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

October 22, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-Oct-22 vol. A (PDF)

L026A - Wed 22 Oct 2025 / Mer 22 oct 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 October 2025 Mercredi 22 octobre 2025

Orders of the Day

Building a More Competitive Economy Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à bâtir une économie plus concurrentielle

Tabling of sessional papers

Wearing of pins

Members’ Statements

Run for Their Lives

Rare diseases

Small Business Week

Riding of Scarborough Centre

Government accountability

Graham Rowat

BAND Gallery

Police

Snowmobiling

Cancer screening

Introduction of Visitors

Member’s birthday

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Automotive industry

Government accountability

Manufacturing jobs

Steel industry

Government accountability

Steel industry

Ontario economy

Ontario economy

Addiction services

Energy policies

Notices of dissatisfaction

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Introduction of Bills

1955274 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

2708634 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Rare Disease Strategy Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la stratégie en matière de maladies rares

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Small Business Week

Petitions

Child care

Highway safety

International trade

Social assistance

Social assistance

Environmental protection

Pharmacare

Interprovincial trade

Youth mental health

International trade

Mental health services

Anti-racism activities

Orders of the Day

Building a More Competitive Economy Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à bâtir une économie plus concurrentielle

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Building a More Competitive Economy Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à bâtir une économie plus concurrentielle

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 21, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 56, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker. I want to start off by saying that I’ll be sharing my lead time today with the members from Oshawa and from Nickel Belt.

I will be mostly speaking to the environmental sections of this bill, but I do want to say that I find it extraordinary that this government is going to be removing photo radar. I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me, seriously. Just because your ministers and their limo drivers are getting speeding tickets for going through school zones is no reason to bring in this legislation. Seriously, you should be protecting kids.

I had a demonstration at one of the schools in my riding on Monday—William Burgess, a great school. A lot of parents were out; a lot of kids were out. They could not understand for the life of them why a safety measure for children going to school that’s endorsed by police chiefs in Ontario, that’s endorsed by the Hospital for Sick Children, is being ruled out. I guess there’s an embarrassment at the cabinet table when you show up and you’ve got speeding tickets you’ve got to pay, but that shouldn’t be the reason for changing this law.

I also want to note that in this bill, the work of the government with its Bill 5 with regard to endangered species is being continued. I can see no reason on earth why we would support the expansion of the activities of Bill 5 and the ongoing threat to endangered species, so I would urge people, on the basis of those two points alone, to reject this bill.

The title of the bill, Building a More Competitive Economy Act—which includes getting rid of photo radar, so that’s kind of weird. While the title suggests economic progress, the first

schedule makes changes to the Clean Water Act, 2006, that I think should concern everyone in Ontario who values safe drinking water. The changes are being promoted as simply technical, that they’re being used to balance the need for development against the need for safety, with an assurance from the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks that, in fact, safety will be protected.

But I have to say to you, Speaker, that when you play with clean water, you are playing Russian roulette with people’s lives. Remember, the Clean Water Act came into being because in May 2000, the town of Walkerton experienced a tragedy that shook this province. Seven people died and more than 2,300 fell ill due to E. coli contamination in the municipal water system. Of the people who fell ill, most recovered, but many had ongoing, life-changing damage.

So when you deal with water safety, you have to recognize that you are playing with very serious matters. In that case, the contamination was caused by manure runoff following heavy rains and the failure of the water treatment monitoring and notification systems.

The Walkerton Inquiry, led by Justice Dennis O’Connor, produced 121 recommendations to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again. And one of the most significant outcomes of that inquiry was the Clean Water Act, passed in 2006. It established source protection plans, empowered conservation authorities and mandated ministerial oversight to ensure the safety of municipal drinking water systems. It was a landmark piece of legislation to protect public health.

It was a piece of legislation that we needed, clearly, and a piece of legislation that, in Ontario, has generally been recognized as one that is critical to defend if we want to make sure we don’t have a repeat of the Walkerton experience.

But now, with Bill 56, this government is proposing changes that further undermine those protections. And I say further because the government has already, in the past, since it came into power in 2018, put through two bills that undermine the Ontario Clean Water Act.

Schedule 1 introduces amendments, as I said, that are argued to be technical but can have far reaching consequences. For example, if the minister fails to respond to proposed amendments to source protection plans within 120 days, those amendments are deemed approved. I think that removes a critical layer of oversight and accountability.

Everyone in this building knows that schedules are disrupted, events happen and ministers and governments get sidetracked. And the idea that because some other event came along and a minister or a minister’s office was not able to keep track of a critical issue like this it would automatically result in an approval is not acceptable. It does not make sense.

The bill allows the minister to prescribe the wording of policies in source protection plans, which has the potential to weaken local protections. It limits the types of policies that can be included for activities deemed significant threats to drinking water. This is not streamlining—it’s stripping away the very safeguards that were put in place to prevent another Walkerton.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association, which has followed this issue now for over 20 years, has been very vocal in its criticism of the government’s approach to the Clean Water Act. In a June 2023 posting, they warned, “Two recent enactments, Bills 97 and 23 ... seem to go out of their way to undermine existing laws, policies and agencies created to prevent threats to drinking water following the Walkerton tragedy.” This bill before us just follows in those footsteps. This bill continues that undermining of the clean water protections that we realized needed to be put in place when their lack led to deaths and widespread illness.

Bill 97 allowed ministerial zoning orders to override significant threat policies under the Clean Water Act. Seriously? How many Walkertons does it take before you think, “We have to be serious about protecting water at a very high level because the consequences are quite literally deadly”?

Bill 23 undermines the role of conservation authorities, allowing development on lands that could be deemed hazardous and wetlands, and removing pollution as a consideration in permit decisions. These changes erode the ability of conservation authorities to protect watersheds and drinking water resources.

I actually was here in 2006. I had just been elected in a by-election that year and got to sit on the committee that travelled around Ontario and actually got to talk to the people who developed the act. I had my criticisms. But their whole argument to us at the time was that if you want to ensure that water is clean and safe, you have to have defence in depth. You can’t just rely on that last step of putting a small amount of chlorine into the water to kill bacteria. You have to make sure that the source of the water is protected.

You have to make sure that the inspection systems are in place, that you have enforcement, that you have a variety of steps that protect the public. Unfortunately, that is something that seems to be lost on this government.

Canadian Environmental Law Association’s April 2025 analysis highlights the ongoing gaps in Ontario’s drinking water protection regime. A recent report by the Auditor General found that over three million Ontarians rely on non-municipal drinking water systems, yet the province lacks effective oversight of those systems. That is something that we criticized back in 2006. We were told, “Well, that will be taken care of.” It never was taken care of.

This government has an opportunity, with this bill, to actually strengthen the Clean Water Act. It’s not doing that; it’s weakening it. The report from the Auditor General said the government did not have in place systems to oversee all non-municipal drinking water systems and ensure compliance with legislation and regulations, educate private well users about the risks of untreated water, and identify and manage health risks related to those non-municipal drinking water systems.

The Auditor General emphasized that this is not just a policy gap; it is a real and present health threat. The ministries of the environment and health, along with local public health units, accepted the 17 recommendations. But as the Canadian Environmental Law Association points out, acceptance alone is not enough. The government must commit to timelines, and implementation must follow swiftly and decisively.

I want to say, Speaker, I went to the Auditor General’s report and looked at the recommendations. I have to say, the Auditor General—who does a pretty thorough job; we’ve been lucky we’ve had good, competent, capable Auditor Generals who have dug into things pretty deeply—at no point said that the laws that were in place were impeding development. That was not the concern that came forward. The recommendations include, “We recommend that MECP”—the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks—“explore ways to enhance its reporting to the public on all advice provided by the advisory council on drinking water quality and testing standards.”

There are recommendations to the Ministry of Health as well. I’m just going to deal with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. They recommended that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks:

“—implement measures and efficiencies to further increase the rate of MECP inspections of non-municipal drinking water systems; and

“—set and meet formal inspection policies and targets for non-municipal drinking water systems that it regulates.”

The Auditor General recommended that the MECP:

“—create outreach materials outlining exemption requirements and information about the risks of supplying and consuming untreated drinking water, and deliver them to owners, operators and users of drinking-water systems with treatment exemptions; and

“—assess whether any regulatory amendments are needed to minimize the risks of not treating drinking water on the basis of periodic bacterial testing.”

They are recommending that the MECP:

“—develop and implement a plan to clear the backlog of submitted well records by inputting the outstanding information into the wells database;

“—develop and implement new processes to flag missing or inaccurate information in well records to improve the reliability and accuracy of MECP’s information on wells; and

“—develop and implement an IT system that enables MECP staff to manage and track information on wells in an effective, reliable and timely manner.”

Man—a few more: “We recommend that MECP explore and implement options, such as education, to increase the number of properly decommissioned abandoned wells,” and that the MECP:

“—complete an updated feasibility assessment of potential measures to increase source water protections for non-municipal drinking-water supplies; and

“—based on the outcome of the assessment, consider whether any measures are suitable for implementation, and consult with the public on any policy proposals.”

I note that the Auditor General at no point said, “Hey, you’ve got too much duplication in the system. This is holding up development. This bill, this legislation, which may be good for protecting human health, seems to be making it difficult to build new homes.” No, that is not what was said by the Auditor General. So I have to ask, where is this coming from?

The argument made by the minister yesterday—and I listened to him and I reread Hansard—was that duplication in the system and long timelines meant that it was very difficult to actually put in place new drinking-water systems in a timely way or put in place drinking-water systems so that development could proceed. Frankly, I have my doubts about that.

Very interestingly, in July, CBC reported that the Minister of the Environment for Ontario and the Alberta environment minister wrote to the federal environment minister asking her to move away from legislation that they say would “delay project development and undermine competitiveness.” That legislation was introducing a bill that would enshrine clean-drinking-water rights in law. So the minister was going to the feds and saying, “Hey, you’re going to enshrine the right to clean drinking water. That interferes with development.” You’ve got to be kidding me.

The reality is that’s ensuring that people across Ontario—and certainly First Nations, who have been most deprived of access to clean drinking water—should be sacrificed, that their interests should be set aside.

I’m sure that the minister was not freelancing. I can’t imagine that the minister would write a letter to the federal government saying, “Back off on clean water legislation,” without having the Premier backing that minister to the hilt. It would not happen. So any argument that we should trust the government that they will protect clean water in this legislation does not fit with the facts, does not fit with the reality that this government opposed action at the federal level to ensure that everyone was protected and everyone had the opportunity to get clean water on a regular basis.

In a meeting with First Nations after that incident, the Premier said, “Everyone deserves fresh drinking water,” and yet at the same time we have this legislation coming forward to undermine that provision of fresh, clean drinking water. I mean, we’ve already seen with Bill 5 the threat—not just a threat; the initiative—to implement special economic zones where provincial laws can be suspended in toto in a particular area to facilitate an economic activity.

