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

November 17, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-Nov-17 vol. A (PDF)

L036A - Mon 17 Nov 2025 / Lun 17 nov 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 17 November 2025 Lundi 17 novembre 2025

Orders of the Day

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

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

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

Committee sittings

Members’ Statements

Holiday events in Hastings–Lennox and Addington

Domestic violence

Housing

Hindu Heritage Month

Medical isotopes

Craft breweries

Government policies

Ruth Vogel

Autism treatment

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Tenant protection

Government accountability

Ontario economy

Landlord and Tenant Board

Government accountability / Artificial intelligence

Transportation infrastructure

Automotive industry

Addiction services

Red tape reduction

Ontario Place

Deferred Votes

Franco-Ontarian Bookstore Promotion and Protection Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour la promotion et la protection des librairies franco-ontariennes

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

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

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

Committee sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Motions

House sittings

Petitions

Tenant protection

Hospital services

Front-line workers

Health care

Ontario Place

Interprovincial trade

Tenant protection

Gender-based violence

Interprovincial trade

Medical error

Education funding

Tenant protection

Opposition Day

Youth employment / Emploi des jeunes

Orders of the Day

Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en réduisant les formalités administratives

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): And now a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 30, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025 / Projet de loi 60, Loi modifiant diverses lois et édictant la Loi de 2025 sur les sociétés publiques de gestion de l’eau et des eaux usées.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 6, 2025, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Flack has moved second reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 29, 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): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 6, 2025, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Calandra has moved second reading of Bill 33,

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 4, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 6, 2025, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Lecce has moved second reading of Bill 40,

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

Committee sittings

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 6, 2025, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding report writing proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy on the study on intimate partner violence.

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

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s a pleasure to stand up on behalf of the residents of Simcoe–Grey to continue the remarks I started, a week ago Thursday, about this important topic.

What this motion is about is bringing back the report from the justice policy standing committee from the last to the current Legislative Assembly for the current Standing Committee on Justice Policy for review, with the goal of bringing the report to this Legislature for action on this important issue. It is about finishing the work that was started 18 months ago. That was important work and, as we’ve heard, it lasted over 13 days—hearing from 150 witnesses, 90 experts, and 60 victims and front-line workers with lived experience.

This report came from an opposition bill, Bill 173, moved by the member from Windsor West to declare IPV an epidemic. That was the extent of Bill 173. It was a simple, one-sentence declaration and nothing more. There was no action plan, no change, no steps to help address this issue that we know is endemic across this province and has been getting worse. While a long-standing issue, it has been getting worse.

After second reading, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy to examine all of the aspects with respect to IPV: current programs that are available, the root causes, and how we can do better in the province of Ontario to address these issues. As I said, this led to oral hearings and submissions; and we heard from 150 witnesses through the summer and fall of 2024.

Madam Speaker, I had the honour of being part of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, and I can tell you that there were many difficult days as we heard the evidence of the devastation and trauma this issue brings to families, and the vicious cyclical nature that really dooms many who have experienced IPV as children to repeat it in their future lives.

The event of the last election interrupted the standing committee’s work, and it is now necessary and very critical to bring that work back to the standing committee so that we can move it forward and take action to address this devastating issue. As I said, we heard from many witnesses with front-line experience—many victims and many survivors.

We owe it to those witnesses; we owe it to those experts who have made this their field of study and have given us the advantage of their advice; we owe it to the front-line workers who deal with this issue every day; and, most importantly, we owe it to the victims with lived experience who came forward and shared their knowledge, shared their experience and shared their stories with the committee, despite the many hurdles it took to do that. Most of that evidence was heard in camera because of the sensitive nature of it.

We know that this is an issue that’s under-reported, and when it is reported, it’s very difficult to relive. Those experiences can often re-traumatize the victims and the survivors, so for them to come forward and tell their stories, to travel to Queen’s Park to tell the stories to the committee, was a true demonstration of courage. We owe it to them to honour that courage by moving forward as expeditiously as possible to make sure that we address this problem. As we have heard, it’s endemic. It’s a long-standing issue with devastating and often lethal consequences for the victims and their families.

Their stories are heartbreaking, but what’s most heartbreaking is that they’re cyclical and there’s a pattern. As we heard from these many victims and survivors, you could see the pattern very quickly. There are ways to address that, there are ways to break that pattern, and we must seize this opportunity to do that.

During those hearings, we also heard stories of resilience, of strength, of courage and of hope, as these survivors have changed their lives, taken control of their lives—which is often the issue—come forward and told us their stories with purpose, to make the call for change so that others don’t have to endure the same pattern, the same harm and the same devastation.

As I’ve said, their courage is our call to action, to work together and move forward with purpose and determination to address the many aspects of intimate partner violence: both from treating and assisting the victims when they are in crisis, but also making sure that we’re making investments to make our assistance to them more timely; to streamline our justice system; to make sure that they have access to the programs that we need; that those programs are coordinated and intentional; and, also, to make upstream investments in making sure that we address the root causes of intimate partner violence ahead of time.

An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. And in this case, an ounce of prevention would go so far down this road, as we heard from many of the expert witnesses, from the fields of education, from healthy relationships, from sports and other aspects that permeate our children’s lives that can influence them and shape them, moving forward.

But words matter. We must begin this issue by naming IPV for what it is, and that is an “endemic.” An epidemic erupts suddenly and recedes quickly. The response is temporary, and the actions are aimed at containment. Endemic problems are chronic. They are predictable, they follow a pattern, and they are deeply ingrained into many of our social systems.

The word “endemic” carries enormous weight. It signals that this crisis is not isolated, it is not occasional, it is not temporary. It is woven into the lives of too many people, too many families, and too many communities. It tells us that this violence is not confined to certain households or communities. It is persistent, it is prevalent, it is widespread, and it is deeply rooted across our society. It does not surge and recede like a passing storm. It is sustained by structures, attitudes and inequities that have built up over generations.

Because it is persistent, our response must be equally persistent, must be measured and purposeful. It cannot be measured in headlines, but in systems, standards and results—measured in stability, not symbolism.

Calling IPV an “endemic” is about naming a reality. It is intergenerational, it is ingrained, and it resists quick and reactive solutions. When we use accurate language, we commit to the right type of solutions—solutions that are long-term, solutions that are structural, that are robust and are coordinated. That is how we honour the courage of the witnesses we heard from and how we protect the lives of others.

Declarations are important, but they do not align with training, they do not coordinate calendars, and they do not stabilize base funding; a coordinated, long-term framework does. This motion is about putting that framework in place so that the ministries of this government and our partners in front-line assistance—our police, our educators and our service providers—can act together consistently and with scale.

Madam Speaker, this is something our government has been pursuing across the social services sector. Our government is committed to protecting survivors, preventing violence and building stronger, safer communities. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, Minister Parsa and Associate Minister Williams, we have taken meaningful steps to strengthen supports for victims and to hold perpetrators accountable.

We have increased funding for violence-against-women shelters and sexual assault centres because we know that these are often the first places survivors turn when they need safety. As Minister Williams announced in her comments, we have just recently, last week, announced $27 million to create 300 new spaces in shelters for women and their families in crisis—these community-based programs that connect survivors to housing, to counselling and to legal resources, particularly in rural and northern communities, where access can be limited.

And we have expanded collaboration between police, crown attorneys and community agencies to ensure that survivors are not left to navigate complex systems on their own.

These are just a few of the concrete steps that this government has taken, and they are making a difference. But we all know there is much more to be done.

That is what this motion is about. It’s about bringing that evidence forward, bringing what we’ve learned from those extensive hearings and turning what we’ve learned into action to further address the issue of IPV.

As a member of the justice policy committee, let me tell you what I heard during those hearings. First of all, I heard that we need to strengthen our supports for victims when they are in crisis. We need to improve coordination and integration among the available services. We need to modernize how we respond to intimate partner violence and the critical need to strengthen prevention and work on breaking the vicious cycle of IPV and gender-based violence upstream.

This will require an all-of-government approach: continuing to make investments in supporting victim services; stabilizing funding for critical support services; improving the responsiveness of our justice system; and upstream investments in education and prevention.

I’ll start with victim services because they are the most immediate triage that’s required to treat families in crisis.

I can tell you that in my riding of Simcoe–Grey we have two very active shelters. My Friend’s House has been in Collingwood for over 25 years. In speaking with the former executive director, Alison FitzGerald, during my time on municipal council, but also my time in provincial politics, she told me about the incredible increase they have seen since the pandemic—we know that across the province many were self-reporting a deterioration in their mental health. They were isolating in their homes with their families, and stresses were increasing.

So we saw an increase in IPV, and we saw an increase in demand for the services of My Friend’s House in Collingwood. And when I spoke with the staff at My Sister’s Place in Alliston, the executive director there told me a similar story about the incredible stresses caused by the pandemic.

Frankly, those stresses have not lessened since the end of the pandemic. We heard that during the hearings. We heard about the incredible need for immediate shelter and services when a family is in crisis. And while that is the culmination of the cycle and the pattern, it is probably the time at which those in need are most in need and most need the services that are available.

As Minister Williams indicated, we’ve created 300 new shelter spots. But we need to make those services more available, we need to get rid of wait times, and we need to have transition housing so that they can progress on the road of recovery. That was one of the main things we heard, particularly from our victims, during the hearings.

The second issue that we need to work on is the responsiveness of our judicial system. And that takes many forms: from the immediate crisis, when the charges are laid, making sure that bail conditions are complied with—we had bail reform hearings earlier, to the justice committee—but we also heard the importance that that serves during the period after the charges have been laid, making sure that we keep the family safe and the victim safe from further interference from the offender.

We heard very important information from the OPP and from other support services about tracking those charged. We know that those charged can move to a different jurisdiction and the police there won’t know of the charge. So we want to make sure that we create an interconnected system, so that all support services are aware of the situation, of the charges, of the fact that this individual has been charged, is under bail and must be kept away from the family, but also the implications for any future relationship they might enter into. That was an important part of the topic at the justice policy committee.

And then we spoke of upstream prevention. We heard from many educators. We heard from programs. We heard from coaches. We know that the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler was very involved in the coaching program, and that has been piloted in Hamilton and been very successful. We hope to now enrol that across the province, to teach young children, particularly young boys, about a healthy relationship, about respect, about emotional dialogue and emotional maturity, so down the road they will be not going down this road. And if they have been in this cycle of violence, it will help them to prevent and break that cycle so that they don’t go down that same road.

