour minister’s wife is a registered lobbyist for Career Colleges Ontario.

Speaker, will the Premier clear the air and tell us whether lobbyists and insider connections are the reason that private career colleges are getting SDF funding while our public colleges are being starved?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, let’s talk about what we know. Earlier today, they asked questions about the harness horse association. I just got an email forwarded to me about a fundraiser the harness horse association held for the NDP, with their former leader. So that’s not what this is about.

What this government is fighting hard to do is to build infrastructure for a lasting future in this province: energy infrastructure that they fight against, Speaker; new nuclear infrastructure that they oppose; mining infrastructure that’s going to unlock opportunities in the north to help us be self-sufficient—they oppose those miners, Speaker. New highways, roads to help moms and dads get home faster to be with their loved ones—they don’t support those highways or those roads, Speaker.

They haven’t offered a single—colleagues, I don’t remember a single actual idea to build a stronger Ontario—a single actual project that they support, Speaker. They stand for the pictures with these SDF-supported programs, building key infrastructure, yet they oppose the very programs and legislation making it happen.

Government accountability

Mr. Ted Hsu: Let’s talk about Noah the shipbuilder. Not that Noah; the Noah that the Minister of Labour put up—the minister has put up lots of workers in his own defence. I think it’s a shame that he’s using the good workers of Ontario to hide behind for political cover in this Skills Development Fund scandal.

What about workers with highly ranked applicants who are rejected by the minister’s political staff? The Auditor General said that over half the SDF money went to applications ranked poor, low or medium. She said the minister chose to fund them more than highly ranked applications.

What’s going on? Well, more and more connections with successful applicants and PC Party friends, lobbyists and donors continue to be uncovered by investigative journalists.

This is about fairness—fairness for all workers in this province. The government’s pay-to-play scheme is not fair.

Will the minister do the right thing and resign?

Hon. David Piccini: The program that member referenced—I had their executive director here last week. The member had an opportunity to sit down with her and understand what the program is doing, but of course he didn’t, Speaker, because he voted against our shipbuilding strategy. Of course, he doesn’t support shipbuilding. They voted against a $200-million shipbuilding strategy to build a shipbuilding sector.

They’re against all of these critical investments to build a stronger Ontario. They don’t support these programs. They don’t support these workers. They vote against them. Every time we bring these opportunities to the floor to build a stronger Ontario, they vote against it.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Ted Hsu: This government is in disarray. The Prime Minister of Canada is joking about whether the Premier is a friend or not. The housing minister just had to rescue the government from making rental housing tenants’ lives more unstable and, on Friday, that minister got his announcement cancelled.

And that was all after the poor housing minister’s Thursday event went off the rails when a journalist quizzed Walid Abou-Hamde, a former labour minister staffer, executive director of a construction advocacy group whose directors have donated over $100,000 to the PC Party in the last decade, who got $1.8 million in skills development funding.

This government is in turmoil when 700,000 people are looking for work in Ontario, and we must be ready to protect our economy. Would the housing minister agree that the labour minister needs to do the right thing, remove the distraction of scandal and resign?

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

Hon. Rob Flack: It takes too long and it costs too much to build housing in Ontario. I am proud of the record this government has under its belt to create those conditions. As such, our skilled trades are a big part of that. That’s a big threat to our province with the south of the border challenges coming from Trump. We have to protect those jobs, and that is exactly what this government is doing, that is exactly what this minister is doing and that is what we are going to continue to do.

We had a great bill launched last week. We’re going to debate it later this afternoon. Bill 60 is going to create the conditions, cut red tape, cut costs, cut the time it takes to get shovels in the ground. Speaker, we’re going to get this done.

Skilled trades

Mr. Billy Pang: My question is for the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. Across Ontario, we are hearing growing concerns about economic uncertainty. Tariffs, trade threats and global instability and inflation are putting pressure on our workers and our industries.

While Donald Trump threatens Ontario jobs, the Liberals and NDP continue to play politics by voting against the very programs that protect those jobs. Instead of supporting Ontario workers, they criticize the very investments that help them succeed.

Our government knows the best way to protect Ontario’s economy is to invest in people. Can the minister explain what he is doing to help people get a better job with a bigger paycheque?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, it’s part of a plan. It’s part of a plan that says to youth, “You’ve got a multitude of rewarding career opportunities.” That’s why we introduced the largest-ever skilled trades career