Certainly we need economic activity—people need jobs, and people in this province need to have our economy grow—but setting aside our laws in order to do that makes no sense. We saw the consequences in Walkerton of not actually having regulations in place that protect people’s lives and well-being.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association warns that the legislative changes before this one were setting the stage for Walkerton 2.0. The erosion of environmental protections, the marginalization of vulnerable communities and the prioritization of development over public health are deeply troubling.

The Clean Water Act was a promise, an initiative, that we wouldn’t allow our drinking water to be compromised in the future. Bill 56 breaks that promise. I don’t see how people can support this bill, if for no other reason than just because of its undermining of clean water protections. We need to stand with those communities that are at risk, and we need to ensure that the province makes it very clear that protecting public health and the environment are the highest priorities. People should not have their lives put at risk.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Speaker. It is my pleasure to talk to the three schedules in the bill that have to do with health care.

I listened attentively yesterday when the Minister of Health was talking about those same schedules in the bill that have to do with health care. Basically, she went through what her government is doing to improve health care: lots of focus on the private, for-profit new CT scan and MRI clinics; lots about the new private, for-profit surgical suites that will be funded by this government to do hip and knee surgery.

She explained that the change that the regulations do to the Regulated Health Professions Act are so that basically Ontario will become the first province where a list of 16 of the 26 colleges that exist—26 health professions in Ontario are regulated by a college. Out of those 26 colleges, 16 of them that are mentioned in the legislation will basically—if you are registered to practise in any part of Canada, we will recognize your registration here in Ontario.

She talks about how you would get an eligibility certificate within two days and that the police checks and the other checks that usually get done before somebody is allowed to come in would be done after the two days, but then if something is found, the licence could be withdrawn. She talks about less requirements in looking to make sure that there’s no active disciplinary action taken by colleges in other provinces and that they have malpractice insurance.

The problem with all of this, Speaker, is that none of this is in the bill. All that the bill says is that it enacts legislation so that regulations could be made at a time that I’m guessing would be soon, but that is for anybody to guess.

The minister spent a lot of time saying how many new nurses had registered since they were in power etc.—what they have done. But let me tell you a little bit about what could be done to make sure that the 2.5 million Ontarians who don’t have access to a family doctor or nurse practitioners—what we could do so that people don’t have to wait so long in an emergency room to be able to be seen, to be able to be referred to a specialist for a hip or a knee surgery or any other type of medical treatment that has been diagnosed, a plan of treatment has been set by a physician and a referral has been done.

The first thing I would tell you for the 2.5 million Ontarians that don’t have access to primary care is, fund the existing interdisciplinary teams that exist in Ontario. We have 75 community health centres. Every single one of those community health centres has thousands of patients on their wait-list that they would be willing to take right here, right now, if only the government would fund them. The community health centre sector has not seen budget increases to allow them to bring in new practitioners for a long time.

They have not seen budget increases to be able to keep pace with inflation for the last 12 years. That’s when the Liberals were there and for the last eight years when the Conservative government was there. If the interdisciplinary community teams that exist—community health centres, Aboriginal health access centres, nurse practitioner-led clinics, community-governed family health teams—cannot recruit and retain a stable workforce because they don’t get the financing to do this, then the 2.5 million continues to grow.

The Ontario Medical Association was at Queen’s Park on Monday. They are forecasting a doubling of this: five million people in Ontario that would not have access to primary care. Do you know what it means to not have access to primary care? That means—the cancer society is here today in room 228, if anybody is interested. The Cancer Society is telling us, “How do we see the huge, huge improvement that we have seen in cancer care?

We see this because of early detection.” We see this because you have a relationship with a primary care provider who does the test, who, if something is going on—you start to have a sore back. Is it because prostate cancer is starting? This is their job. This is what they do. They diagnose early. But if you don’t have this relationship with a primary care provider, if you don’t have a nurse practitioner or a family physician to relate to, then none of this is available. You will be diagnosed in an emergency room with a whole bunch of people around you with no privacy with stage 4 cancer. This is awful.

This is not the Ontario health care system that we want.

So why is it that there’s a solution right here, right there: the 25 nurse practitioner-led clinics. Same thing: I have a few of them in my riding. The one located in Capreol has been asking for budget increases for 12 years. Even in northern Ontario, we have underemployed nurse practitioners. We have underemployed midwives. But the government doesn’t fund any positions for them; therefore, the nurse practitioner-led clinic, the community health centre, the family health team and the Aboriginal health access centre are not able to hire those people.

They try the best they can to do fundraising, to redirect money that was coming to try to keep them on. But the Capreol Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic had to let go of their nurse practitioner because they kept hoping that the government would fund them, but they did not. If you live in Capreol, the nurse practitioner-led clinic is your only point of access. There is no other physician. There is no other access to care; it’s the nurse practitioner-led clinic.

To make things worse, we had a very nice family physician in Hanmer—which is about a 35-, 30-minute drive—who passed away suddenly, leaving behind a huge roster. He looked after close to 5,000 people. Well, we just have an extra 5,000 people who don’t have access to primary care anymore. The nurse practitioner-led clinic would be more than happy to take them on. There’s a nurse practitioner who’s willing to come and work there, and they have no money to hire them. It doesn’t matter how many times they wrote, how many times I brought a letter to the Minister of Health. Listen, a nurse practitioner’s pay is not that high. You would make a huge difference. Nope, there’s no money.

If we look at midwives, midwives are one of the professions in

schedule 8, that we will now welcome midwives from all—if you are registered in another province, we will welcome you in Ontario. Welcome you to what? The midwifery practice? I’ve been asking for more money to bring in more midwives. All of them turn away pregnant women every single week because they haven’t got the staff to do so. There are midwives who would love nothing more than to join a midwifery practice. There are midwifery practices that would love nothing more than to have more midwives join their team. But the government has not increased the budget for midwifery since they took power in 2018.

There hasn’t been an opportunity for any of those clinics to hire new midwives, yet the demand is there.

I can tell you that anybody who gets care from midwifery loves it. They do evaluations of quality of services, and they just rate them through the roof. People just love their services. They follow the family. They follow the baby after the baby is born. They do home visits. They will respect the choice of the mother. If they are close enough to a hospital, you could have a home birth. My neighbour did that and it was a wonderful experience. You can go to their clinic or you can be followed in hospital. It was a bit of a battle to get the hospital to welcome midwives, but we do now. We have midwives even in northern Ontario, where I live, looking for jobs.

So here we are, making it easier for 16 different health professionals to come to Ontario. I don’t know if you’re interested in me naming them all, but basically, physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, chiropodists—anyway, the list is there; it’s in the bill, if you’re interested. Come to Ontario to do what, to work in private, for-profit clinics? Because the non-for-profit community health centres, midwifery practices, nurse practitioner health clinics, Aboriginal health access centres, family health teams, community-governed family health teams—none of them have received any money to hire anybody new.

Then people turn their sights towards hospitals: “Oh, they will come and work in our hospitals.” Did you know, Speaker, that the letter from the Minister of Health to our hospitals is telling them that they should look, for the next three years, to find economies of scale to balance their budgets?

First of all, the law says that a hospital cannot have a deficit budget. It is in law. Hospitals have to balance their budgets. They cannot do deficits. Although it is in law, more than half of the hospitals in Ontario had a deficit last year, and the government signed off that, “It’s okay that you’ve made a deficit because the law said you are not allowed.”

So we know that all of those hospitals are facing deficits—and we’re talking millions of dollars, tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars in deficit. What did the government say? The government said, “For the next three years, you should look at efficiencies to balance your budget.”

The request for efficiencies was made by the Liberal government when they were in power, and the efficiencies that could be done, my friends, have been done. They have been implemented. Our hospitals are some of the most efficient in all of our country. If you look at the length of stays, if you look at costs per procedure—it doesn’t matter what metrics you look at, our hospitals are the most efficient that exist in our country.

But as more and more people don’t have access to primary care—the 2.5 million without access continues to increase. As more of those people end up being diagnosed late in an emergency room and then needing expensive treatments that wouldn’t have been needed had they been diagnosed sooner, they end up being admitted into our hospitals. Then the costs continue to go up.

Think of a hospital as a bit of the net of last resort. If mental health and addictions fails you, if primary care fails you, if any type of palliative care fails you, you end up in the hospital. This is part of medicare. Medicare is basically: hospital care will be free; physician care will be free. Our hospitals are there as our net of last resort. Well, this net is overfull.

More than half of our hospitals are facing deficits, and what does the government say will be the solution? To make sure that it doesn’t matter where you work in Canada, you can come to Ontario. But you can come to Ontario to do what? Who has the money to hire them? It’s the private, for-profit clinics.

We’re doing all of this so that the private, for-profit clinics have access to people in the health care system that are interested to go into the private, for-profit, because this is the priority of this government. This is the only part of our health care system that sees exponential growth.

Where we did not have a for-profit hip and knee surgery—don’t get me wrong; we have some really cool—you go to the London hospital, they have this community-based hip and knee surgery just across the street from the hospital. It is same-day surgery. They go through a lot of patients, but they’re run by the hospital. If something goes wrong, you are automatically admitted because every surgeon, every nurse, every physiotherapist who works in that surgical centre works for the hospital.

If something goes wrong, they admit you directly. They continue to care for you. So is the model of having community day surgery a bad model? No, absolutely not. It already exists in Ontario, but it exists within our existing not-for-profit-delivery health care system.

Hospitals have already done this. But not this government. This government is not funding our hospital that sits with—I can tell you that the hospital closest to where I live, Health Sciences North, has a brand new operating room that the taxpayers paid for, that they built, that has never been used—never been used. We will pay facility fees to private, for-profit clinics to reimburse them for the millions of dollars it takes to build a surgical suite, but we won’t pay our hospital.

We won’t give our hospital the budget so that they can open operating rooms that already exist, that are already there, with surgeons that would love nothing more than to see more patients, if only the pay-per procedures were not capped. I can just about guarantee you that pay-per procedures for hip and knees in those private clinics will be way higher than what we get up north.

None of this makes any sense. I thought fiscal responsibility was kind of why we are here as MPPs, to make sure that taxpayers’ money is used wisely. Well, none of that is wise.

I see that time is running. I want to take a minute to put onto the record a letter that the Canadian Medical Association sent to our Minister of Health to reconsider the new residency policy:

“The Canadian Medical Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada are adding their voices”—because many, many have already done it—“to the growing number of organizations urging the Ontario government to re-evaluate the recently announced requirements for international medical graduates ... seeking residency positions in Ontario. This policy disqualified international medical graduates seeking residency positions in Ontario. This policy disqualifies IMGs who did not go to high school in Ontario from applying in the first round for residency training.

“With the academic year already under way and the application window halfway through, international medical graduates have already initiated the process for this match at significant expense and time commitment. These applicants are already Canadian citizens or permanent residents residing in Canada and often working in health care. At a time when every effort is being made to attract more family physicians, the abrupt policy change for IMGs will destabilize family medicine programs in Ontario. The government is urged to postpone this ill-timed policy.