We know as well that for young girls who are victims of IPV, it also has an impact on their lives because it changes their idea of what emotional dialogue is and what a mature relationship is. We have to break that cycle, we have to break that expectation, and we have to help liberate them and give them the tools they need to have healthy, sustainable relationships, moving forward.

The final aspect we heard of was data. We want to make sure that we’re moving the needle, and what gets measured gets done. So, tracking data, making sure we’re aware of the statistics, making sure we’re aware of the outcomes, making sure we’re getting children into programs, getting victims serviced, getting victims through the justice system faster, protecting them from the offender during the course of the litigation and the charges—and making sure that we are marshalling all of that together, which is going to require, as I said, an all-of-government approach.

We need many ministries involved in this, and we need all of our service providers to be involved, and we need to coordinate and streamline that to make sure that our dollars are being stretched.

These initiatives are in line with aspects of what this government is doing.

The MPP from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and the MPP from Thornhill brought a joint PMB to stop convicted sexual offenders from legally changing their names under Christopher’s Law. That was passed last session.

Bill 123, or Erin’s Law, from the MPP from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, amends the Education Act to require school boards to implement programs to combat child sexual abuse.

The MPP from Oakville North–Burlington, who’s in the chair, brought forward legislation called Keira’s Law, which is included in Bill 102, the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, to make sure that the judicial judges on the bench get training in the dynamics of IPV.

So this is a government with a track record of getting things done. This is a motion about bringing forward important evidence and reports to make sure that we can continue that and that we can tackle IPV where it starts—in the homes—and protect people, protect future generations, and ensure that all live safely and happily.

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

Mr. Deepak Anand: Speaker, it has now been almost seven years since many of us got elected and, in the last seven years, one thing that we learned the most in our lives is that uncertainty is the only certain thing.

Every time I stand up, I talk in my remarks—I always thank the supreme God for giving me the mental health and physical health to be able to stand up and deliver my remarks.

Today, before I begin my remarks, I would like to take a moment to mourn the loss of Anil Bhasin, one of the pillars of our community, a cherished member of our extended family. Anil suddenly departed us, with a void that cannot be filled—in less than 24 hours, he was gone. May his soul embark peacefully on his heavenly journey and attain eternal rest.

Our heartful prayers are with the family during this difficult time. May God give you strength and courage. Om shanti.

This is the life that we all have to cherish—when we have till we have.

If you really look at this motion we are talking about and taking care of today, it’s about those people—the people who live in our world.

This motion, technically speaking, is talking about two different paths. When I come to Queen’s Park every day, Monday to Thursday, I have a choice whether to take the Gardiner Expressway or the 401. At the end of the day, both lead to the same goal of reaching Queen’s Park and serving Ontarians, serving the residents of Mississauga–Malton—the same way this debate is talking about two different paths, but our end goal is the same: to build a province where every person is safe in their home. That is the shared goal that brings us to today.

Intimate partner violence is not just a crisis that we measure in numbers; it is an endemic issue, woven into the fabric of our communities, often hidden, often unspoken, and too often suffered in silence.

What is this motion doing? This motion is asking us to choose an approach and a path. But as I said earlier, both paths acknowledge one truth: Prevention is better than cure. When violence takes root, the cost is immeasurable; when we prevent it, the impact is limitless.

I want to thank all the members from both sides for coming together, for meeting with survivors, front-line workers, advocates, and for treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves. As the member from Simcoe–Grey said, there were over 150 stakeholders who came and were part of this consultation. We know this matter is serious and needs serious attention.

I want to take a moment to thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, Jess Dixon, for her compassion, for her leadership throughout the work.

Madam Speaker, as we confront this issue, we must also acknowledge some of the communities where intimate partner violence is not reported or is mostly under-reported.

And when we’re talking about intimate partner violence, we’re talking about not one gender or the other; we’re talking about everybody.

I do remember we were having a meeting, and back then it was about Black Lives Matter. One of the members in the meeting said, “If Black lives matter, what about the rest? Isn’t it ‘all lives matter’?” My daughter, Suvidhi, raised her hand and said politely, gently, “Absolutely, all lives matter. But if you have two children and one of them is struggling, you don’t say, ‘Both of the children matter.’” Yes, both of the children matter anyway. We are trying to fix an issue. The issue here is supporting the community who needs it, the child who needs more help. That’s why we are focused on Black Lives Matter.

In the same way, intimate partner violence affects all. But for the sake of this conversation, we’ll be talking mostly of those who are affected most: women and girls, who are more prone to intimate partner violence than the rest.

For example, I am from a South Asian background, and studies show that nearly one in five women, about 20%, experience intimate partner violence each year, but a lot of them do not report. It is shameful, but the truth is truth, whether it is because of cultural stigma, family honour—I don’t know; maybe it’s fake honour—financial needs, worrying about their children.

I did talk to Malton Women Council, and I was amazed to see the work they’re doing. Some of the feedback they gave me was touching, which I’ll be sharing soon.

Sometimes it is an immigration issue. One of the partners is a resident; the other has applied and is worried about what will happen to them—I don’t know.

Language barrier—“Will I be able to represent? Should I keep on carrying this? Should I suffer, or suffer in a different way?”

Madam Speaker, under-reporting does not mean the issue is small; it means the suffering is silent.

Thank you to the members on both sides. Thank you for standing up and talking for those who cannot speak.

Again, going back to the path: When we speak about intimate partner violence, it is important that we choose our words carefully.

I want to share one more thing. When I was thinking that I had to speak on this, I felt for some time as if I am looking in the mirror. Some of the things which we have seen for generations—just because it was being done through generations doesn’t mean it was done right or it was the right thing to do.

I’ll give you an example. When I got married, being from a South Asian background, following the Sanatana Dharma, some of the things which our families have—because they were all joint families. When a woman gets married, all of a sudden she has a lot more responsibility towards the family, towards the religion, towards the honour. I’ll give you some examples.

My wife, Aruna, and I met in university, and subsequently we got married. So we knew each other. We used to be together in university a lot of times. But the moment we got married, the elders in our family told her, “In our family, we don’t call the husband by name.” Seriously? I was 21. She was a teenager back then.

And this is not an excuse. I do remember the member from Bay of Quinte once said, all these things—when we say, “He was drunk” or “He was impulsive,” these are only excuses. What I’m talking about is an excuse as well, and I’m ashamed of that.

Things like, women have to keep—to cover her head. All of a sudden, somebody is in university, she gets married, comes home, and now she has to cover her head in front of the elders. Yes, definitely, elders need respect, and we need to respect them. But respect comes from the heart, not covering the head.

These are some of the things which have been going on for generations. If you ask somebody older, they’ll give you 10 reasons why it was done and why it was the right way to do it, but the reality is, they’re trying to justify what was done and what was wrong. Thankfully, these conversations—what we’re doing today—are the reasons, over the generations, we have changed.

Madam Speaker, if you really look at a small example—for example, with women’s rights. The voting rights for women were received in 1917, not before that. The first woman MPP to get elected for Ontario—was 1943. Eighty years later, we got the first woman Speaker. But I look at it as progress. Do I feel ashamed? Absolutely, I do feel ashamed.

Thanks to the conversations, thanks to Jess Dixon, thanks to the members on both sides—not just this side; both sides. Thank you for these conversations. Thank you for working to make sure—no matter how bitter the past is, let’s have a conversation. Sometimes these conversations are not good conversations; they are difficult conversations, hard conversations. But we’ve got to do it.

Talking about the path—whether taking the Gardiner or taking the 401—the goal is the same.

Some of the members see it as an epidemic—something that suddenly appears, spreads quickly, and demands an urgent response, to be cleaned out right away. Cleaned out right away? Absolutely, no question. A need to clean? Absolutely. But intimate partner violence did not arrive overnight, and it will not disappear with a single vote or a single program.

That is why, on this side, we believe it is endemic. It is rooted in long-standing social norms, generational attitudes, economic pressures, and deeply embedded patterns of behaviour that have existed in every region, every culture, every ethnicity, at every income level.

Madam Speaker, when a problem is endemic, it means it is persistent, recurring and woven into the everyday lives of people, starting from the beginning—a child. That means our solutions cannot be temporary. They must be built around prevention, education, and long-term cultural change.

Viewing intimate partner violence as endemic also changes the way we see survivors. Instead of asking, “Why didn’t she report?” or “Why didn’t she leave?” we must ask, “What conditions made it so hard for her to seek safety?” The truth is that people do not stay silent out of choice; they’re silent, many times, out of fear—stigma, financial barriers, cultural pressures—or the worry that no one will believe them.

One of the mothers had two children—and by the way, when we say she had to leave the house and go to a shelter—a shelter is not a five-star hotel; it is a room with about 15, 20 beds stuck to each other. One of them is in Malton. I thank SacredHand for doing what they’re doing to support those who have no other way—they are there with a roof. She had two children—other women were also going through pain—and, children being children, they were walking around, they were running around, they were making noise because they were not in school. The other women were getting affected.

So this woman—politely, cursing herself; cursing, probably, God also—would take those children to the park, to the library, and come back in the evening when they were tired. But that’s not life. She was probably debating: “Did I make a good choice by leaving the abusive environment to go to another troublesome environment, or should I have stayed in the abusive environment, where at least my kids had a roof? They were used to being in their home, in their own room. They were doing what they love to do. And we’re wandering around now.”

Recognizing this as endemic does not lessen its urgency; it actually sharpens it. It reminds us that we need consistent, steady action—not one moment of attention, but a sustained commitment to building a culture where violence cannot take hold.

We talked about the South Asian—where it is under-represented and much lower.

A great example was my dad, actually. He was such a great husband. Yes, they had disagreements, but that’s not fights. I wish the whole world was like him and my mom. Ever since my dad passed away, we’ve seen a deterioration in my mom’s health. She has everything that she needs. The only thing she doesn’t have is the shoulder of my dad. A great example—I wish I could live even 10% of that.

Madam Speaker, I talked about how prevention is better than cure. Once violence occurs, the harm is deep, emotionally, physically and economically. But when we focus on prevention, when we strengthen families and communities before harm begins, we protect lives long before anyone reaches a crisis point.

I always talk about, when somebody is dying of cancer because of their smoking, I wish somebody was there to tell that—rather than quit smoking, don’t start smoking—prevention.

That is why experts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are urging us to take a multi-level prevention approach, rather than relying on a single tool or reaction.

It begins with teaching safe, healthy relationship skills in schools, so young people learn communication, empathy and conflict resolution early in life, to give them great examples. Teach them at 16 so they don’t have to worry at 26.

Prevention also means engaging the adults who shape culture: parents, mentors, teachers, employers—men and boys, absolutely.

When influential voices challenge harmful norms, entire communities shift.

It means creating supportive environments: safer schools, workplaces with zero-tolerance policies, and neighbourhoods where people feel connected rather than isolated. And it means strengthening economic supports for families, because financial stress is the most consistent risk factor for intimate partner violence.

It’s so difficult to even think about these words: “intimate partner”—a partner with you; you shared your skin, shared your dreams, shared your life, shared your soul—and then comes the word “violence.” There was a point in time, probably, when you met your girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever it is for the first time, and then you proposed—you probably wouldn’t have proposed what you said after the journey was over. Where is that point in time when we moved from this to this? I wish we could stop it there, take it back, fix it and work it backward, to go where it was on the day one, not on the day end.

Addressing root causes, strengthening relationships, building communities where violence has no fertile ground to grow—and our government is standing.

Through programs like Ontario-STANDS, we are supporting shelters, crisis lines, violence prevention programs, and community organizations working directly with the survivors.

These actions matter. They save lives. But we must be clear: They’re not the finish line, and we need to continue to work.

That’s why it is important to know this: that this motion is saying it is an endemic, and we need to continue to work on it.

To conclude: Intimate partner violence is not a reality that any of us can accept as normal. It is not a private matter. It is not a hidden issue. It is not one person’s responsibility; it’s everybody’s responsibility. It’s a human crisis that calls every one of us to act.

I’m thankful to members from both sides for coming together, working together so that no one—and I mean it, no one—should have to face this, so that we can live together in harmony and prosperity.

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Today I’m going to address the House with regard to government order number 8, which was previously put.

I want to take an opportunity, first of all, to recognize the extensive work done by all members of this House through the committee process, which was led by the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler. She has done, I think, an outstanding job with regard to this issue.

Not only has she been a participant at the committee meetings, which have, in this particular instance, been extensive—meeting in several different communities across Ontario, and also hearing from many, many people—but in addition to that, the member herself has undertaken to write an extensive report, of approximately a thousand pages, which would, in any instance, be an accomplishment that any member of this Legislature could be quite proud of.

But in this particular instance, to have written such an extensive report and such a detailed report is quite an accomplishment, and I want to recognize the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for that accomplishment and for all the remarkable work that she has done. I can tell you that I have taken the opportunity to read a portion of the report. I certainly have not read the entire report, as it is, as I said, quite extensive—1,000 pages long—but I read the part that was dealing particularly with the

definitions that we were wrestling with, and I found that particular part of the report to be quite informative. I want to recognize the member for that effort.

I also want to recognize the other members of the Legislature who have taken

part in the committee process, because I recognize that they did a lot of work, and I think they should be recognized for that as well.

On the substance of what is before us today, I think that it’s worth talking about the aspects of what occurs.

What we have learned through the experts and also through the testimony of victims and people who have gone through these experiences is that this type of violence tends to be intergenerational. Once it occurs, it tends to occur again, not only from one generation, but to the next as well. I suppose that a lot of people much more educated than myself and much more expert than myself will be able to give explanations for why that happens or how that happens, and that’s part of the work of the committee and part of the work of experts. But I did want to make that observation.

That is part of the cycle we’re trying to break. Whether we will succeed is up to the work that we do and up to the commitments that we make on a governmental level and on a community level and on a personal level. I don’t think anybody in this chamber thinks that there is one magic bullet that’s going to solve this, and I don’t think anybody in this chamber thinks that there is one program or one approach that’s going to solve this in an overnight fashion. I think we can all agree on that.

It’s going to take an approach which involves not only government agencies but also community groups and also personal commitments at a personal level. That’s the type of thing that’s going to help break this cycle. It’s a cycle that needs to be broken, and we need to all work together to make it happen. So there is more work to do, and there is more work to do for all of us.

The second observation that I want to make is about the complexity of the problem. Where does this come from? What causes it? It’s probably more than one cause. Other members of this Legislature have observed that sometimes the causes, as complex and numerous as they might be, reach a breaking point, and then the violence occurs. We all sometimes concentrate on the breaking point, but there are underlying causes that lead to the breaking point. That’s the cycle that we’re trying to break. So I thought it was worth making an observation about the complexity of the issue.

I also want to make a third observation, and the third observation is that we talk about gender-based violence, but of course, it also has to do with who is involved in the situation at the time—and how do we break that cycle? What approach do we take? The multiple number of approaches that have been taken and are being undertaken as we speak would address not only women in certain circumstances, but also men. I think that with regard to men in particular, there is an educational component here.

I’ll not pretend to be an expert in this area, but I’ll leave it to the experts to explain and to hone on what that educational component is. While I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist by any means—there is probably a psychological factor as well, not only when it comes to men, but also when it comes to women. But I am speaking about men right now. There’s probably a psychological factor to be dealt with as well. So when we come up with these strategies, we come up with strategies that address men and women.

That is the third observation I wanted to make: that the strategies that are aimed at men might actually differ to the strategies that are provided for women.

One of the strategies that we can talk about is Ontario-STANDS. It’s an acronym for a long program: Standing Together Against gender-based violence Now through Decisive actions, prevention, empowerment and Supports. That’s where the acronym comes from. That is a government program—I shouldn’t call it a program; it’s actually more like an approach—which this government has instituted in order to take steps to address these issues in our society and in our communities. The Ontario-STANDS program can be considered to be an action plan, and it has several different aspects to it.

One is to make a more connected system where child protection workers, police, judges, social workers, educators and health care professionals collaborate—and that’s not always the case, because, as we all know as elected officials, sometimes regardless of what is being delivered from the government, it tends to result in creating agencies that work perhaps well in and of themselves, but not so well with others.

Sometimes it’s difficult for agencies to work with each other, and sometimes it doesn’t necessarily occur to them right off the bat that they should be reaching out to other government agencies or co-operating with other government-funded organizations which deliver programs or actually enforce the laws.

I’ll take an opportunity to make a few observations here.

With regard to the enforcement of law, some people might wonder, “Well, how does this happen? How do these things occur?”

I thought it might be worth giving a brief explanation about how someone might go about getting a restraining order. That can happen in several ways, so I’ll try to explain the ways that I am aware of.

First of all, if somebody is seeking an order in an instance where the police have not yet been involved, there is a way to do that. What generally occurs is that the person would make an appointment in front of a justice of the peace, perhaps—it might be another official appointed by the government—and then the person would swear a statement. That’s called an affidavit. That would be a sworn statement, and it would contain information that that person has in their personal possession, or it might also contain information which has been received by another source.

That person would identify the source and state that they believed that source of information. For example, somebody might say, “I am informed by person X, and I believe that”—and then they would say what they had to say. They might also say, “I personally witnessed person Y do this. I personally heard person Y say this,” and they might also put that in the affidavit. Then that affidavit would be signed at the bottom by the person who is providing this information.

Then it would be—what we say is “commissioned”—by somebody in front of whom they would swear it was true to the best of their information, knowledge and belief. Then that information might be put in front of a courtroom, might be put in front of a justice of the peace, who would then review that information and decide whether or not action would be taken. That order might be given on that day, after the justice of the peace or a judge reviewed that information. That justice of the peace might then issue an order, with or without the knowledge of the person against whom the order is issued.

Let us assume, in this particular instance, that the order was issued against the person without their knowledge. They would then be provided with an opportunity to challenge that order at a later date. This, of course, puts all of the onus on the victim—or the alleged victim, but I’ll just use the word “victim.” This puts all of the onus on the victim to protect themselves. This can be a tricky situation, because the person who is seeking protection might already be at the point where they need assistance from other people to get out of the situation that they are in.

Placing a burden on them to do even more, to seek a court order, is just one more thing that they have to do. It might be something that they have to do to protect themselves, and that’s important to do, but they need to be provided with the strength and support to do that. That’s why many court offices have victim support services. Victim support services are there to assist people in getting through a process like this one.

It’s paper-intensive, it’s rules-and-regulations-intensive, and that can help in some situations and not in others—because, as we said, this situation that we’re talking about today is complex.

One would assume that rules and regulations ought not to be needed in order to control this kind of behaviour, but we have those in place. But sometimes paper and rules and regulations don’t have the effect that we want them to have. That’s why we need enforcement.

That leads me to my next comments. What happens after the law enforcement officials become involved? What happens when police become involved?

You’ll often hear police officers say that they don’t like to receive calls involving intimate partner violence. They don’t like to respond to these calls because of their complexity. Sometimes police officers aren’t necessarily trained in the tools you need to deal with these situations. Police officers receive all sorts of extensive training. They receive extensive training in the use of firearms. They receive extensive training in physically controlling situations. They receive training in how to take command of situations.

They probably receive less training in how to deal with interpersonal relationships between people who have a deteriorating relationship which has deteriorated to the point where violence has occurred. Certainly, in my discussions with police officers, this is the case. They tell me that these are complex situations.

Police officers want to prevent the violence and want to prevent the harm that’s occurring, but they don’t necessarily have the tools needed to do that, because the situations are complex, because they are intergenerational, because they are deeply rooted in issues that fall outside of law enforcement and really have to do with interpersonal issues and complex issues aside from that.

So, we have the situation where police become involved, and they will take the accused perpetrator into custody. They might release the accused perpetrator under certain circumstances. There is something called recognizance—a recognizance is something that the police officer might show to the person who has been arrested, and the person might be released upon their own recognizance. That means that the person reviews a document that’s put in front of them. The document might contain certain requirements.

Those requirements might be things like not to come within 100 metres of a certain location, not to come within 100 metres of a certain person, not to communicate with a certain person, not to communicate with them directly or indirectly. It might contain conditions to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. It might contain conditions not to be in the possession of a firearm. It might contain various other conditions as well. And it’s quite possible that a person might be released upon their personal recognizance, which just is a fancy way of saying a promise or an undertaking.

In more serious situations, where arresting officers don’t feel comfortable doing that, they might actually bring the accused person in front of a justice of the peace. The situation will be reviewed by a justice of the peace, and then a justice of the peace will decide whether or not the person gets released upon a personal recognizance or conditions of bail, which we will often refer to as bail.

And then we come to a point where somebody might actually be required to have a surety. A surety is a person who assures that the accused person will report for their court date. That’s why the person is called a surety. The surety, typically, is a relative or a close friend who knows the accused person on a close basis. The surety is a person who presumably can exercise authority or can exercise influence over the accused person and assure that the person will actually appear for their next court date, their subsequent court dates.