“Removing barriers and obstacles to increase Canada’s supplies of doctors remains a top priority with an estimated 6.5 million patients without a family doctor”—2.5 million in Ontario. “We continue to call on governments to streamline the process to graduate the next generation of doctors.

“Ontario has been at the forefront of key solutions to help meet the needs of patients, supporting team-based care, recognizing out-of-province licensure for physicians and other health professionals....

“With this solution mindset, we call on the Ontario government to reassess these restrictive measures until further consultation can properly take place, and an appropriate evaluation of the unintended consequences can be completed.”

The minister addressed this in her speech yesterday, saying that the fact that a medical resident has done two years of high school in Ontario should give them priority over other international medical graduates. Speaker, tell me, have you ever thought of asking your family physician, “How many years of high school did you do in Ontario?” Nobody asks this. Nobody cares—nobody. We want our physicians to be knowledgeable. With the system we have in place now, we get the best and the brightest. We get a lot of people to apply; we get to pick the best and the brightest.

It doesn’t matter where they went to high school. It matters that they are a Canadian citizen with a medical degree who wants to do their placement in Ontario. And it pays off. Ontario has some of the best health care providers, in part because of the selection process. So to say you will have to have done two years of high school in Canada in order to qualify for the first round—I don’t know who dreamed that up, but put a big X on this. It is discriminatory, it’s not going to help solve any of the problems, and anybody in health care is telling you that you’re going in the wrong direction.

I see that my time is almost up. The schedules in the bill, as I said, are to open the door so that Ontario can welcome 16 different regulated health professions into Ontario. The process will be quick and most of the checking will come afterward. But none of this is in the bill. All the bill says is that it gives permission to make regulations. I won’t have a chance to talk about the regulations, so is there a little bit of worry about this? Yes, absolutely. Our college makes sure that everybody that has a licence is qualified. I want to make sure that this trust relationship stays in place.

I thank you, Speaker, and will let the rest of my time go to my colleague.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member from Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to stand in this House as the official opposition critic for infrastructure and transportation and to speak to Bill 56, which is the so-called Building a More Competitive Economy Act. The basis of my debate today is going to be the changes in

schedule 5, changes to the Highway Traffic Act.

The bill before us is an omnibus bill that has 11 different schedules. It makes changes to all sorts of acts. My colleagues have spoken about some of them: the Clean Water Act, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Endangered Species Act and many regulated health professionals and other acts. But as I said, it also makes changes to the Highway Traffic Act. So for the folks who have been quite interested in the speed camera conversation, this is that conversation. This is the bill that attacks safety cameras in our community and bans the use of automated speed enforcement.

Speaker, here is what is happening in

schedule 5, as shared with us in the bill. Automated speed enforcement systems are currently authorized under the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations. These systems operate as municipal programs and rely on a legislative framework for owner liability for speeding offences, allowing tickets to be issued to vehicle owners rather than to drivers. These are the speed cameras that, when folks get the ticket, it goes to the owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver.

This

schedule repeals that framework. It would end the use of automated speed enforcement systems across Ontario. Owner liability for speeding offences would also end. Municipalities would no longer be able to operate automated speed enforcement programs, and speed enforcement would revert to traditional methods, with police officers issuing charges to drivers.

If the repeal results in the early termination of the contract between a municipality and a vendor or supplier of automated speed enforcement equipment, municipal liability is limited, it says.

It also grants the minister the opportunity to install signs if the municipality doesn’t do it fast enough. But we can get into that.

In this

schedule of the bill, it gives the minister the power to order municipalities to install signs in school zones. School zones ought to already have signs, but I would say that a sign is not an appropriate substitute for speed enforcement. It can be an additional tool. I was discussing it with my colleague earlier. They’ve got signs in their riding, and it makes a difference. But why would we be removing a useful tool when we’re talking about safety and, specifically in school zones and community safety areas, the safety of children?

The government talks about speed bumps, roundabouts, flashing lights. All of these things are good ideas—but in addition to, not instead of. Safer is better.

So how did we get here? This government brought in automated speed enforcement—I remember that—back in 2019. This government gave municipalities the ability to make decisions for themselves about whether or not to utilize this tool, automated speed enforcement, in their jurisdictions, in their municipalities. Any municipal or regional council that went ahead with this heard from constituents, and they continue to. They’ve been refining and fine-tuning and always improving, because if they don’t, they’re going to hear about it from their constituents.

But here we have the Premier of this fine province reaching again into municipalities, because he is the boss of them, it would seem. This is another most recent example of provincial overreach, because even though the Premier brought it in, now the Premier is taking it out. Why? I don’t know. Ostensibly, as a favour—I’m not sure who has asked. The Premier calls them a cash grab, which is nonsense, and we’ll hear more about that.

Speaker, I’ve been trying to figure out who this benefits. It would seem that at least 20 government ministers have gotten significant tickets from speed cameras, so I’m going to guess that they put their hands up that they would like to not have that happen again.

This is from a Global News

article entitled “‘Won’t Happen Again’: Minister Pledges No More Speeding Ontario Cabinet Vehicles”:

It said, “Ontario’s transportation minister has promised vehicles assigned to Doug Ford’s cabinet ministers won’t be caught speeding again, after municipal cameras slapped them with more than $3,300 in fines.”

It went on to say, “Vehicles registered to cabinet ministers were snapped speeding by cameras 23 times over the past three years, including one travelling at 70 km/h in a 40 zone....

“The documents obtained by Global News do not disclose which ministers the vehicles were assigned to.”

It’s so interesting; the Minister of Transportation has said it won’t happen again. Yes, that’s right. It won’t happen again. Do you know why? Because they’re ripping out the cameras that caught them. So maybe that’s part of the reason.

Speaker, I want to talk about how responsible municipalities have been implementing—despite the way the Premier has been making this sound, calling it a cash grab.

Here’s one example you can look at—but any of the 37 municipalities have online information about it. This is from the region of Durham; I live there: “Automated speed enforcement (ASE) is a modern tool used to help enforce speed limits in school zones and community safety zones—places where kids tend to walk, run, bike and play!” They list all of the locations where permanent automated speed enforcement cameras are now. So they have all of the locations.

They have listed the intersections where the mobile automated speed enforcement cameras are while they’re getting that feedback in data, before they become permanent. It’s all right there. This supports Durham Vision Zero. All of us will be meeting with Good Roads. We know that Vision Zero—the vision is to have zero fatalities, safe roads. This is part of that. They are very accountable and explain it in the “frequently asked questions” on this website for the region. It is very clear.

It explains what it is: “an automated system that uses a camera and a speed measurement device to enforce speed limits and help make roads safer for all road users.” They break it down. There’s nobody hiding in the bushes with a speed camera set up. This is not “gotcha” enforcement; this is, if you speed, there’s a consequence. It’s not a tax. It’s a fine for breaking the law.

So let’s continue to have safe roads and accountable roads.

The retired chiefs of police—there’s a letter here that they wrote: “In a letter to the Premier and his ministers ... retired chiefs of police from Peel, Halton, Niagara, Ottawa and beyond argued the cameras ... are ‘highly effective at changing dangerous driving behaviours and reducing collisions and serious injuries at problem locations.’”

They said, “‘The results are clear: When drivers know that automated speed enforcement cameras are in place, they slow down.... This means fewer tickets, lower costs, and safer roads for everyone.’”

They go on to say, “‘Automated speed cameras reduce speeding, injury and death, allowing police to divert resources to focus on criminal activities plaguing Ontario communities such as auto theft and intimate partner violence.’”

Former police executives have said that there are lots of priorities for police to focus on, and having them sit outside of a school zone in, as the government called it, the traditional method—is that the best use of police resources?

I’ll tell you that the municipalities are very concerned about what will become a significant increase to policing costs in order to cover those safety zones. We all know that police do a remarkable job in our communities, and all of us have a list of things that are going wrong in our communities. They have said here that it frees them up to do other things—something to consider.

This has been a really interesting issue for all of us in our inboxes. I’m hearing from all sorts of folks about this issue. And this isn’t just a click-and-add-your-name lobby email. This is people sitting down, taking the time out of their day and writing thoughtful letters on this issue—many, many, many. I know the government members are getting them too. So I would like to share the voices from my community and from some neighbouring communities about the importance of having safe roads and why this ban on speed cameras is a bad idea.

Carol from Oshawa wrote, “My mother and I would like to ask you to oppose the law Premier Ford is proposing to eliminate speed cameras across the province. We live near Durham College and Ontario Tech University, and see cars exceeding the speed limits every day on Taunton Road and Simcoe Street. Since the Simcoe Street speed cameras were installed, speeding on Simcoe Street North near those campuses has dropped noticeably. Please don’t let Premier Ford take away this system that is protecting students and others in Oshawa every day.” Thank you, Carol.

Elizabeth writes, “I’m writing to urge you and the provincial government to protect the lives of children and pedestrians by reversing the ban on speed cameras.

“Police chiefs and hospitals agree that speed cameras save lives. Speed cameras reduce speeding, decrease collisions, and make our streets safer....

“If drivers don’t break the law, they don’t get fined. Why should the government allow reckless drivers to put children at risk on their way to school?” Great question, Elizabeth.

Carolyn writes, “I am writing to you to express my objection to the proposed legislation calling for a ban of the use of municipal speed cameras.

“The use of automated speed cameras helps keep pedestrians, cyclists, and children safe across Ontario....

“I am asking you to stop the ban of the use of municipal speed cameras and ensure that speed cameras remain available as a critical safety measure to protect Ontario communities.” Good point, Carolyn.

Vaidehee writes to me and says, “I have worked for a speed camera vendor for more than one year now and know, for a fact, that the programs are effective at reducing speeding and changing driver behaviour. I am proud to be a part of the program that created safer streets in the community where I live. Most other residents agree that the cameras are a good thing.”

He goes on to say, “I think it would be a mistake to ban the use of speed cameras, we should instead improve the programs. One improvement to the program would be minimum speed enforcement thresholds. The company I work for is known for implementing fair programs and recommends against ticketing anything under 11 kmph over the speed limit.” Okay—thoughtful input. Thank you.

Josh is actually from Ottawa Centre, but Josh has written:

“Speed cameras are not just enforcement tools—they are proven traffic calming measures that save lives. Numerous studies have shown that ASE cameras significantly reduce speeding, especially in school zones and residential areas. These reductions translate directly into safer streets for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike. Importantly, the fines collected from speed cameras are reinvested into traffic safety initiatives. This ensures that those who violate the law contribute to the cost of making our streets safer, rather than placing the financial burden on law-abiding taxpayers.”

Josh goes on to say, “If signage were truly effective on its own, posted speed limits would already be sufficient. The reality is that many drivers ignore signs unless there is a meaningful consequence, which ASE cameras provide.” Thank you, Josh.

Ronald wrote to me and said, “I write to express my concern and disappointment that there is even a consideration to legislating the removal of traffic cameras and do so on several grounds.