A surety might require the posting—or not—of a bond, might also require the posting of a financial guarantee. It’s not common in the province of Ontario or in the court system of Canada to require financial posting. It is more common that the financial portion of that is without posting or without payment to be collected afterwards—and we can have a long discussion, I think, about whether that’s effective or not. But it really comes down to this: the surety being the person who is going to exercise authority or influence over the accused person to come to court.

Sometimes that surety has been a parent; it could be a friend. In cases I have seen myself, the surety has been the person’s sponsor through a recovery program. And there are other circumstances as well.

The reason I’ve talked about this is because we have, again, this complex problem in front of us and we’re trying to find solutions, and we have this complex, lengthy and expensive solution that is the court system and the law enforcement system. And that is an absolutely necessary portion of enforcement and dealing with this issue. It is absolutely necessary. It must be done. It has to be in place, and it has to be enforced. But if we could find better ways of getting at this intergenerational problem, which is rooted in various causes—a better way than law enforcement or court systems.

That, of course, is the preferable way. And that, I think, is part of the Ontario-STANDS program. The Ontario-STANDS action plan tries to find better ways of dealing with this issue, these intergenerational issues sometimes. I think that’s a good thing.

We all need to mobilize our communities. We all need to mobilize our social groups. And we should be mobilizing government resources to eliminate this as far as possible—this endemic problem.

I’m glad to see, once again, that the committee has wrestled with this very extensively.

Again, I want to praise the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for the remarkable work that she has done.

Finally, Madam Speaker, with that, I move that the question now be put.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Mr. Leardi has moved that the question be now put.

There have been approximatively 8.5 hours of debate. I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

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

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will now be deferred to the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Orders of the day?

Hon. Steve Clark: No further business.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): There being no further business, we will be recessed until 10:15.

The House recessed from 1005 to 1015.

Members’ Statements

Holiday events in Hastings–Lennox and Addington

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Ric Bresee: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s great to see you today.

I don’t come here and stand in Ontario’s House very often to brag, but today I’m bragging.

Some of my colleagues in this House have one Christmas parade in their home ridings; one festival of trees, one lighting ceremony, one holiday market.

But I have to brag today because in Hastings–Lennox and Addington, we have 15 different Santa Claus parades and dozens more holiday events happening between now and Christmas. From the Brighten the Night Christmas Parade in Maynooth to Napanee’s holiday market, to the Tweed Festival of Trees, to the ATV parade in Tyendinaga, every corner of our riding is glowing with community spirit. Unfortunately, I can’t attend every single one. I will try my best; I’ll be very busy from now until the holidays.

But let me be clear, I’m not bragging for me; I’m bragging on behalf of the incredible organizers, volunteers, service clubs and community groups that make Hastings–Lennox and Addington such an amazing place to live. These are our neighbours who pour in countless hours to bring a little more light, laughter and connection to the communities.

So to all of my colleagues in the House: If one Santa Claus parade is not enough for you, you’re always welcome to come join me in Hastings–Lennox and Addington. We have plenty more parades to go around.

Domestic violence

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I rise to speak about an epidemic that is claiming lives, shattering families, and devastating communities across Ontario: intimate partner violence.

IPV is not a private issue; it’s a public health crisis. It’s a health issue, a justice issue, a moral issue. And it’s happening in every community across Ontario.

Twenty-six-year-old Ravina Maghera was killed by her partner just days ago in Windsor. My community is reeling from another femicide. We offer our condolences to everyone who knew and loved Ravina.

Since the pandemic, rates of domestic violence have surged. Shelters are full, and support workers are exhausted. Survivors are being told there’s nowhere to go. The violence is escalating, and in many cases, it turns fatal. Women are dying, and children are exposed to trauma that will shape their lives forever. We must stop the cycle.

Last year, I brought forward the Intimate Partner Violence Epidemic Act, inspired by the number one ask of the Renfrew county inquest into the murders of three women. Over 150 organizations, numerous police services, and 106 municipalities have echoed that call—including my own. Two provinces have made the declaration, yet our provincial government refuses.

Naming intimate partner violence an epidemic is not simply symbolic; it’s a declaration that we will no longer turn away. It’s the first step towards coordinated, fully funded action that saves lives.

I’ll keep raising the voices of survivors and victims’ families in this Legislature until our government recognizes intimate partner violence for what it is, an epidemic, and they take urgent action to stop the violence.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): And not that we have had anyone abuse the time, but just a reminder: It is 90 seconds on the clock. I will stop you after 90 seconds.

Housing

Mr. Ted Hsu: For the last four months, Kingston has been number one in Canada, but not for something to be proud of. According to rentals.ca, Kingston has led cities in Canada in year-on-year average rent increases for one-bedroom apartments. Meanwhile, year-on-year rents across Canada have declined for 13 straight months.

Kingston was in a big hole in 2018, with one of the lowest rental vacancy rates in the country. We’ve been beating our provincial home-building targets in the last couple of years, but we’ve got a long way to go for housing affordability.

It’s no surprise that studentification—expansion of a homogeneous student-housing area around post-secondary institutions like Queen’s—has been pushing families out, directly contributing to urban sprawl.

Last week, the Ontario government announced $83 million in funding to build 1,400 new student beds in a high-rise—high-density, on-campus housing for Toronto Metropolitan University. Let’s do the same for Kingston.

I call on the government of Ontario, the city of Kingston, Queen’s University, and the Sydenham district neighbourhood association to be bold, to work together and build high-density, on-campus housing. Kingston needs this. Planners support it. The neighbourhood association supports it. Let’s be bold, because housing touches everything. Housing that’s affordable opens so many doors to solving social problems and fostering economic growth.

Let’s build the future Kingston deserves.

Hindu Heritage Month

Mr. Deepak Anand: Madam Speaker, November is Hindu Heritage Month, a time to reflect on the rich spiritual, cultural and philosophical traditions of over one million Canadian Hindus. Guided by the values of “ahimsa,” non-violence; “seva,” selfless service; and the timeless ideal of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,” “the world is one family,” it is a way of life rooted in harmony, duty, compassion and respect for all living beings.

Hindu Canadians have made significant contributions in all sectors. Their achievements reflect the opportunities Canada provides to everyone.

Founded on Vijayadashami in 2021, based in Ontario with chapters across Canada, and aligned with the shared values of our province, the Canadian Hindu Chamber of Commerce is promoting ethical prosperity, community collaboration, and inclusive economic growth. Grounded in the timeless values of “dharma,” righteousness; “seva,” service; and “samriddhi,” prosperity, the chamber upholds the principles of hard work, integrity, and service deeply rooted in “Sanatan Dharm.” Keep up the good work.

My heartfelt gratitude goes to all Canadians for their big-hearted embrace of every ethnicity, religion and culture. Canada’s spirit of openness allows every community to thrive, contribute and celebrate their heritage with pride.

Happy Hindu Heritage Month. Hari om—which means “May God remove suffering and connect us to universal consciousness.”

Medical isotopes

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’m glad to rise today to highlight a recent anniversary that all members should be made aware of.

On October 27, the Canadian Nuclear Isotope Council joined health care and isotope leaders from across the country in celebrating the 74th anniversary of the world’s first-ever cancer treatment using cobalt-60, a critical Ontario-produced isotope. This historic first treatment took place in London, Ontario, back in 1951, at the Victoria Hospital, which is now part of the London Health Sciences Centre. In the decades since 1951, over 35 million cancer patients worldwide have benefited from cobalt-60 therapy, with each treatment clearly linked back to this first in London.

Since then, Canada has remained at the forefront of isotope innovation. Today, Canadian-produced isotopes are used around the world to diagnose and treat cancer, sterilize single-use medical devices, and support dozens of other industries.

London, the heart of southwestern Ontario, remains a hub for innovation. From administering the first publicly funded dose of Pluvicto in Canada to leading life-changing cancer research, the critical work of leaders in London continues to change lives across the province.

I want to thank all of the unsung heroes in research—the scientists, physicians, academics, administration and teams who lead in the development of these life-saving and life-changing developments.

This historic anniversary is a powerful reminder of London’s enduring legacy in medical innovation, and a milestone that all Londoners and Canadians can take great pride in.

Craft breweries

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Many of you will know Bay of Quinte as one of the top wine regions in the country, but did you know we also have some of the best craft breweries in the nation as well? We are very proud of our incredible breweries, like Meyers Creek Brewing, Midtown, All My Friends, Matron, Slake, Prince Eddy’s, and Parsons Brewing Co.

Ontario’s craft breweries are a significant economic and cultural driver across the province, especially in rural and northern communities. Today, these small businesses and job creators employ 4,600 people full-time and contribute more than $685 million annually to Ontario’s GDP. Despite representing just 11% of beer volume sold in the province, craft brewers are responsible for 80% of brewing jobs and are often the largest employers in their region. Located in every region of the province—90% of Ontarians have a craft brewery in their community.

According to data from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for every dollar spent at a locally owned small business like a craft brewery, 66 cents stays in the local community, compared to only 11 cents of every dollar when consumers buy large, multinational brands. And from my independent testing, it tastes better too.

With that, I would like to welcome all the members of the Ontario Craft Brewers association—Scott Simmons, Jeff Dornan, Josh McJannett, Matt Johnston, Mandie Murphy, Matt Giffen, Natasha Fritzley, Peter Bulut, Jason Fisher, and Craig Prentice. Thank you for the great work you’re doing across our province. Cheers.

Government policies

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Speaker, on Friday, the Premier’s jobs disaster deepened. More than 2,600 skilled trades workers—and the Ontario employers who depend on them—had their Ontario immigration nomination program applications returned after months/years of waiting. This is not just a policy failure; this is a moral one. These are human beings. Ontario invited them and said we needed their skills. They followed every rule, paid fees and taxes, built families and futures here based on the promise that their applications would be fairly processed. Lives were built on Ontario’s word, and that trust has been broken.

One worker told me that his mother sold her jewellery so he could come here. Another supports two aging parents. And a third said, “Last year, Premier came to my factory. Told us Ontario needed us. Now I have a form letter in my hand. He has played with my future.”

It is rich that the Minister of Labour cast sweeping accusations of misrepresentation. While these workers were building Ontario, he was sipping champagne in Paris. Leadership means taking responsibility, not shifting the blame onto vulnerable workers.

This is not a process of integrity. This is an injustice.

Ontario cannot claim to value skilled trades while they are treating people who build this province as disposable.

The minister must act: Reinstate the legitimate applications, restore transparency and fairness. The people who came here believe—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Members’ statements?

Ruth Vogel

Hon. Steve Clark: I rise to recognize a true champion of our farm communities in eastern Ontario. For 22 years, Ruth Vogel served as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s member service representative for zone 11, which covers Frontenac, Dundas, and Leeds and Grenville counties. It was more than just a job for Ruth. Supporting agriculture and farm families is her passion. She was incredibly dedicated, working behind the scenes and around the clock, organizing meetings, farm tours and special events. These activities raised the profile of agriculture and rural life for elected officials, students and the public.

She helped people make a connection between the farm and their plate, giving us an appreciation of why agriculture matters to all of us. The role was perfect for Ruth, who grew up on a dairy farm, where she lives today, growing corn, soybeans and hay.

She knows first-hand that the farm can be a lonely, exhausting and stressful place. That’s why mental and physical wellness were often part of her outreach and displays at events. She truly cares about people.

Sadly, Ruth recently lost her mother, Magdalena, for whom she was a devoted caregiver. On behalf of eastern Ontario’s agricultural communities and families, I want to extend my condolences, along with our deep gratitude to Ruth for her decades of service to the region’s farmers.

Thank you for everything you’ve done.

Autism treatment

Mr. John Jordan: The Ontario government is investing more than $37 million over the next two years in 100 public and private autism service providers across the province to help more children and families access clinical services in the Ontario Autism Program.

I was very happy to see that this investment included funding for ConnectWell Community Health, serving families in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. ConnectWell Community Health received a two-year grant totalling $400,000.

Leslie Greene, director of developmental services, said, “ConnectWell Community Health is thrilled to be a recipient of the workforce capacity fund for 2025-27. There is a significant need in our community for Ontario Autism Program core clinical services. These funds will assist families in navigating and accessing local services to support their child’s development.”

Funding for local service providers through the workforce capacity fund is part of the province’s total investment in the Ontario Autism Program. Since 2019, Ontario has more than doubled the program’s annual budget, bringing it to a total of $779 million with the addition of a $175-million investment through budget 2025. This new investment will continue to support enrolment of children and youth in core clinical services.

Investments in our riding and throughout Ontario will help autism service providers build and retain stable, skilled teams that will allow more families to access the services they need close to home.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Before we move on to introduction of visitors, I just want—I know we have a lot of people visiting us today. If your member is unable to introduce you, it’s not their fault; it’s my fault. I’m a stickler for time. But we all appreciate that you joined us here in the gallery.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce Stephanie Nevins to Queen’s Park. Stephanie is the executive director of one of the best two nurse practitioner-led clinics in Ingersoll, Ontario.

MPP Wayne Gates: I’d like to recognize four guys who have come in from Fort Erie today: Elliott Jones, Blake Hudak, Cooper Ebert, and my good friend Keith Sutherland. They’re up in the corner, all dressed up for Queen’s Park. There you go.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, guys.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: I want to recognize two individuals from the insurance brokers of Ontario. They also live in my riding of Brampton East. They are Saqib Mehmood—and also, the former minister of sport for Canada, Bal Gosal, is here with us today.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

I apologize; I didn’t realize we have a former member in our gallery: Eleanor McMahon from Burlington, who served in the 43rd Parliament—and Phil Gillies, the member who served for Brantford, 32nd and 33rd Parliaments. Welcome back.

Start the clock.

I recognize the member for Carleton.

MPP George Darouze: It’s a great pleasure to welcome an outstanding delegation to the gallery today from the city of Ottawa.

We’re joined this morning by Mayor Mark Sutcliffe and John Light from his office; the CEO of the Ottawa Board of Trade, Sueling Ching; as well as representatives from the Ottawa Board of Trade, Invest Ottawa, Ottawa Tourism, Ottawa Airport Authority, the Downtown BIA, Kanata North Business Association, BOMA Ottawa, and other stakeholders. All 30 of them are right here in our gallery.

I’d also like to especially highlight Carleton residents Scott Phelan, Sonya Shorey, and Michael Abbott.

It’s an honour to have you here.

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I welcome the brokers from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario to Queen’s Park and invite all members and staff to join their reception this evening. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to welcome Gabriel Wahl and Angie Chan to Queen’s Park. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: I want to welcome to Queen’s Park this morning my great friend and the mayor of Pickering—Kevin Ashe is here along with his wife, Karen O’Brien.

Also from Durham region, my first cousin and great friend Kevin Cahill and his wife, Kim Cahill, are here today. Welcome.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Joining us today are the 101st Scouts, who meet at St. Olave’s church in Parkdale–High Park. They’re behind me in the gallery. They’ve come to learn more about the government and our jobs.

Scouts, your curiosity is fundamental to good citizenship. Keep asking us good questions.

Welcome to your House.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: It is my pleasure to welcome one of my constituents, Mike Fisher, who also represents a group called Friends of Ojibway back home in Windsor. Welcome to the Legislature, Mike.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I would like to welcome marvellous Mandie Murphy from Left Field Brewery and terrific Troy Burtch from Great Lakes Brewery. They’re here with the Ontario Craft Brewers—good Ontario jobs, good Ontario libation. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Adil Shamji: This morning, I had a chance to meet with the brilliant youth from the 101st Scout troop. I want to welcome them today and thank them for their curiosity and for their intellect. Welcome.

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome, from Huron–Bruce, Natasha Fritzley from Cowbell Brewing and Aaron Armstrong from Teeswater Concrete.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome Marlene Morrison Nicholls of Sentinel insurance, here with the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. Welcome to the House.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to introduce Jess Rogers from the Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario, as well as Susan Somogyi and Chris Brillinger from family services. I’d like to introduce Jennifer Holmes Weier as well as Andrew Chung from Addictions and Mental Health Ontario, as well as Jennifer Smith, who is with the Indigenous Primary Health Care Council, and André Veilleux de l’Équipe de santé familiale académique de Montfort.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I also would like to welcome the members who are here today with the alliance of community organizations for important discussions about health care.

Hon. Steve Clark: I have two representatives here with the IBAO—two Brians: Brian Erwin, IBAO’s eastern Ontario director, and Brian Purcell, co-owner of James Purcell Insurance Broker in Spencerville.

Hon. Michael Parsa: I’d like to welcome Adelina Fazelipour to Queen’s Park. It’s also her birthday. She’s visiting from school today.

Adelina, happy birthday, and welcome to Parliament.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: My first question is for the Premier.

Last week, we found out that one of the Minister of Labour’s hand-picked recipients of Skills Development Fund grants, Keel Digital Solutions, is now being audited for the funds that they received from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. It has actually been handed over to the OPP. This is the same company that was hand-picked by the Minister of Labour to receive more government funding after that audit had already begun.

Premier, what kind of due diligence did the Minister of Labour do before handing millions over to this company?

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

Hon. David Piccini: I thank the member opposite for the question.

In fact, one of the measures that I implemented, when I became minister, for continuous improvement with this program was an across-government risk assessment process through the Skills Development Fund. As the member mentioned, we didn’t have the results of that audit until after the Skills Development Fund rounds four and five. But what this is about is making sure we’re supporting training of the next generation.

Just this morning, in fact, I was on a Bridgecon site of a bridge on Rosedale Valley Road, and I met a recipient of the Skills Development Fund, Lewis, through Oaks Revitalization—incredible work that the Oaks staff are doing to help folks get a second chance who have been justice-affected or justice-involved. This is the impact that these programs are having.

To support government priorities that I’ve already mentioned, we as a government have a moral imperative to fund to make sure we’re supporting our $200-billion infrastructure spend.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier: But that Minister of Labour, after the audit started, still gave money to Keel Digital Solutions.

I want to remind the Premier that Keel Digital Solutions scored 59 out of 100. It was a low-scoring application, and the Minister of Labour was out there bragging about how he hand-picked them to receive Skills Development Fund grants—bragging in the media. Then he was off to Paris for their lobbyist’s wedding. And the next thing you know, he was at the Leafs game, sitting rinkside with that company’s executives. Now that same company is being investigated by the OPP anti-rackets branch.

I want to ask the Premier again: After everything we know, Premier, isn’t it time to fire this minister?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, that’s incorrect. Actually, I was on there talking about a Mississauga investment in firefighters, our first responders.

In a rapidly changing economy, when tariff threats are south of the border, when tech and AI is disrupting our workforces, it’s important that we have a fund to invest in training to support workers. And that’s what we’re doing.

It’s not surprising that the members opposite don’t support the 18,000 workers we’re going to need to support small modular reactors. Or how about refurbishment and new nuclear projects? Of course, they want to shut those plants down.

We’re going to make investments in critical infrastructure to support our $200-billion plan. When I sit around the cabinet table, I’ve got to make sure we’re supporting programs that are helping the next generation actually fulfill those projects we said we’re going to build: hospitals, roads, highways and bridges—the same highways they oppose. We’re going to invest in the projects and the training pipelines to make sure we have a workforce.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier—but that minister couldn’t dance any faster, boy, let me tell you.

A scathing Auditor General’s report, an OPP anti-racketeering investigation under way—and a minister who is caught in the middle of it all.

The Premier’s own chief of staff had to send out a notice to political staff this weekend to keep things quiet on Keel Digital Solutions.

Clearly, there is something bigger going on here. And yet, the Premier continues to stand by his man.

I want to know, again, from the Premier, when he’s finally going to address the dark cloud that is hanging over this government and fire this minister.

Hon. David Piccini: Let’s look at some of the lower-scoring projects they’re highlighting. Operating engineers, carpenters—it’s not surprising that they don’t support these projects, given that they’re against every investment that puts these men and women to work. It’s Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass—whether it’s our transit investments that they voted against.

I think to Chris from Sudbury, who we spoke with, who has gone through that very carpenters’ program—it gave him Red Seal certification; he’s a Red Seal tradesman now—or Ashleigh, who said, “The opportunity to train on current equipment that is prominent in the industry is extremely beneficial to my apprenticeship.” Of course, they were training on equipment from the Stone Age.

We’ve invested in programming to bring it to the 21st century—for a government that’s actually investing in 21st-century infrastructure—and we’re not going to apologize for doing that.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, my next question is for the Premier too.

But I can say, first of all, it is disgusting the way that that minister is pulling those hard-working people into his excuses to defend what they have done here.