“First, the decision should rightly be that of the local municipalities, not of the provincial government.” Fair point, Ronald.

Ronald says, “Second, all research indicates that they are effective in reducing speeds. Is that not what we want?”

He goes on to say, “The only individuals that these cameras impact negatively are those who speed, in other words, those who break the law. Everyone who operates a motor vehicle should be able to read signs and adjust their speed accordingly. To fail to do so is to tacitly accept whatever consequence there might be, including incurring a fine. This is not a ‘cash grab’ on the part of the municipality; it is a cash handout on the part of the driver.” Yes, good point. Thanks, Ronald. And the last thing he says that I’ll add is, “The only ones opposed to the cameras seem to be those who wish to speed. That should tell us something.” Yes, Ronald, it should.

Edward wrote to me from his iPhone, one line—and I can only imagine, Edward might have been listening to this on the news or saw a headline, but just took a moment on his phone to send one line: “I support the use of speed cameras in general and particularly in school zones.” Thanks, Edward.

By the way, these aren’t people I know. These are just people who have realized this is not the right course of action for this government and they are just motivated to share.

Mary says, “Why would anyone object to a proven way to improve road safety?”

“If you don’t speed, you don’t pay. Taxpayers aren’t losing anything, but they may have safer roads for their children.

“Let’s give demerit points instead of fines, if the objection is the cost of a fine.” There’s one idea. But this government isn’t willing to consider ideas.

Here is another one from Anna: “As a long-time resident of Oshawa, I would like to express my support for the municipal speed camera program(s).... It is without a doubt that speed cameras placed around the Durham region have made our roads safer and provide an otherwise missing incentive for speeding drivers to slow down, especially in community safety zones....

“I was shocked to hear Premier Ford’s announcement today regarding municipal speed camera programs and the misleading ways in which he framed the functionality and efficacy of these programs.... They enable places like Oshawa to collect lawful fines, which are not otherwise possible to collect due to the varied demands placed on our policing services. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, that any elected official at any level of governance would oppose the enforcement of clearly understood laws, which are long-standing and necessary for public safety.

The claims made by Premier Ford, namely that the program is unsalvageable and ineffective, are specious at best. To argue that drivers should not be fined for speeding because they aren’t going ‘fast enough’ would be laughable if it were not such a serious breach of his responsibility to maintain public safety.” Thank you, Anna.

And James wrote to me from Scarborough. James has said, “I work in the transit and transportation industry. I’m a motorist who drives very large vehicles, normal cars, motorcycles and I also enjoy my bicycle. I live near several schools that are close to busy roads that seem to be used as raceways at times. Daily, I see drivers speeding, using electronics, passing where it’s not permitted, running red lights and stop signs, all without any repercussions.

“I feel that these cameras play a role as one of the tools that can be used to deter excessive speeding. While having a police officer constantly monitoring the roads would be ideal, it’s something that just doesn’t seem feasible in the current environment. Other alternatives to limit speed, such as speed bumps and other traffic calming measures, cost more to implement, create slowdowns for emergency vehicles, cause problems for snow removal and simply don’t work for multilane situations. The suggestions that large signs or lights will have the same effect as the cameras is laughable.” James has so much good stuff to say.

Speaker, we all received an open letter from John Creelman, who is the mayor of Mono. He has been a very vocal safety advocate for years. I’ve appreciated his thoughtful comments on a number of issues relating to transportation. But his open letter is based on—he said, “The following thoughts are informed by 34 years in public life, 15 years of which was as a justice of the peace, serving six years of those ... as a regional senior justice of the peace.”

He lays out pages and pages of very thoughtful input, but I am going to just pick a couple: “Do not scrap a technology that works. It slows traffic down. Studies worldwide are conclusive about this. Over 20% of roadway fatalities can be attributed to speeding. The faster vehicles travel the more likely there will be serious injuries or death....

“Think about the implications of cancelling contracts between ASE providers and municipalities entered into in good faith.”

Speaker, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is opposed. Those are folks that the Premier normally has good conversations with, that the ministers generally have good relationships with. But they have said, “AMO is disappointed the Premier is taking steps to ban municipal ASE. There is strong evidence showing that ASE cameras work. People slow down, making our roads safer and protecting all of us—especially kids.... ASE also frees up police to focus on high-priority crime, which is what Ontarians want. Speeders—not taxpayers—pay the cost.

If there’s an issue of fairness or how the cameras are used, municipalities with AMO can work together with the province to address it.... We are also concerned about continued provincial overreach. This should be a local decision. Municipalities are an accountable, elected order of government.” Hear, hear.

In the joint school board and trustee association statement on automated speed enforcement cameras in school safety zones, they have said, “As leaders representing Ontario’s four publicly funded school board associations, we are united in our concern about the province’s proposal to eliminate automated speed enforcement cameras (ASE) in school safety zones....

“We share the concerns raised by municipal councils, community leaders, public health experts, and law enforcement organizations about the potential loss of this important safety tool....

“Slowing drivers down around schools reduces the risk of tragedy and keeps students and their families safer.

“We call on the provincial government to improve and refine ASE, not eliminate it.... Our children deserve the strongest protections we can provide.”

Parents across the province are rallying, calling this a horrible piece of legislation. This is some strange vendetta that the Premier has against speed cameras. I don’t know whether it is because so many ministers got tickets. I don’t know whether it’s because a friend doesn’t like them. It is a wrong-headed move that makes our roads more unsafe.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Questions?

Mr. Stephen Blais: I appreciate the debate from my friends over here. I sat on Ottawa city council right as this government was creating the rules for automated speed enforcement, and I chaired the committee that passed our Vision Zero plan and had automated speed enforcement in community safety zones and in school zones as an important part of that plan, so this an issue that I care a lot about.

As the member quite rightly pointed out, it was this government that defined where automated speed enforcement could go, and it can go in community safety zones. What they didn’t do is tell municipalities what a community safety zone should be. They gave municipalities carte blanche to designate any road they want as a community safety zone, and that is what has created many of the problems that we’re facing today.

I appreciate you taking us back in time. I remember, because I was serving here, in 2019 hearing from community members concerned about how this would happen. I have been very impressed with the regional municipality of Durham that has laid it out over time, that has pulled the data in, without issuing tickets, to figure out how best to curb the bad behaviour, the speeding, and how to make our roads safer.

One of the things from their website they say is, “All ASE devices are signed ahead of the device to promote transparency. The goal of this program is to slow drivers down through our most vulnerable areas, namely school zones and community safety zones, and improve safety.”

All of our municipalities are hearing from community members to fine-tune this. There is room for improvement. We should not be abolishing something that works.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I was listening very carefully to the speech from the member from Nickel Belt regarding health care. Now, the old system of Ontario’s health care professionals was failing. Qualified workers were stuck in limbo, waiting months to get certified, while hospitals and clinics faced staffing shortages. In this bill, we’re fixing that.

Our government is cutting red tape, delivering results with bold reforms that put patients first. It seems that the opposition would rather cling to outdated rules that slow down care and leave communities underserved. Does the member’s community not need optometrists, denturists, dentists, occupational therapists? Why doesn’t the opposition support this bill to bring those professionals to Ontario?

M me France Gélinas: I have nothing but respect for all regulated health professionals, and I understand what the government is trying to do. It’s something that has been desired for people in Canada for a long time, so that if you are recognized as a regulated health professional in one province, you would have the right to practise in another province. The spirit of it is something good, something that health professionals have wanted for a long time, but the details—none of this is in the bill. All that the bill says is, “We will look into it.” It allows you to make regulations to make that happen.

So there are ways that I would 100% support, but there are ways where—hmm, maybe not so much. I’m a physiotherapist. I can speak about physiotherapy in other provinces. Some of them do not learn how to use ultrasound. So it’s the regulation that makes me worried, and none of the regulations are available.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Robin Lennox: My question is for my colleague from Nickel Belt. In this bill, there are changes to the regulations so that midwives can come from other provinces, but what we’re hearing from the midwifery community is that we are actively losing Ontario-trained midwives to provinces like BC because we’re not compensating them adequately and we’re not providing job opportunities. What would a meaningful change be that would actually increase the health care workforce in Ontario, which this bill will not accomplish?

M me France Gélinas: The member from Hamilton Centre is absolutely right. We have trained midwives, even in northern Ontario, that cannot find jobs. Why? Because the midwifery clinics that exist have not seen a base budget increase since this government took power. They don’t have competitive salaries, and they’re not able to add midwives to their practices.

What would help? Fund the midwifery practices that exist. Give them cost-of-living increases so that their salaries stay competitive. The recruitment and retention of health professionals is just as important as making sure that it doesn’t matter if you’re a midwife in Quebec—they don’t have midwives—if you’re a midwife in Manitoba, you can come to Ontario. But if there are no jobs for you and the jobs don’t pay, we’re no further ahead than where we are now.

But let me say, people love midwives, and they provide top-quality care. Thank you for what you do.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Questions?

Ms. Laura Smith: I listened intently to the members across in their statements. I know the member from Nickel Belt might be very interested in this, but we are in a global race right now to secure critical minerals and attract investments. The Minister of Energy and Mines has told all of us that it’s going to be 15 years before we can get a mine ready, and one of the works in this bill cuts the review times by 50%. This is a direct response to international competition and a chance to lead not just the country but the world in clean energy development.

Does the member support this streamlined approach to building mines faster, or will they continue to defend the fragmented system that costs Ontario billions in lost investments and jobs?

M me France Gélinas: There are more mines in my riding than in most other ridings. There are more abandoned mines in Nickel Belt than anywhere else in Ontario. Do we know mining? Yes, absolutely. We know how to mine in a way that is respectful of First Nations, respectful of the environment, respectful of workers.

But do you know what? There’s a new mine that opened across the street from Gogama. It took 15—no, it took 12 years before they could pour their first gold. There are homes across the street in Gogama that the government owns—homes that are worth at the most $200,000. For the last 15 years, the government has not been able to put those homes that they own up for sale.

You’re asking the mining industry to do things shorter, how about you start to do your own work faster? How about you put the houses up for sale in Gogama and in Foleyet and all over so that workers have a place to stay? They want to buy those houses. Our taxes paid to maintain those houses for the last 15 years, and you have not put them up for sale.

If you want mining, you need workers. If you have workers, you need a place to live. There are houses that the government owns that need to go up for sale now.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Questions?

Mr. Andrew Dowie: A question for the opposition—actually, I was listening intently to the member from Toronto–Danforth earlier speaking about some concerns about the changes to the Clean Water Act. I know, coming off of 18 years working for a municipal public works department, there are a lot of routine decisions that really are troublesome. We can be efficient. We can make decisions and reduce the risk by taking action more quickly if empowered to make those decisions. The changes proposed in Bill 56 actually allow us as public works staff to make those decisions and get to a cleaner environment far quicker.

They reduce delays, support new housing development and infrastructure expansion and really maintain strong oversight because practitioners are licensed with a complaints process.