Over the last week, I spent time in Sault Ste. Marie, listening to steelworkers at Algoma—municipal workers in Mississauga, in Peel; auto workers in Oshawa. And let me tell you, people are really scared out there. I’m sure you all heard it from folks in your ridings too over the last week. They are seeing jobs disappearing all around them, while this government continues to use this Skills Development Fund as their friends-and-family special, and I can tell you, everywhere I went, people said, “That’s disgusting.” That’s what they said.

Clients of the Premier’s campaign manager, Kory Teneycke, received $100 million. Coincidence? I think not. And his favourite nightclub owner received $11 million.

Speaker, how many permanent, full-time jobs were created by handing out taxpayer dollars to the Premier’s close and personal friends?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Again, it’s unfortunate that the leader opposite can’t actually name one worker, one program she has spoken to—because she hasn’t visited any of them to talk to them about the impact that this program is having. In fact, I know that her office has reached out to a number of unions that have said, “You’re not welcome on our training site,” because they’re appalled at what she has been saying.

For investments like training the workers for jobs of tomorrow—I’ve spoken about that operating engineer. We made the investments in the programming so she can actually operate brand new equipment that she’s going to see on a job site.

Or the job site I was on this morning, giving folks a second chance—again, Oaks Revitalization, in partnership with LIUNA Local 183.

These are jobs that are supporting people in taking home very real paycheques to support an infrastructure plan that they oppose—an infrastructure plan that’s building highways, roads and bridges that they oppose; that is investing in new nuclear that they oppose.

We have got to get a next generation into these jobs, into the skilled trades, and we’re not going to apologize for making those strategic investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ve been to a lot of training centres, actually, and had lots of tours. The one place I haven’t toured yet is the strip club these guys were funding.

In Sault Ste. Marie, in Oshawa, in Hamilton, people are getting notifications of layoffs, while this Premier is letting companies pack up, and jobs walk right across the border. What they are not seeing is a jobs plan. This government is a jobs disaster. There is so much fear and frustration out there.

This is starting to look, I’ve got to say, a lot like the previous Liberal government’s Jobs and Prosperity Fund scandal. The members opposite—many of them were in opposition in those days, and they called it a slush fund. We remember that.

I want to know from the Premier, when are you going to stop the pay-to-play scheme and actually deliver a jobs plan for Ontarians?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, over 100,000 jobs are supported through this fund. So when I look and assess, as minister, and we see a low-scoring project that has identified training, on the exterior façade, as an issue relative to the scoring, it’s my job as minister to make sure we’re supporting that infrastructure—to assess it, to look at it.

This sort of work is happening on the ground all over Ontario—the operating engineer that I mentioned, the carpenter, the folks I met this morning getting trained at the Bridgecon site.

These are important investments we’re making to support the next generation. In a rapidly changing economy, you’ve got to make those investments to support that training, and that’s what we’re doing. Again, it’s not surprising that they’re against that. They can’t actually point to those projects, because those are with labour unions that have abandoned their party because they abandoned those workers. And why? Because the very projects that put those workers to work, the critical infrastructure, the new nuclear plant, the new highway—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’ve got to say that is not what I’m hearing from working people out there. What I’m hearing is that they feel like they have been thrown under the bus by this government.

All of those important projects that their own members’ dues, by the way, are invested in, those training centres—all of those projects across this province that they have invested in and that they depend on are now under a cloud of suspicion.

One of those projects that went through the colleges and universities minister is being investigated by the OPP. We have the RCMP still investigating this government—a criminal investigation into the greenbelt. We have the science centre. We have Ontario Place. There’s almost nothing you could touch now that isn’t touched by some kind of scandal that this government is caught up in.

I want to know why the Premier will not fire this minister. Is it because he’s the Premier’s favourite bagman?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for the Bay of Quinte.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question.

I’m very happy to stand in this House today and defend our record on job creation because it is one of record job creation. We’ve created over a million new jobs in this province since 2018. We created 87,000 new jobs in the first three months of this year, before the tariffs kicked in. Between June and September, we created 20,000 jobs in manufacturing. In October alone, we created 55,000 jobs, leading this country and surpassing the entire United States by 30%.

If you want to talk about how to fight the tariffs—we put forward $30 billion in tariff supports, including offsetting taxes for businesses and refunding WSIB premiums; a billion more dollars into the Skills Development Fund; $600 million for Invest Ontario; $200 million for shipbuilding; and $500 million for critical mineral processing. What’s your plan? To vote against our plan. Which of those do you think is a more compelling vision for the people of Ontario?

Government accountability

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

I don’t know about your house, but in my house every Sunday is a football day. My wife, Linda, has the TV on all day, and she’s a long-suffering Miami Dolphins fan.

Halfway through Sunday morning, I heard her in the kitchen, and she said, “I can’t take it anymore. They just won’t stop.” And I said, “What?” She said, “Those Protect Ontario ads. They’re not helping anybody. They’re not getting anybody a job.” And I said, “Linda, just wait. Calm down. That’s not true. The Premier is protecting one job—the Minister of Labour.”

Speaker, through you to the Premier: Why is the only job in Ontario the Premier is protecting the Minister of Labour’s job?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, when we’ve got a tariff—a threat from the States that is having a very real impact on workers of this province, we’re investing in critical projects. We’ve created the climate, as you heard, to lower taxes—something they refused and were incapable of doing when they had the chance to run this province. They raised taxes. They drove those manufacturing jobs out of communities like mine—out of all of our communities. We’re bringing those back, and it’s not without its challenges.

Economic headwinds come our way, and how do you respond? You have a Premier standing up for workers of this province. We’re rolling our sleeves up with labour organizations to support training of workers, to protect those jobs. We’re sourcing through a made-in-Ontario procurement strategy that actually builds things in this province again; stockpiled medical supplies from China that that previous government supported.

This is about a government that’s investing in training, that’s supporting lowering taxes, investing in workers, and making sure we have a plan for critical minerals.

Not surprising, his wife was against it—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I think my wife was against the ads, but we can have a discussion about that later.

The thing that Ontarians really need protection from is this Minister of Labour shovelling $2.5 billion out the door to friends and insiders and lobbyists.

I want to get this straight: The file that the minister is in conflict on—the one that his friend was lobbying for—Keel Digital Solutions was the subject of an audit and in a forensic audit, and then the minister intervened and signed off on it. That’s shocking. If the minister worked for any above-board organization in this province, in this country, he would lose his job. He would be fired.

So my question is, why is the Premier of Ontario protecting the Minister of Labour?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as I said, when we’re investing in projects that support the building of this province, again, what do we look at, when we’re on this side of the House? Are we going to support projects that are advancing our build agenda, to build the critical infrastructure we need, to support and protect and defend first responders of this province, to invest in training with labour partners that I mentioned—carpenters, operating engineers?

I was at LIUNA 506 for their shop steward seminar this weekend. We heard from labour leaders—in fact, we had federal counterparts of theirs, federal Liberal members, who were there supporting this Premier’s plan to support labour. Why do those members support this government? Because our projects are putting their members to work. They see a government with a vision—a vision to build new nuclear; a vision to mine the critical minerals in the north that we’re going to need that are having an impact on people like Jennifer, who’ve I’ve referenced before, supported through SDF, working on a mine in the north.

This is a Premier, this is a government, that’s got a plan to build, and it’s not surprising that the men and women who actually build are supporting this plan, because it puts them to work; it helps them collect a better job with a bigger pay—

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

Mr. John Fraser: So, $27 million to bars and nightclubs in downtown Toronto, and $10 million of that to a strip club owner—that’s all I have to say to that answer.

So the question you have to ask yourself is—the job that the Premier is really protecting is his own, when he’s protecting the Minister of Labour.

In this $2.5-billion Skills Development Fund scandal—it feels like the greenbelt, and we know that in the greenbelt, all roads led to the Premier’s office. And the same thing is true here. It’s all the same kind of stuff: grants for bars and nightclubs, strip club owners, endorsers, donors, lobbyists, party insiders. It’s all the usual suspects, the friends of the Premier.

So the question that I have is, did the Premier or his office intervene on behalf of any low-scoring Skills Development Fund applicants? Yes or no?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, no—and there is the member again denigrating hospitality workers.

Let’s look at the event spaces in downtown Toronto—some of the largest event spaces, to support events like the True Patriot Love gala or large events in downtown Toronto. That member is denigrating the only spaces that can support events of that size. These are men and women in front-of-house, back-of-house; former staff members of the previous government, who are working with the hospitality workers’ union on the front lines of supporting men and women in a ravaged sector, through the pandemic, that we’re supporting with better training.

We’re not going to apologize. We have a world-class destination in Toronto. We’ve got to support the event spaces that put on some of the largest events our city sees. We’re supporting the men and women—the front-of-house, the back-of-house, the hospitality workers who are the engine of our tourism economy, and we’re not going to apologize for doing that.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

We know that an investigation was put into Keel with regard to the audit that the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities did and that it was referred to the unit inside your ministry for forensic audit, and that while that was happening, the company got another grant from the minister.

So I guess the question is, who’s on first here? How does it happen that you’re putting out a grant to someone who’s in a forensic audit? A forensic audit is—what you’re saying to that person is, “We don’t trust what you’re telling us.” I guess my question to the minister is, how the heck did that happen?

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

Hon. Nolan Quinn: In 2023, a routine audit raised concerns about an external service provider. We do many routine audits every year. That process identified irregularities that led to a comprehensive forensic audit of the organization in question. The results of this audit, received on November 5, recommended that the matter be referred to the Ontario Provincial Police. Within 24 hours of receiving this report, the referral was made. All payments associated with this provider are currently under review, and further actions will be taking place based on the outcome.

Out of respect for this process, I will not be commenting further on this matter.

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

Mr. John Fraser: You missed the question. The question is, how did you internally allow this to happen? This is the people’s money, right? How can that happen?

If I were the President of the Treasury Board, I wouldn’t want to defend this minister either.

For God’s sake, they gave money to a company called Scooty that does e-scooters.

Interruption.

Mr. John Fraser: Even the baby is upset.

So I guess the question that I have here is, how can the people of Ontario trust that the President of the Treasury Board is protecting their interests when companies under a forensic audit are getting a grant from this government? I would like an answer to that question.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: As I said earlier, within 24 hours of receiving the results of this audit, the matter was referred to the OPP. As I also said, out of respect for the OPP’s process, I will not be commenting any further.

What I would like to comment about is the record investments into post-secondary education. In the last 19 months, we’ve invested almost $2.5 billion into the post-secondary sector—$1.3 billion to stabilize the sector, because your federal counterparts have destabilized post-secondary right across the whole country. On top of that, we’ve invested another billion dollars, in budget 2025, which I will remind you, you voted down. The member opposite voted down on that billion dollars.

Part of that was $750 million of STEM funding, which will fund up to 20,000 new funded seats in STEM programming, on top of the 70,000 grads we produce every year. On top of that, we’re also funding new nursing, new teaching and new construction seats.

We’ll continue being there for the sector, while you’ll continue pointing out everything that we should be working on, and we’ll continue working on that without the help of yourself.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Back to the minister: While you’ve been shovelling $2.5 billion out the door in this skills development scandal, 10,000 workers at colleges have lost their jobs. So I don’t think you should be too proud of what’s going on.

The question here is, how is it that a company under forensic audit—actually, here’s a better question: How is it that all of their grants haven’t been audited and gone to a forensic audit? Can the minister answer that question? Can the President of the Treasury Board answer that question, as to whether there’s a red flag on Keel Digital Solutions and we’re going through everything, all the money that you’ve given them? You’ve given them a lot of money. I think it’s probably close to $40 million. That’s a lot of money. Minister?

Hon. Nolan Quinn: What I will remind the member opposite is that operating funding is the highest it has ever been in Ontario’s history. It’s estimated to be $5.8 billion this year alone, which is a 12% increase from 2023-24 and an 8% increase over last year.

We know that the people of Ontario elected this government because they trust us with the post-secondary sector. They know we will make fiscally responsible decisions. They do not trust the opposite Liberals to be able to do that because, let’s be honest here, the last time the Liberals were in power—tuition went up almost 43% under the Liberals, when they were in power. We have high inflation right now and unaffordability right across all of Canada. We just know that if the Liberals were in power, students would not be able to afford to go to post-secondary education.

We’ll continue being there for the sector time and time again.

Tenant protection

MPP Catherine McKenney: Speaker, in 2018, the Premier stood in front of voters and promised, “I won’t take rent control away from anyone. Period.” He said he would maintain the status quo. But Bill 60 guts tenant protections. It cuts notice periods in half. It fast-tracks evictions. And his own Attorney General admitted that he wants to end month-to-month leases so that corporate landlords can adjust tenancy arrangements based on market conditions.

Speaker, can the Premier show us one single study, one piece of evidence, any data at all that proves that kicking more people out of their homes faster will build a single new unit of housing?

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

Hon. Rob Flack: What the opposition doesn’t want to admit is that rent costs are coming down because we’re creating the conditions to get more rental businesses started.

Speaker, since 2022, we have seen 51,000 new starts. We’ve seen 17,000 starts over last year, up 38%, with supply—and we’re creating the conditions to get that supply. It creates competition, and with competition, rents get lowered. We’re seeing a 40-month low in terms of what rents cost people in this province.

We are strengthening the Landlord and Tenant Board. We’re bringing balance back to the Landlord and Tenant Board. For too long, delays and efficiencies have hurt this province, have hurt that sector—such as young professionals looking for their first place to live.

We will always protect our most vulnerable with a balanced Landlord and Tenant Board.

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

MPP Catherine McKenney: Speaker, this Premier didn’t answer the question—because they can’t, because this bill doesn’t build homes; it destroys housing security. Over 80,000 Ontarians are homeless right now. The LTB is broken because they broke it; not because tenants have too many rights.

So let me ask this directly: When a single mother gets evicted in seven days instead of 14 because her ODSP check is late, when a senior loses their appeal because you cut their time in half, when students are kicked out so that corporate landlords can jack up their rent, how does this build the housing that we desperately need in this province?

Hon. Rob Flack: Speaker, we have an obligation, we acknowledge, to protect our most vulnerable in this province.

People feeling the ravages of chronic homelessness is indeed a difficulty.

Speaker, the bottom line is, when you take a look at—and here’s a stat—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

Hon. Rob Flack: They don’t like the realities here. But our total recorded 20,480 shelter spaces in 2025—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order. Windsor West will come to order.

Hon. Rob Flack: —with 18,215 spaces occupied—88.9%. That is down from 95% occupancy.

There’s progress being made—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Rob Flack: —much more to be done. Progress is being made.

We have significant investments coming ahead. We’re going to be working closely with the National Housing Strategy, the federal government and our municipal partners.

While homelessness remains difficult in this province, we are seeing some progress. I told you the results. The Landlord and Tenant Board is part of that progress.

We’re bringing fairness, we’re bringing balance back to the Landlord and Tenant Board. And the Attorney General is going to do a great job of making sure more hearings are heard often.

Government accountability

Ms. Lee Fairclough: On Thursday, we heard from the Patient Ombudsman that complaints from the health care system have risen again, and it highlighted cases of people leaving emergency rooms without being seen.

We know the health care system is being underfunded by $3.4 billion this year. Yet, this government refuses to acknowledge or even address the crisis facing patients, front-line staff and health care organizations.

This is a matter of priorities, and we know exactly where this government’s priorities lie. Since last week, we’ve learned more from the Skills Development Fund. We’ve learned that more than $7 million went to two dental organizations with direct family ties to the previous minister, and the father of one of those dentists received $3 million for their business. The police are now investigating another grant recipient that received $37 million in taxpayer money under the government’s watch.

Given this $2.5-billion skills development scandal, will the minister do the honourable thing and resign?

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I’m happy to address the funding of the health care system, which the member just spoke about in her question.

When this government first took office in 2018, the health care budget for the province of Ontario was approximately $62 billion. It now stands at over $90 billion, which is an increase of approximately 50%. The investments that this government has made in the health care system in the province of Ontario, which I might add is a publicly funded health care system, are historical. Nobody has invested more money in the health care system in the province of Ontario than this PC government and this Premier.

We will continue with those investments because those investments are important to the people of Ontario. They believe in their publicly funded health care system, and we are there to continue that system, because we believe it is important.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I just do want to remind that we have the lowest per capita spending in health care in the country by far.

Last week, I was in Ingersoll, where I heard about the impact of the auto plant closure that is hitting families and small businesses hard. Affordability is a real concern.

Yet, in the most recent round of Skills Development Fund grants, nearly two thirds of the $345 million went to organizations led by PC donors.

People in communities like Ingersoll are losing jobs, and people are feeling let down.

The process behind the selection of grant recipients in the $2.5-billion Skills Development Fund scandal is blatantly unfair—not transparent, nor accountable.

How does the Premier justify the labour minister staying in this role?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as I’ve said, ministerial oversight to ensure we’re supporting government priorities that get people jobs and get them to work in critical sectors of our economy—the member spoke about automotive.

The Premier and I had a good sit-down with members of Unifor. We’ve supported them through the Skills Development Fund, with respect to EV, with respect to hybrid, adaptability, ensuring we have a workforce that have the skills that they need. It has been tough. I was on the front line with Unifor members. I was chatting with them in Brampton the other day, and I understand, this is challenging. It’s tough.

But what they want to know is that they’ve got a Premier who will have their backs, who will make sure we have procurement policies that support “buy in Ontario, made in Ontario;” a Minister of Economic Development who works to create the conditions to attract world-class investments. We’ve seen billions upon billions—over $50 billion in investments to support that sector, and we’ve got to weather it.

We’ve got to work with members of our labour partners to support the training, to have the backs of workers, to create a competitive climate that supports them. We’re investing in their action centres. We’ve been responsive to the redesign of that program to support their needs, and we’ll always have their back.

Ontario economy

MPP George Darouze: My question is for the Minister of Finance.

Speaker, people across Ontario want to see our economy continue to grow and thrive. They want more jobs. They want safe supply chains. And they want our government to keep standing up for them as global threats grow.

We all see what’s happening around us—new tariff threats from Donald Trump, rising trade risks, and pressure on our businesses and workers.

Last week, our government released the fall economic statement. It showed a clear plan to protect Ontario, to build and to keep our economy moving forward.

Can the minister explain how the fall economic statement will help protect Ontario jobs and support local businesses in the face of rising trade threats?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: Let’s actually take a step back in history here. Back in the spring, we released our budget for 2025-26, and it had some fantastic measures. Just last week, we did the fall economic statement, giving Ontario all the information that they need to know about what we’re doing and how we’re progressing on it.

Let’s talk about what that fall economic statement was all about. It’s about unleashing Ontario’s economy. How are we doing that? We’re doing it through things like the Ontario Together Trade Fund—a $100-million increase in that, because we want to make sure that companies in Ontario are prepared and have the tools that they need to continue in that fight against tariffs with Donald Trump—but not just that; we also have the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit. That is a tax credit for companies to reinvest back into themselves here in Ontario to give them the strong business sense that they need in order to continue having a strong economy here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

MPP George Darouze: Thank you to the member for his answer.

Speaker, we all know that Ontario’s strength comes from our workers and our industries. Steel, auto, mining, manufacturing, information technology—these sectors support whole regions and thousands of families. But they face real risks today. Unstable markets, rising costs, high interest rates, and pressure from decisions made from outside our borders—including threats from our friend Donald Trump—are hitting Ontario industries hard.

People want to know that their jobs are protected. They want our government to continue supporting them when times get tough and to keep sectors strong.

Speaker, can the minister explain how our government is protecting major industries and supporting workers as global trade threats grow?

Mr. Dave Smith: The entire purpose of this is to make sure that Ontario is the greatest place in the G7 to invest, to do business. That is what we’re doing. And how are we doing it? We’re driving prosperity, and we’re protecting jobs.

Just look at Darlington, with the SMRs that are being built there—18,000 construction jobs being created. Ontario is the leader worldwide in SMR technology. We will show the world—we will be the first to connect SMRs to the grid.

On top of that, when you look at what the investment is at Algoma Steel, the electric arc furnaces—the steel industry is one that has been very severely hit by tariffs. What are we doing? We’re protecting those workers in Algoma. We’re protecting that industry. We’re making sure that Ontario has the strength that it needs in steel—all of this while keeping a clear path to balance.

And you don’t just have to ask us about it; ask the credit agencies who have said Ontario has a clear path to balance. That’s why they have given us the upgrades.

Landlord and Tenant Board

MPP Lise Vaugeois: To the Premier: In 2018, your government fired all experienced Landlord and Tenant Board adjudicators, left positions vacant for years, and then appointed inexperienced adjudicators.