So I wanted to just check to see if the reforms really are something felt to be problematic given that we do have a lot of checks and balances in the system by licensed professionals working in the system.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question from the member. It’s a serious question, not a frivolous one.

I have to say, Speaker, that I don’t have a lot of confidence in this government when it comes to protecting water quality. I know the argument that you’re making, but I would actually want to see a much better case put out by the government before I would accept that they are presenting this in good faith. As you’re well aware, we’ve already had two bills from this government undermining water quality protection. I don’t see in this bill or in this government’s current attitude or approach one that gives me confidence that the changes they make will actually make sure that water quality is protected.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Tabling of sessional papers

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that the following documents were tabled:

—the 2025 post-event report for the 44th Ontario provincial general election from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario; and

—the Election Returns with Statistics from the Records (2023 and 2024 By-Elections and 2025 General Election) from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario.

Wearing of pins

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow members to wear yellow daffodil pins in recognition of those who have been affected by cancer.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Essex is seeking unanimous consent to wear yellow daffodil pins. Agreed? Agreed.

Members’ Statements

Run for Their Lives

Ms. Laura Smith: For almost two years now, every single week, in the rain, in the snow and even in minus 20 degrees, members of the Thornhill community gather for Run for Their Lives at the Promenade mall. This grassroots movement with over 184 chapters across the world called for the release of the hostages held by Hamas after October 7 and for peace.

Like Forrest Gump, they believed if someone started, others would join in—and they did. Week after week, they were praying for strangers who had come to feel like family. It was such a powerful movement that came together to show support for those enduring such unimaginable hardship. They reaffirmed our commitment to justice and freedom.

In Thornhill, that spirit was led by Michelle and Mark Factor, who are here today, who never wavered in their convictions and carried on. They did it for humanity and to express hope, even when the world did not.

Michelle’s passion was very infectious, bringing organizations like Canadian Women Against Antisemitism and StandWithUs Canada, all sharing in one wish: to see the hostages released and for peace.

Less than a couple of weeks ago, Michelle organized the last run, day 737, and the group was so elated. They had so much hope the impending release was happening. Peace might be within reach. We could finally breathe a little easier, and we could also hope for a situation where we face less hate.

Thank you, Michelle and Mark.

Rare diseases

M me France Gélinas: Today, I reintroduce my bill to implement a rare disease strategy for Ontario in collaboration with Dr. Robin Lennox, the MPP for Hamilton Centre.

Imagine living with chest pain for decades. You can’t work to support your family. Your doctor can’t determine the cause of your pain, but understands that you are sick, that you need care. But there’s no one that can diagnose you, your illness or suggest effective treatment. Your physical and mental health suffers. You have no answers, just pain, disappointment and frustration. This is the reality of way too many people living with rare disease, but it doesn’t have to be like that.

Eight years ago, the Rare Disease Working Group submitted their report, a group right here in Ontario. It contained 19 recommendations to the Ministry of Health. Those recommendations have been sitting on a shelf, and it’s time that Ontario acted. Patients with rare diseases need solutions, and they need them now.

Rare diseases impact nearly one in 12 Canadians; 1.3 million Ontarians are dealing with a rare disease. From disease prevention, to diagnosis, to treatment, every step is difficult, leaving way too many people facing debilitating impacts on their own.

If passed, this bill will help improve early diagnosis, screening and treatment, including access to existing as well as new and emerging medication for people living with rare disease. Let’s get this done.

Small Business Week

MPP Andrea Hazell: Madam Speaker, this week is Small Business Week in Ontario, a moment to recognize the small businesses who kept our economy moving. However, instead of a celebration, we face another devastating setback for countless small businesses across the province.

As someone who has had the privilege of visiting small businesses from my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood to Mississauga, Brampton, Hamilton and up north, I’ve heard first-hand their heart-wrenching stories of struggles. Many of these small businesses are still burdened by debts from the pandemic, desperately trying to catch a break. Now they are grappling with the fallout from the US tariff war, leaving them feeling frustrated, hurt and ignored by this government.

In Ontario, over 407,000 small businesses employ one to 99 employees, more than half of all small businesses in Canada. Last year alone, they created 126,700 new jobs, the largest increase in the country. Yet, despite these achievements, this government has failed to provide meaningful support.

Cutting taxes for small businesses is the top priority for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They have supported that. Last year, my colleague MPP Bowman introduced the Cutting Taxes on Small Businesses Act to provide critical relief of up to $18,000 to those struggling to recover from COVID, but this government voted it down.

Riding of Scarborough Centre

Mr. David Smith: Over the past several months, I’ve had the privilege of connecting with residents and organizations across Scarborough Centre: attending several school graduation ceremonies, celebrating accomplishments of our young people working towards a bright future. I also participated by taking

part in school week engagement, visiting schools, students, educators and future school leaders.

As the community celebrates Diwali, I had the privilege of visiting several temples and community organizations, extending greetings and sharing in the spirit of light, unity and hope. I also distributed Diwali cards across Scarborough Centre to mark this joyous occasion.

This year, Ontario will celebrate the first ever Skilled Trades Week. I was honoured to introduce the bill that established this important week recognizing 144 skilled trades that keep our province moving.

October is also Small Business Month. I have been visiting local entrepreneurs and family-owned stores across Scarborough, hearing first-hand about their challenges and successes.

Finally, the Scarborough subway extension continues to progress, bringing vital transit options to our growing community.

Government accountability

MPP Wayne Gates: Time and time again, we have seen this government give handouts and favours to their friends, their donors, failed candidates, and well-connected insiders. We’ve seen it from the greenbelt to Ontario Place. And now the labour minister is using the Skills Development Fund as a slush fund.

In Niagara, for seven years now, this government has interfered in local democracy. It started in 2018, when the Premier cancelled Niagara’s first-ever direct election of a regional chair. They have appointed failed candidates, including my former opponent in the last election, to boards and agencies they do not have the qualifications for.

And now, after the tragic passing of Mr. Jim Bradley, we’re once again waiting to see if the Premier will pick and choose the next regional chair.

To quote the editor-in-chief of the St. Catharines Standard, “It does feel like Ford wants municipalities to be provincially appointed boards or commissions whose members sit at the pleasure of the rulers at Queen’s Park.”

Meanwhile, housing targets remain unmet. Local infrastructure is struggling. Front-line services suffer.

Speaker, it’s time to end this meddling. Niagara doesn’t belong to Premier Doug Ford. It’s time to stop the giveaways and handouts to failed candidates, donors and friends. It’s time to respect local democracy and decision-making in Niagara and across the province of Ontario once and for all.

Graham Rowat

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d like to start off by quoting Vladimir Guerrero Jr.: “Daaa Yankees lose!”

I realize that the Blue Jays have just defeated the Seattle Mariners and are headed to the World Series, so you’re probably wondering why I am starting off with the Yankees.

Well, my riding of Peterborough–Kawartha was well represented at the ALDS between the Toronto Blue Jays and the New York Yankees. For game 3 in New York, the national anthem was sung by Peterborough’s own Graham Rowat.

Graham grew up in Peterborough and attended Confederation public school, Queen Mary Public School, and he graduated high school from PCVS.

Graham now lives in New Jersey with his wife and works on Broadway as a performer.

In speaking with him afterwards, he let me know that the confidence he gained from singing at school and being involved in the arts program at PCVS is really what led him to Broadway.

If you’ve been to Broadway, you may have seen him in White Christmas or 1776. But locally, here in Toronto, you may also have seen him at the Princess of Wales Theatre as part of Beauty and the Beast.

Although the Jays didn’t win game 3, Graham did Peterborough and all of Canada proud on national TV in both Canada and the United States.

Congratulations, Graham, and go, Jays, go!

BAND Gallery

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Speaker, my riding of Parkdale–High Park is home to many vibrant cultural institutions, but few shine as brightly as BAND Gallery, directed by Claudia Pensa Bowen and Joséphine Denis of the Black Artists’ Networks in Dialogue.

BAND is more than a gallery. As one of Canada’s only Black-owned, Black-focused professional art spaces, it has nurtured the next generation of creators, offering mentorship, exhibitions and cross-cultural exchanges that help emerging artists thrive, even as we see the funding to arts be cut back.

Now BAND is reimagining its Victorian-era home at 19 Brock Avenue into a visionary hub for Black cultural expression. The redevelopment includes a fully accessible gallery, studio space, shop, and a pollinator garden, where neighbours can come to connect and create. And up on the third floor, you’ll find a library that preserves the stories, the scholarship, the artistic brilliance of the African diaspora.

Through global partnerships and cultural exchanges, BAND is connecting local talent to the world, sharing Canadian Black artistry, bringing new voices home.

In times of scarcity, art is often treated as expendable. BAND reminds us that creativity is essential for our collective future. Their vision ensures that art, history and community will thrive and be accessible to all, right here in Parkdale–High Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I know we are just coming back from a break, but I will remind members—and I’m going to start it right now—that members’ statements are 90 seconds. If you go beyond, I will stand and your microphone will go dead, so you will be cut off. So back to 90 seconds.

I recognize the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Police

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Three weeks ago, I joined the Peel Regional Police for a ride-along where I saw first-hand the crucial work of Peel police officers, 911 operators and staff. In CSOC, they showed me an important tool: the vulnerable persons registry, VPR. This is a voluntary registry that allows people to register loved ones who may have Alzheimer’s, autism or other mental conditions. Police then have the contact details and specific information about how to deal with those individuals, how to assist and how to locate those individuals should they go missing. I suggested that program three years ago, and I am thrilled to see it in action, with more than 1,400 people currently registered.

Speaker, I am also happy to see Toronto police launching a new three-digit, non-emergency phone number. Residents of Toronto can call *877 from a mobile phone and access the non-emergency line of Toronto police. I have long been advocating for this, and if this pilot project goes well, it will save millions of crucial minutes for 911 operators. I hope to see this roll out in other jurisdictions across Ontario.

Speaker, I know that any form of violent crime is too much. That’s why we must continue to support men and women in uniform.

I would like to thank the amazing officers at—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Snowmobiling

MPP Bill Rosenberg: Madam Speaker, in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin and across all of northern Ontario, our winters shape how we live, work and enjoy our communities. Snowmobiling is more than just a pastime here; it’s a vital part of our northern lifestyle. It brings families together, supports mental and physical well-being and draws visitors from across Ontario and beyond.

Unfortunately, our local clubs, some with histories spanning 40 to 50 years, are being forced to close essential trail networks. These trails are not just recreation; they are key arteries that connect our communities and fuel regional tourism and excursions. Volunteers have been the backbone of these clubs, dedicating themselves to maintain and groom these trails every year.

The impact is already alarming: Over 500 kilometres of trails have been identified to shut down in Algoma, over 700 kilometres of trails in the Thunder Bay district as well. Not to be forgotten is the economic impact on motels, restaurants, dealerships and local businesses. They rely on this seasonal income to make it through the winter months

While southern Ontario struggles with inadequate snowfalls over the years, the north has been a constant source of open trails, attracting riders from all over Ontario, relying on our trail infrastructure. Let’s make sure we provide the support our northern clubs need to stay viable and provide the next generations the opportunity to enjoy the north. Please join me in keeping our northern trails open. Thank you.

Cancer screening

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: It’s fantastic to be back. It’s great to see all of my colleagues from my new vantage point. It’s like I’m in the blue-green fold here. I guess teal is a great colour.

But in all seriousness, many of us have just come from the Canadian Cancer Society’s reception where we heard from Dr. Anthony Dixon, a husband, a father, a son, a brother and an emergency physician. Anthony is also a cancer survivor. He told us about the cost of cancer: dignity, time, sleep, certainty and money. There are dollars and cents to cancer, a subject my colleague from Niagara Falls and I have been raising the past few years in the Legislature. Anthony was lucky he had the means to pay for a PSA test, a simple blood test that can help detect prostate cancer early, when it is so much easier to treat.

Not everyone is as fortunate. Not so long ago, Anthony treated a man in his ER with severe back pain. After several tests, it was found this man was in the advanced stages in cancer. It was in his bones, spread from undiagnosed prostate cancer. When asked if he had ever had a PSA test, the patient said he couldn’t afford one.

Prostate cancer is the third-leading cause of cancer death among Canadian men. It’s time we prioritize the men in our lives, because we want them around as long as possible.

Members of this Legislature heard this story this morning, and you all know MPP Gates and I have motions on the table calling on this government to do the right thing: Look at the evidence, given diagnostic tools and tests have changed significantly over the past 10 years. This is not a political issue; it’s an issue of saving lives.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Sylvia Jones: First of all, I would like to welcome and introduce a family from my riding. Their daughter Elizabeth is actually the page captain today, and their previous daughter has also served as a page in the Legislative Assembly. So to the Demczur family, wherever you—there you are—thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’m here to welcome to Queen’s Park the amazing homelessness advocates, activists and staff to support my Homelessness Ends with Housing Act: Ashley Schuitema from Waterloo Region Community Legal Services; Jennifer Breaton and Liz from YWCA; Eric Philip, Kyra and Ros from Thresholds; also my constit staff Allie and Courtney; of course, my rock, my dad, Brendan Clancy, who is here to watch me today for my PMB; and my son James Fobel, who is a page in our page program. Thanks for coming. Thanks for all you do.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. October is Islamic Heritage Month. I am so happy to welcome folks from ISNA Canada who are here with us today. We have CEO Fouzan Khan, Ramy Sadek, Michelle Malik, Ali Gilani, Sandleen Azam, Salwa Yaghi, Maisha Majeed, Mahdi Chowdhury and Dalia Mohamed.

ISNA is setting up an Islamic heritage exhibit in room 351 from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. There is a reception starting at 6. I encourage all members from across the aisle to drop by.

MPP Mohamed Firin: Today I’m pleased to welcome a very special group of young people who are literally learning to build our province brick by brick through the Skills Development Fund at Next Level Masonry Training. I had the pleasure of visiting their training site in Uxbridge, where I saw first-hand the impact of this life-changing program.

These young people represent the future of Ontario’s skilled trades. Please join me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park. Joining us today are Justin Borg, Julian Shakes, Cihan Demets, Rojay Kid, Robert Pople, Kieran Maloney, Dennis Lauritsen, Andy Lauritsen, Rex Midas and Clinton Hosannah. Thank you.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I’d like to welcome to the House members of my family: my long-suffering spouse Ted Hoyle, my brother-in-law Ed Clayton and my darling little sister Mimi Shaw. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Monica Ciriello: It is my pleasure to welcome my constituency staff from Hamilton Mountain. We have Isaac, Ornina, Prachi, Dusan and Vanessa with us here today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to welcome all of the staff and volunteers from the Canadian Cancer Society, including Andrea Seale, the CEO, as well as volunteers Chantel Bourgeois, Taaha Ijaz, Julie Sheridan, Erica Carvalho and Dr. Anthony Dixon. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I’ll take an opportunity to welcome Dr. Akhil Chawla, a medical professional and an entrepreneur, along with proud father Anil Chawla. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. David Piccini: It’s a pleasure to welcome Manohar, Rajna, Karandeep and Kanwaljit from Gurdwara Guru Nanak Mission Centre here to Queen’s Park today.

I also want to extend a warm welcome to Tim, Margaret and Sinead from Youth Employment Services, who are here today and doing incredible work, all of you. Thank you.

Mr. Aris Babikian: I would like to recognize the presence of the organizers of the Latin American Heritage Month reception alongside their community members and members of the diplomatic corps.

There will be a reception today from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. in rooms 228 and 230 to celebrate Latin American Heritage Month, and I warmly invite all members of this House to join us today. Thank you.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Along with the Canadian Cancer Society, I would also like to welcome the Registered Massage Therapists’ Association of Ontario to Queen’s Park. Thank you to CEO Michael Feraday for joining us today.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I’d also like to add my welcome to members here today from the Canadian Cancer Society, particularly previous colleagues Annemarie Edwards and Stuart Edmonds. Thank you.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I’d also like to extend my warmest welcome to the Canadian Cancer Society, including Hillary Buchan-Terrell, Jasmine Brown, Day Aguilera and the executives who’ve already been named.

And a very special welcome to the YMCA Academy, an alternative high school in downtown Toronto, as well as Sprucecourt Public School, which is a historic school in Cabbagetown and my alma mater, my first school in Canada. Thank you.

Member’s birthday

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): On a point of order, I’d like to recognize the member for London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Thank you very much, Speaker. I would like to wish our dear colleague, the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, a very happy birthday today.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Happy birthday.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said that he was going to stand by his labour minister, despite the unbelievable mess we have with the SDF. More than half of the recipients of SDF money were donors to the PC Party. The labour minister’s donors jumped to the top of the pile of applicants. Companies are clearly donating to the labour minister with the expectation of getting what looks like preferential treatment from this same minister. And from the looks of it, the minister is obliging them.

To the Premier: Is this in fact acceptable conduct by a minister of your government?

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

Hon. David Piccini: As we’ve already established, folks are free to donate to whomever they want in Ontario. But I’m glad the member is talking about our Skills Development Fund. We have a number of guests here in the Legislature today who are doing incredible work. Just this morning, we launched and announced yet another round through the pathways program with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

My question to the member opposite is, does she support the incredible work they’re doing to embrace women in the trades and break down barriers? Former and current donors of hers were there today, lauding the work we’re doing for women in the trades, and it’s breaking down incredible barriers. I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, that was interesting. Let’s review what we know here, shall we? We know that $742 million went to applicants that were at the bottom of the pile, while 670 high-scoring applicants were denied. Coincidentally, more than half of the successful applicants had lobbyists in tow, lobbyists that included Kory Teneycke, the Premier’s own campaign manager. What about that?

Instead of a program that puts workers first, we are seeing the same the same pay-to-play scheme that we saw under the previous Liberal government before these guys.

To the Premier: Workers who really need this fund are asking, are you going to keep standing by your man?

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

Hon. David Piccini: The answer is yes. Just this morning, all of the partners that were there today from IBEW—Enercare, 240 women in HVAC. We had the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council there, who have launched an incredible program to get women into the skilled trades. We had A Women’s Work, Natasha Ferguson, who is there, who’s an incredible role model, dubbed the “first lady of construction.” She’s breaking down barriers, in particular for racialized women, Speaker. All of them were there—unity of purpose, getting more women into the trades.

And the result: a near doubling of the number of women registering for apprenticeships. Those are the results. We’re going to keep working hard to get the job done.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: This is getting pretty old, right? And it’s not just the SDF. It turns out that this Minister of Labour was knee-deep in the greenbelt scheme. In fact, the Trillium has obtained a transcript where banned lobbyist Mr. Mutton—some of you may know him as Mr. X—claims under oath that it was the same minister that tipped him off that the greenbelt was going to be open for business.

Looking at the donations that this minister is getting since he became in charge of that fund, I think he’s been sending out signals that he was open for business too.

So does the Premier still stand by his man, or is he going to fix the Skills Development Fund and fire this minister?

Hon. David Piccini: I am so disappointed—not one question about the actual people we are training.

This weekend, parliamentary assistant Sabawy and I joined Newcomer Women’s Services. The Sister2Sister program: 1,000 women—newcomer women—supported in project management skills. But you actually have to have projects to manage, and, thanks to this Premier, we’re getting those projects: new hospitals, new schools, mining in the north.

Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass: We took this plan to the people. We elected every member in the area of Brampton because we’re building the 413 and the Bradford Bypass. We’re training the people who are going to do the work, and we’re not going to stop, Speaker.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, that minister should stop hiding behind the women workers of this province and start taking some responsibility.

Yesterday, we heard about 1,200 jobs that are leaving Ingersoll. And once again, the Premier is late to the game. Just this morning, we heard about another 160 jobs that are at risk in Lindsay, jobs that are being shipped across the border to Utah. This government is a jobs disaster. The Premier’s wait-and-see approach is not working. The Premier has a playbook that’s full of stunts and full of fundraisers, but he has no plan. Does the Premier need to see a “closed” sign on every plant gate to start paying attention?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: President Trump’s tariffs are putting a chill on business on both sides of the border. Since 2018, over one million new jobs have been created in Ontario. In fact, Speaker, that includes the 87,000 new jobs that were created in the three months before President Trump’s tariffs hit, and includes the 8,800 jobs that were created just last month alone.

Why is that happening in Ontario? Because the Premier and our government have lowered the cost of doing business by $12 billion every year. And that is why companies continue to come here into the province of Ontario and bring employment, bring good jobs to people in all of the cities throughout Ontario. We know that’s the approach that works, not the NDP-Liberal approach of higher taxes, more red tape, which has been a continued failure in Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, they’re giving out billions of dollars to companies with absolutely no terms, conditions or strings attached. And then they wonder why the jobs are leaving.

The Premier has done nothing to help these folks. We have the workers in Ingersoll, the workers in Lindsay—no sign that the Premier has stepped in at all before those jobs start leaving the province. The last time GM said that they were shipping away jobs in Ontario, the Premier said the ship had left the dock. Well, we all saw that he was wrong then and he is wrong now. We saved those jobs. Workers in the province of Ontario saved those jobs.

My question to the Premier is, when are you going to be as laser focused on protecting the jobs before they leave this country, as you are on your stunts, on your fundraisers and on your pay-to-play schemes?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Madam Speaker, I’m speechless right now. Listening to these people that have never, ever run a lemonade stand in their life—they’d bankrupt the lemonade stand, as a matter of fact. They’ve never made a P&L statement. They’ve never put a sales and marketing plan together. They’ve never seen a budget, and down here, they’ve never seen a budget where they don’t want to increase taxes.

Under the NDP and the Liberals, they increased taxes over 46 different times, just constantly digging into companies’ pockets. Guess what happened, Madam Speaker: 600,000 jobs left the province. There’s over a million more people working today than there was in 2018. We’re seeing $46 billion in investment in the EV sector, $6 billion in the health sector and another tens of billions in the tech sector.