Kinna-aweya Legal Clinic does incredible work, serving people all over northwestern Ontario, and it is one of over 130 organizations calling for the repeal of Bill 60 because it scapegoats tenants for a mess your government created and will push thousands more into homelessness.

Premier, will you fix the Landlord and Tenant Board so that both tenants and landlords can receive timely justice?

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

Hon. Doug Downey: That’s pretty rich coming from the other side, who failed to support this government when we put $26 million into fixing a back office that was left in ruins by the previous government, supported by that party. That’s just one piece.

The second piece we did is increase the number of back office administrators to help with the flow. Last year, there were 106,000 cases heard—and the year before that was 80,000. So the increased number, while it was significant—at the same time, we decreased the backlog. We have decreased the backlog by 80%, and we are almost at balance.

They also didn’t support when we doubled the number of adjudicators from 40 to 80—full-time adjudicators. They are trained, they’re in seats, and they’re doing hearings.

And this member from that party supported none of it.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I must note that they created the backlog in the first place. I’m glad you’re trying to address it—but, frankly, it’s not because we didn’t vote for it.

The elimination of rent controls and easy approvals for above-guideline rent increases has led to thousands of people being unable to afford a place to live, yet fast-tracking evictions is this government’s idea of addressing homelessness. You also removed in-person hearings, making it very difficult for low-income tenants to get a fair hearing.

Speaker, through to you the Premier: If the government’s goal is to restore fairness to landlord-tenant relations, will you reinstate in-person hearings and hire sufficient qualified adjudicators so that tenants and landlords can receive timely and fair hearings?

Hon. Doug Downey: Madam Speaker, I find it very unprofessional—the vitriol that she has for adjudicators. Our tribunals are full of professional adjudicators; people who have been recommended by the tribunals, appointed, trained, and they’re in seats. They do very serious and important work. They do work that is important for both landlords and tenants. To suggest that they have some sort of agenda or that there are some sort of inadequate individuals in those seats is an absolute insult to the hundreds of professionals who are working for the province on behalf of both landlords and tenants.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of our record of those who have been appointed to the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Social Benefits Tribunal, the animal care—all 13 of those tribunals are working with professionals. I’m very proud to stand behind every single one of them who we’ve appointed.

Government accountability / Artificial intelligence

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: When I got here to Queen’s Park, I hoped we could advance some important issues. Instead, we’re seeing that this government is lighting money on fire, with a fantasy tunnel under the 401. And because of the $2.5-billion Skills Development Fund scandal, we’re now seeing a forensic audit referred to the OPP, and $10 million has gone to organizations associated with a strip club.

Meanwhile, we’ve got a youth unemployment crisis, and Ontario is not taking the necessary steps to ensure that we can shape the future of AI, instead of it shaping us.

Speaker, through you to the Premier: We should be talking about important things like developing a strategy on AI. But is this government’s current strategy to distract the public with Skills Development Fund scandals?

Premier, when will the scandals end?

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

Hon. David Piccini: I thank the member opposite for that important question.

We heard earlier from the interim leader there, highlighting a project that supports the fintech sector—AI. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “But SDF takes money from the post-secondary section”—which we determined, from the minister, is false.

And then we actually find out that the Skills Development Fund works in partnership with colleges and universities—like the AI project supported by the Brampton Board of Trade and Toronto Metropolitan University that’s actually helping people in the fintech sector. In fact, the outcomes of that specific program, a third of the way through—has seen them exceed 50% of their employment target.

That’s what we’re doing—supporting emerging sectors like AI. You do it by creating a competitive climate.

I know that member would reflect back on previous decisions that previous Liberal governments made and likely admit that the high-tax agenda that drove out business, that drove out manufacturing—surely, was that wrong? I think it was. That’s why we lost those manufacturing—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member from Ajax.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: It seems like the government is happy to continue to talk about the Skills Development Fund and the scandals that we see time and time again, instead of taking responsibility for seven years of sticking its head in the sand.

I’ve introduced a private member’s bill that would create a made-in-Ontario strategy on artificial intelligence. It’s a plan to retain and invest in our world-class talent and support our post-secondary institutions. It’s a plan to grow Ontario’s economy to make sure that every person and region in our province can win on AI.

Ontario does have all the tools it needs to be successful, but it doesn’t have a plan, it doesn’t have a strategy, and it needs to take action.

Speaker, will the government commit to creating a plan on artificial intelligence by supporting my bill on Wednesday and sending it to committee so that members in this chamber can hear from experts and stakeholders on AI?

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

Hon. Stephen Crawford: To the member opposite: I can tell you that the government of Ontario has a plan with respect to artificial intelligence. In fact, I spent the summer travelling and meeting AI companies.

Let me tell you a little bit about our AI ecosystem here in Ontario. Ontario is the second-largest tech cluster in North America after Silicon Valley—400,000 workers right here in Ontario; last year, 101% growth in AI jobs; over $2.6 billion invested. Over 17,000 jobs directly related to AI were created last year here in Ontario—also, 70 new AI companies created right here in Ontario; 27 new companies moving to Ontario. That’s a 312% increase year over year.

We are leading the pack across Canada in AI, both in adoption and forward-looking legislation.

Transportation infrastructure

MPP Monica Ciriello: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

People in Hamilton know how important strong roads and highways are. Every day, thousands of Hamiltonians use them to come to Toronto for work, school and appointments. My residents rely on safe roads that keep traffic moving and keep our economy strong.

For years, under the Liberals, major projects were delayed. Drivers sat in traffic. Families lost time. And businesses paid the price. But our government and this minister are taking real action. We are rebuilding our roads. We are fixing key links. And we are working with our municipal partners to get it done.

Hamilton commuters depend on the Gardiner to get where they need to go.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how the government is helping drivers by rebuilding the Gardiner faster and protecting Ontario’s infrastructure?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Thank you to the member from Hamilton Mountain for her question. Speaker, we were told that it would take three years to repair the Gardiner Expressway, one of the most critical and vital pieces of infrastructure in this province. There are over 140,000 people who travel the Gardiner each and every single day.

That’s why Premier Ford stepped in to ensure that we invested an additional $73 million, to ensure that this project went 24/7—and ultimately saved us over 18 months. We’ve completed the Gardiner, and it is now open 18 months ahead of schedule. This investment will save drivers over 22 minutes each way, and it continues on our plan to build this province.

Whether it’s the Gardiner, building Highway 413 or the Bradford Bypass, we’re going to continue to get shovels in the ground.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

MPP Monica Ciriello: Thank you to the minister for his answer and for his leadership.

Speaker, people in Hamilton know all too well what gridlock feels like. When the Gardiner slows down, Hamiltonians—my residents—are impacted. Our workers, our students and our families rely on that route every single day to get where they need to go.

Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, we know that gridlock has real impacts on daily lives. Long delays hurt our economy, slow down goods, and take precious time away from loved ones.

Our government knows we cannot grow an economy without strong roads. We can’t accept travel times jumping by more than 200%. We need faster action and smarter building.

Speaker, can the minister share how cutting the Gardiner construction timelines in half will help Hamiltonians and protect Ontario’s economy?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Studies suggested that this gridlock would cost over $273 million over the years. That’s why we stepped in with a proactive plan to ensure that we had 24/7 construction on the Gardiner Expressway, not only saving $273 million in productivity, but also getting it open 18 months in advance—22 minutes back in individuals’ time when you’re travelling to and from the city. That is real change.

Gridlock costs this economy $56 billion, and that is why we are continuing on our plan to invest over $100 billion between transit projects and highway projects. Whether that be the Hamilton LRT, which is another project that we are currently delivering on, or whether it be highway infrastructure projects along the QEW and the expansions that are coming there, we are committed to building in this province, and we’re going to continue to get shovels in the ground and deliver results.

Automotive industry

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is to the Premier.

CAMI workers have been stuck waiting for updates about Minister Joly’s talks with GM—but that deadline came and went with nothing at all. The federal government got GM to the table and, at the very least, pretended to stand up for workers. It has been almost a month. From the province, it has been crickets.

What has the Premier and his government done to support CAMI workers—because right now, it looks like a solid nothing.

Workers deserve far better than a government that chooses silence over standing with them.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, President Trump’s tariffs are causing chaos and uncertainty across the country. The global economy—we are seeing downward pressure on consumer spending in the auto sector and beyond.

Rest assured that we are in very close contact with GM and with our labour partners. The company knows that their Ontario operations are integral to the success of General Motors. That’s why they’re exploring new opportunities for the Ingersoll facility, along with our government. We’re going to be there to support all the workers who are affected, whether it’s through the $20-million Protect Ontario Workers Employment Response Centres or other supports that we are providing.

We will never turn our backs on Ontario’s world-class auto workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Speaker, I understand the Premier is quite busy shovelling money to his donors and is worried about the RCMP investigation, but he could at the very least show up at CAMI in Ingersoll and stand up for workers.

The workers at CAMI are strong. They said, “Nothing comes in and nothing goes out. If” GM tries “to remove even one single thing from the plant, we are ready to take over. We are not kidding ... We will do whatever it takes to protect our jobs, our members and the future of this plant.”

This government could learn from the backbone of these workers.

The Premier hasn’t even shown his face in Ingersoll.

My question: Will the Premier do whatever it takes to protect CAMI jobs and the future of the plant?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, back in 2018, every single auto company was in trouble, and every single auto company was preparing to leave Ontario, like they had before we were elected. Premier Ford said, “Enough is enough. What do we need to do to save the 100,000 auto worker jobs?”

We made investments. We attracted companies from around the world. We have more investments—$46 billion worth of investments here in the province of Ontario.

These parties across voted against all of these investments to save those 100,000 workers, and they continue to vote against every support that we put in place.

Addiction services

M me Lucille Collard: My question is for the Minister of Health.

Speaker, just weeks ago, I asked this government to invest in front-line solutions to the toxic drug crisis. The minister responded by touting HART hubs—but what we’re seeing in Ottawa tells a different story.

The Sandy Hill supervised consumption site is now being forced to cut weekend hours, not because the need is going down, but because provincial funding has not kept pace with soaring demand. Over half of overdoses are already happening outside the site. These aren’t numbers; these are lives.

So I ask again, how can the minister claim to be addressing this crisis when her government’s inaction is literally forcing life-saving services to scale back while overdoses rise in our streets?

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Speaker, we heard the message loud and clear from the parents of the province of Ontario that they were tired of stepping over needles on the sidewalks as they walked their children to school in the morning.

That is why we took the action to shut down the drug injection sites that were located within 200 metres of either a school or a child care centre. We don’t wan