We have a strong plan. We’re going to continue moving forward, creating more opportunities for companies to invest. As I said last time, over 409 companies invested—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me, Speaker. You’ve got to be kidding me: 1,200 jobs in Ingersoll, right? Another, what, 160 jobs lost now in Lindsay? Those are families—

Interjection.

Ms. Marit Stiles: You can throw the insults at me, sir, but those are families who don’t have a future right now that they can count on because of this Premier’s inaction.

We are tired of watching jobs leave this province in droves. There were signs earlier this year this was coming. The Premier should have taken action then. He said he was going to create demand. He said he had a plan, but he did nothing about it. He has failed again.

I want to know from this Premier: Why do jobs have to leave the province for the Premier to start taking action? How many people have to lose their jobs for this Premier to actually do something about it?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: It’s a good opportunity here to talk about some facts. The fact is, according to StatsCan, Ontario added 8,800 jobs in September. In fact, 11,800 manufacturing jobs were created in Ontario in September, and on top of that, over 20,000 new manufacturing jobs in the last three months alone. That’s directly from StatsCan.

We know that President Trump’s tariffs are causing unprecedented uncertainty across the economy, and that’s why we put $30 billion of firepower together to be able to combat those tariffs. Over one million new jobs have been created since the beginning of 2018, and all of that is because of the economic climate that we have created in Ontario. You heard the Premier a minute ago: 409 new foreign companies have landed in Ontario, brought $40 billion and hired 24,000—

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

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Has anybody seen the movie Groundhog Day? Kind of what it feels like, eh?

If you stayed up late last night and did your homework, you would have found out that the minister postponed his $1,000-a-plate fundraiser, so I guess round 6 of the Skills Development Fund is not open yet. What I want to know, though, is, why did that happen? Is it the fact that the minister failed to disclose a conflict of interest that involved his close personal friend? Or was it Leafs tickets? You shouldn’t be up against the glass; you should be in the penalty box. This minister should be fired.

So why is the Premier protecting this minister, instead of protecting the workers in Ingersoll, Brampton and Ear Falls?

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

Hon. David Piccini: As with their party’s leader’s dinner, we’re focused on ours, and you’re welcome to purchase a ticket.

Speaker, we’re focused on protecting workers. That’s why, this morning, we were on site protecting workers who will be in the next generation of power plants in this province, power plants that were shuttered under that government: men and women out of work in Pickering, out of work in Oshawa, out of work in communities like mine.

I met a young woman from Cobourg who, thanks to the pathways program, will be working on the new nuclear plant that this minister is investing in. The SMRs that we’re selling to the world—Speaker, we’re putting those women front and centre in the trades because that’s where they belong, and we’re working so closely to make it happen.

These folks would rather us be energy-dependent on foreign dictators. We’re going to make that clean energy right here in Canada—

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

Mr. John Fraser: If the Premier was really protecting workers in Ingersoll, he wouldn’t have said yesterday, “I’m going to read the contract.” It’s not like we couldn’t figure it out. My dog Kealey could figure out what could happen. He should have read the contract. So I can’t take him seriously.

But let’s get back to the minister. Was it $27 million that went to bars and nightclubs in downtown Toronto? Was it those with close ties to the PC party who got that? Is it the money that well-connected lobbyists made off the Skills Development Fund, names like Massoudi or Fidani-Diker?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: You literally said you don’t care about workers—

Mr. John Fraser: I do care about workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

Mr. John Fraser: Those names—is that why you’re embarrassed?

So the question really is—well, it’s not a question: This minister should be fired. I don’t know how many times I have to say this.

What I want to know is, why is this Premier so committed to protecting his Minister of Labour, who is clearly out of order and not committed to protecting the workers of industry—

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

Hon. Doug Ford: If you were so interested in protecting the auto workers, why did you vote against it? Why did you vote against the deal for GM? Why did you vote against the deal for Stellantis? Why did you vote against the deal for Ford? Because you don’t give two hoots about the workers.

Where were you with Unifor? You know something, Madam Speaker: I challenge each and every one of you to talk to the leadership at Unifor. Who has been standing beside them? I have been standing beside them. You were nowhere to be found. I was up in Brampton, standing with the workers; you were out fishing all weekend. That’s what you do—absolute hypocrisy.

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

Mr. John Fraser: While the Premier was busy at city hall in 2009, or whenever it was, the Ontario Liberals and this party over here voted to bail out the auto industry, and we took a stake in it too. And guess what? On the other side—there are some members that are here—they voted against it. You remember. They remember. You voted against it.

We’re not taking lessons from you, sir. We’re not going to take any lessons from you.

You should have read the contract. You didn’t read it. It’s a bunch of—

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Other than tough talk and theatrics, what has this Premier done to protect the workers of Ingersoll, Brampton and Ear—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the Premier of Ontario.

Hon. Doug Ford: It’s ironic he is saying that when 600,000 workers are leaving the province. They were under attack. They had scandal after scandal after scandal. While he was busy selling $25,000 plates for your previous Premier, you know the great idea they came up with? “Let’s get rid of manufacturing”—their words, not mine. “Let’s focus on the service sector”—their words, not mine. We have both. We have the service sector and the manufacturing. We are an economic powerhouse in North America, and we are going to continue.

Long-term care: When he was the PA to long-term care, in 10 years, they built 600 beds. We’re building 56,000 homes. You destroyed long-term care. You destroyed every file you touched when you were in government and bankrupted the province.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is back to the Premier. Yesterday, in heckling—we all heckle here; I don’t take it personally—the Premier said that I “can’t get a real job.” I just want the Premier to know that I’ve been working since I was 15, in grocery stores. I worked full-time since I was 19. I’ve had a lot of real jobs. I don’t take any offence to that; I know that that happens.

But the Premier shouldn’t be concerned about me having a real job. I have one. What the Premier should be concerned about are the real jobs that the 700,000 people in Ontario looking for work need—not me; them. That’s the problem.

It’s clear that this minister should be fired, because when those people out of work see him shovelling money over to donors and insiders and friends, they have a right to be angry because they want a real job, not a Premier that’s only going to protect his minister.

When is he going to fire this Minister of Labour?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, let’s take a look at the numbers: What’s the economy today under this leader and under this government? It’s a $1.2-trillion economy. And what did we inherit? An economy of $850 billion going south—and I mean the tail lights of jobs going south of the border to the US. Madam Speaker, we’ve reversed that trend, creating the conditions for economic growth—close to a million jobs created since we came into power. That’s what the economic engine of Ontario, the economic engine of Canada, looks like—something they never saw in 15 years.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Brampton, Ingersoll, Ear Falls.

Premier, I’ve had real jobs. When my family was younger, I can remember times in between work when I was looking for a job. And I remember a time in the 1970s when my dad was out of work for a year and a half, and I know what that did to our family. I know how our family felt. I know how my dad felt. I knew what that was like. There are 700,000 people out there who are feeling how my dad felt—looking for work; not being able to know whether he was going to be able to do things he wanted to do for his family.

So I don’t know why you don’t get this. I don’t know why you can’t see it. When you have this kind of mismanagement and insider trading and money being shovelled over to people while people are out there trying to just put food on the table, how can you protect somebody who’s doing that while they’re just out there trying to do it for their family?

I’ll ask one more time: Why is this Premier spending more time protecting his Minister of Labour than he is protecting the 700,000 people who are looking for work in this province?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: You know, Madam Speaker, numbers matter. Numbers don’t matter to them. Let me tell you the story: In 2018, we walked into a bankrupt company. That’s what I tell everyone out there. It was totally bankrupt. The budget was $150 billion. We raised that budget up to about $230 billion now. We’ve seen $70 billion of investment from manufacturing to auto to the tech sector, as I mentioned earlier. They would’ve never, ever come.

You jacked up hydro rates the highest in North America. You jacked up taxes the highest in the entire country. You ran up the debt.

What we did: We did the total opposite. We’ve never raised a tax—never—since we’ve been in office over seven years. But we’ve created a million jobs—$70 billion of investment. My minister right beside me here has 200 companies wanting to invest in Ontario. You vote against it. You vote against the auto deals. You vote against making sure we get mines going. You vote against—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I want to caution the member when he asks his—I want to caution the member around our language.

I recognize the leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: Look, you guys voted against the auto industry in 2009. I don’t forget. They don’t forget.

Let’s ask ourselves this question—just a person out there looking for work. What’s the Premier doing to get me a job? Since 2018, is my kid’s school any better? No. Do I have better access to health care?

Interjections: No.

Mr. John Fraser: Can I find a family doctor?

Interjections: No.

Mr. John Fraser: Is my kid getting the help they need in school?

Interjections: No.

Mr. John Fraser: Is life any more affordable?

Interjections: No.

Mr. John Fraser: So my question to the Premier is, just what the heck has he been doing since 2018?

Hon. Doug Ford: Madam Speaker, 95% of the people are employed by small businesses. My great minister is working her back off on small businesses. We lowered the small business tax to 3.2%, the lowest in recent memory—I can’t even think. We made sure that we have in-demand jobs. And the in-demand jobs now are what my minister is doing by creating the environment for companies around the world. They come and invest in the Ring of Fire that you can’t stand. Both parties do not want to invest in the Ring of Fire. They’d rather see nothing happen.

When it comes to nuclear—I’ll never forget. In 2018, I was campaigning—they were closing down Pickering. The thousands of people with good-paying jobs wouldn’t have a job right now. They want nothing to do with nuclear. That’s the way of the future. Everyone’s looking at nuclear. We’re going to create tens of thousands of jobs, not just with SMRs. We’re building large-scale nuclear—again, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. You don’t want it—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for London North Centre.

Automotive industry

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Speaker, yesterday, the London community was rocked by the news that multi-award-winning CAMI in Ingersoll was no longer going to build the BrightDrop system, at a plant that the governments of Ontario and Canada invested billions into.

Surely, any good business person wouldn’t hand over billions without a contract, without strings attached.

Now the Premier is posturing that he’ll sue GM for breach of contract.

So my question is simple: Will the Premier show CAMI workers, their families and this House the contract?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Well, there are more people working in London than there were back in 2018.

I remember going to London for Maple Leaf Foods, and they did a massive expansion. Andriani, the food company from Italy, came there, opening a new plant—new opportunities. At Labatt, they’re looking for expansion opportunities, too, to produce cans right here in Ontario, not anywhere else. And the list keeps going on and on and on.

My friend, I recommend that you call the mayor and ask him about what’s going on and the opportunities. The new jobs are rolling into London—job after job after job.

You’re out of touch because, again, you have never ever run anything in your entire life. You don’t even know what a P&L statement looks like. That’s the difference between competent leaders here versus totally incompetent people on the other side of the aisle.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Speaker, how did anything that the Premier just say provide any comfort to all of the CAMI workers, all of their families, and all of the small businesses affected by his inaction?

The federal government, through Canada Post, is spending a billion dollars to electrify their fleet. But where are they buying from? The United States.

Make no mistake: CAMI would still be running three shifts strong if the provincial and federal governments actually supported our local workers by buying Ontario-made vehicles.

Real leaders put their money where their mouth is.

My question to the Premier: How many vehicles has the Ontario government purchased from CAMI in Ingersoll?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Let’s look back to 2018, when every single auto company here in Ontario was at risk. Under the previous government, supported by the NDP, companies were fleeing Ontario, including our auto companies.

What Premier Ford and our government have done is lowered the cost of business and turned that around. We have literally saved those hundred thousand jobs from leaving, and not only that, but we’ve added to that by 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 and 50,000 now—new jobs in the auto sector.

Speaker, this government has completely supported the auto sector.

This opposition has voted against every single thing we have done to add jobs in the auto sector—every single job.

Government accountability

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Speaker, my colleague from Ottawa South says we are back in school, and I would say with this government it’s nursery school. So today, we’ll start off with a rhyme:

Eeny, meany, miney, mo

Catch a donor by his toe.

If he hollers, let him go

To the Minister of Labour

For some dough!

This, my friends, should be the new advertisement for the Skills Development Fund, because, obviously, the usual application process is no longer working. The metrics used to be to:

—demonstrate that funding will bolster in-demand target sectors;

—develop a resilient workforce; and

—prove reasonable costs and a clear delivery plan.

And yet, now this government has thrown that all out the window and switched it up with a pay-to-play system that is inappropriate and unfair.

My question to the Premier: Why not come clean with Ontarians and tell them that he has turned the Skills Development Fund into a game?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, maybe a little less time on rhymes and more time talking to sheet metal workers in Ottawa abandoned by them.

I was just up there—Brent James. They were waiting forever for a Premier to step forward to make investments in new hospitals. That’s what this Premier did. You know what that means for Brent James and his members, supported by our Skills Development Fund? Those workers are going to work. They’re collecting a paycheque. They’re building a new hospital in Ottawa. They’re making those critical investments in infrastructure that we’re making. They know what they get with them: rhymes, taxes. Eenie, meenie, minie, moe / Tax everyone till they go.

That’s what these guys did every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Beaches–East York.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Speaker, our second rhyme for the morning—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Nursery schoolers, come on:

Applicant, applicant number nine

Going down the Ontario line

If the gravy train falls off the tracks

Do you want your donation back?

The Ontario government website states, “The Skills Development Fund ... offers funding to organizations for innovative projects that address challenges to hiring, training, or retaining workers ... to drive Ontario’s economic growth”—a perfect program to help with our unemployment crisis.

Speaker, organizations all across Ontario rely on this vital resource. The saddening reality is that the Skills Development Fund is an incredibly powerful program with the ability to improve and transform lives, and the Premier and Minister of Labour have completely denigrated it.

My question—

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

Hon. David Piccini: They’ve fallen so off track with unions it’s no wonder they’re here supporting this Premier, this Premier with a plan to build hospitals, this Premier with a plan to build new nuclear, with a plan to put thousands of men and women to work to secure our energy future, this Premier with a plan to build public transit. You want to talk about applicant number nine? It all happened under Stephen Blais’s time.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I will remind members we do not refer to other members by their first name.

Manufacturing jobs

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s an interesting morning here.

My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Speaker, this world is becoming less stable. Many of our allies are preparing to increase their defence spending. Our NATO partners have pledged to invest up to 3% of their GDP, with Canada nearing 2% of that target this year. This is a major opportunity for Ontario. From critical minerals to advanced manufacturing and aerospace, our province can supply our allies with the materials and the technology they need.

Ontario’s defence sector is already one of the strongest in North America. We already have the workers, the companies and the innovation to meet this global demand. Can the minister share how Ontario’s defence and advanced manufacturing sectors are creating good jobs and providing the leadership needed to protect Ontario and the world?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, as a response to President Trump’s tariffs, the EU has now announced $1.3 trillion in defence spending; Germany, $600 billion in defence spending. So as the world ramps up their defence spending, Ontario is deepening our trade ties with our allies and speeding up to meet their needs.

We are a proven, reliable partner to our NATO allies. We’re home here in Ontario to 300 defence companies. We’re specialists in combat vehicle production, radar, information collection systems, aircraft fabrication and compound manufacturing. Some 13,000 workers are committed to seeing that that number grows.

Our goal is clear. We want every single piece of defence equipment, every part that we can possibly make here in Ontario, to be made here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I want to thank the minister for that encouraging update. Ontario has the people, the skills and the manufacturing strength that the global defence companies require. Ontario is home to world-leading producers of aerospace systems, advanced manufacturing and satellite technology. With global tensions rising and countries increasing their defence spending, Ontario’s role as a trusted partner will only grow stronger. Our companies and workers are ready to step up and help build what our allies need to stay safe.

Speaker, can the minister share what he’s been hearing directly from Ontario’s defence companies and workers about Ontario’s growing leadership in this critical sector?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Yesterday, we attended the Best Defence Conference, Canada’s premier aerospace and defence conference, in the city of London. Now, we hosted a round table with more than 15 leading companies in the defence sector who are already located here in Ontario. That includes London companies like General Dynamics, others like Babcock and NordSpace and many, many more.

We all agreed on one thing: This is our time. This is a pivotal moment for the province of Ontario to fight for every single piece of defence contracting that’s available. Whether it’s from Canada or around the world, we want it. From aerospace systems to small arms, satellite technology, leading defence technology and equipment is being built right here in Ontario right now.

Speaker, we are ready to equip our allies all around the world with the best in defence technology, supplies and equipment. With rising geopolitical activity, we know that Ontario is the stable partner for these companies around the world.

Steel industry

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: To the Premier: Ontario’s infrastructure projects should strengthen local communities. Ontario’s skilled trades are ready to work, and our steel industry is second to none. Will the Premier guarantee right here, right now, that public dollars will go towards local steel, local materials and local workers in the construction of the Garden City Skyway twinning project? Or will they admit they would rather sell out Ontario jobs to the lowest bidder once again?

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

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: This is the first opportunity I’ve had to address the House as Acting Minister of Infrastructure. I am filling in for Minister Surma, who just had a beautiful baby girl named Georgia. We congratulate her on that.

But let’s talk about history—where we were and where we are. Under the Liberals, supported by the NDP, building necessary infrastructure was ground to a complete halt, damaging our economy and holding back Ontario’s true potential.

We are picking up the shattered pieces of the previous government and we’re building the Ontario of tomorrow by leveraging a range of innovative delivery models to ensure projects are completed efficiently while maximizing value for taxpayers and supporting Ontario’s long-term growth for all.

In order to get shovels in the ground more quickly, we passed the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act in June of this year, the same month Donald Trump doubled steel and aluminum tariffs on our country to 50%. It should come as no surprise in this House that the Liberals and the NDP voted against it—surprise, surprise.

We’re going to get it done. We have a mandate. We’re going to get it done right.

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I want to congratulate mom and baby. I’m glad to hear everyone is healthy.

However, to the Premier: This government has not told us what the twinning project will cost the taxpayers. At the very least, what this will cost the taxpayer is so important. Will this government commit to prioritizing the use of Ontario steel, ensure that local workers in skilled trades are at the heart of this project and that communities benefit from billions being spent in their own backyard?

Once again, this government is selling out Ontario jobs to the lowest foreign bidder and still has the nerve to call it building Ontario.

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’m happy to take the opportunity to address this. The Garden City Skyway, a project that the members opposite voted against, is moving forward under the leadership of Premier Ford.

The Ontario Line, the Scarborough subway extension, the Eglinton West extension—every single one of these projects matters, Speaker. Canadian workers are at the helm, and guess what? There are thousands and thousands of jobs, whether it’s the Bradford Bypass, whether it’s the Ontario Line, whether it’s going to be the Garden City Skyway that is going to employ thousands of people in your riding, in your area. And guess what? You stood up and voted against those jobs for your community. Shame on the members opposite for doing that.

Whether it’s any of transit projects, any of our subway projects, you have voted against Canadian and—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Government accountability

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Going back to the Auditor General’s report, it says that nearly half a billion SDF dollars were doled out to low-rated applicants without any form of written documentation or rationale provided. It’s as if the minister was simply waiving a wand: “You’ve been a good donor; approved. You’ve been a good donor; approved.”

Well, you know what? The minister has spent a lot of time informing us on how terrific all of these organizations that received the funding are. My question is to the minister: If so many of the transformative organizations were lowly rated, how did they get the platinum treatment? And what exactly was your rating criteria? If there’s nothing to hide, why not release it?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, when given the opportunity, all that these guys have shown us is that they’re good to tax people, to tax manufacturing jobs, to tax people out of this province. This Premier has taken a different path. He’s bringing in investments. We’re making critical investments to infrastructure—cranes up everywhere, putting people to work.

And when it comes to putting people to work, there’s a local organization in her riding, Windmill Microlending, doing incredible work. I wish she had taken me up on my invitation to join that SDF, to see the KPIs, to see the metrics that the Auditor General herself acknowledged are strong, but they’re not interested in that. They’re not interested in that. All they’re interested to do is tax Ontarians.

Ontarians made their choice. They voted for a strong PC government that’s going to build.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: I guess my invitation got lost in the mail. I know my colleague got an invitation; I didn’t. I’m hurt.

Look, let’s just bring it back to the matter at hand here. We’re not debating about the organizations, whether they’re worthy at all. No one is denying that many of these organizations do great work. The issue is you, Minister. That’s the issue—

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

MPP Stephanie Smyth: —the inexcusable lack of transparency and accountability.

The Auditor General’s report, again, lays out, in black and white: hundreds of millions of dollars distributed without proper oversight, with decisions that appear politically driven—a process that shows blatant disregard for transparency. It also defies belief that while 150 people are losing their jobs at a sawmill that shut down in Ear Falls, we’re just learning, this government is handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to its closest friends.

So my question is to the labour minister: If this mess doesn’t warrant your resignation, what does? Do the Premier a solid.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, all of that is public knowledge. All of the criteria is public. The issue is her: She lost labour. They lost labour unions. They lost the election. They abandoned the workers of this province. They abandoned them when they shuttered Pickering, when they said they were going to close nuclear plants, when they didn’t build hospitals, when the pathetic tally of 600 long-term-care beds was the best they could muster.

This Premier is building. He’s building hospitals, building new nuclear. They never took the opportunity to dream—to dream big for Ontario workers, to make those investments, to build a better tomorrow for our next generation. They destroyed our apprenticeship system. They destroyed trades in schools.

Every single construction worker in this province knows we’ve got their back. We’ll protect workers. They’ve got no use for Liberals.

Steel industry

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: My question is to the Premier, and it relates to protecting steelworkers; I represent nearly 1,200 of them from Local 8782, who enjoy their great careers at the steel mill in Nanticoke.

In February, the