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

December 2, 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-Dec-02 vol. A (PDF)

L045A - Tue 2 Dec 2025 / Mar 2 déc 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 December 2025 Mardi 2 décembre 2025

Orders of the Day

Peel Transition Implementation Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la mise en oeuvre de la transition de Peel

Members’ Statements

Ecumenical meeting in Istanbul

Government’s record

Holiday events in Ajax

Filipino community

Suzanne Obiorah

Marten Falls First Nation

Total Communication Environment

Fertility services

Infrastructure funding

Minor hockey

Introduction of Visitors

House sittings

Remarkable Women at Queen’s Park

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

University and college funding

Government accountability

Housing

Hospital funding

Consumer protection

Affordable housing

Northern Ontario development

Government advertising

Public transit

Ontario economy

Annual report, Auditor General

Deferred Votes

Resource Management and Safety Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la gestion des ressources et la sécurité

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

Introduction of Bills

Transparent and Accountable Health Care Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le financement transparent et responsable des soins de santé

Petitions

Soins de la vue

Access to menstrual products

Public transit

Health care funding

Education funding

Health care

Child care

Pharmacare

Supportive housing

Northern Health Travel Grant

Orders of the Day

Peel Transition Implementation Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la mise en oeuvre de la transition de Peel

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Peel Transition Implementation Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la mise en oeuvre de la transition de Peel

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

Bill 45,

An Act to make statutory amendments respecting the transfer of jurisdiction within The Regional Municipality of Peel and the appointment of Deputy Provincial Land and Development Facilitators / Projet de loi 45, Loi apportant des modifications législatives en ce qui concerne le transfert de compétences dans la municipalité régionale de Peel et la nomination de facilitateurs provinciaux de l’aménagement adjoints.

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

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, Madam Speaker, and good morning, everyone. It’s always great to see all of you, your smiling faces in this chamber, and I’m always proud to represent beautiful Beaches–East York when I stand up here every day.

I’m not going to be speaking long at all on Bill 45 because we’re supportive of it. But what I would say to the members across is, what seems to happen in this House is that you put forth an idea, you put forth a bill and then—well, if it goes to committee, that’s grand; if it doesn’t, that’s a problem, which we have of late—but the legislation goes out there and it causes a scene. It causes a crisis. It causes a kerfuffle because you haven’t met with the key stakeholders. You haven’t engaged with the people you need to meet with, to speak with, to hear from.

Then you find out there are things that are wrong in the bill, which could have been dealt with originally had you done your due diligence, had you taken the time, had you been methodical and meticulous in the process and done it right. As I say, I don’t want to sing it, but get it right the first time.

I was on the committee with my second-favourite member over there, from Perth–Wellington, the new daddy-o. He’s actually awake, surprisingly, with a newborn. We went around Ontario. We went to Barrie. We went to St. Catharines. We went to Burlington, and we did this regional governance review. Remember that? Municipal leaders in those areas are still asking what’s happening with that because we started it and then it’s just been dropped. So are we actually going to do something for that or is it all for naught?

And now you have a bill about Barrie. We won’t even get into that because that’s just very eye-popping, that legislation.

What I would say is, just take the time with all future bills, please. Go through the proper readings: first, second and third. Go to committee. Engage with Ontarians, actually listen to them and let’s get the legislation right the first time so we are not—I mean, it was the Peel divorce, then it was the Peel kind of separation and then it’s the Peel kind of breakup but still together, friends—it wasn’t you, it was me kind of thing. We finally got some legislation, but maybe it just could have been done right the first time.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate—what can I say—the pointedness of the comments made by the member from Beaches–East York. She mentioned, and I was intrigued: “It’s not you, it’s me.” Could you expand on that, please?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: The Peel transition wasn’t a transition; it was a breakup. The whole Peel region, they were going to break it up. We were doing this whole regional governance review. It wasn’t just Peel. It was going to be Niagara. It was Simcoe county. It was Barrie. Where did we go—Burlington. We went all over the province. We spent taxpayer dollars to go to these places and listen to community members and politicians and hear from them. I don’t know what happened with Peel. It was going to be a full on separation and now it’s back kind of together but separate a bit. Who knows with this government?

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

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the member opposite: You talked many times about the fact that you were proud that you were a Toronto city councillor. One of the things that has always been allowed in municipal politics is municipal service corporations, and there’s been a bit of misunderstanding out there in the public about what Bill 45 creates and what it doesn’t create.

I’d just be very interested in hearing from the member whether she supports a public municipal service corporation like a public utility—or even a municipality; a municipality is a corporation. When I was mayor, it was the corporation of the city of Brockville. I’d really love to hear the member opposite talk about her support for municipal service corporations.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you very much to the former municipal politician, at quite a young age.

Yes, absolutely, and that’s why we’re supporting this bill. The problem is that there’s not a lot of trust for this government in getting it right the first time, in not backpedalling and changing your mind, in flipping and flopping, and in doing one thing on one level but then in the regulations something else.

We are supportive of this bill at the end of the day. I know you’re shocked by that, but there will be hopefully unanimous support for this.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I listened to the member’s brief remarks and I did want to ask her her thoughts on whether Bill 45 finally provides clarity for municipal employees in Peel region after two and a half years of back and forth, an announcement and then a reversal.

It has been very chaotic at the municipal level, and I wondered if the member would care to comment on whether Bill 45 provides that certainty that municipal employees need to move forward.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you to the member from London West for that question. That is a very important question when we’re dealing with people and people’s lives and people’s livelihoods. Honestly, the people in Peel region, the employees have probably not been sleeping that well at night for the past long while that we’ve been deliberating and debating and deciding on this. It’s not fair, and I know that some members, employees, have left, actually, and that’s not what we want. We don’t want good people leaving good jobs where they do good work.

So a little bit of clarity and assurance would be beneficial—I’m missing the word—but beneficial for people to go on with their lives and have a sense of calm with their jobs and their quality of life.

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

Mr. Matthew Rae: It’s great to rise this morning, everyone, to speak to Bill 45,

An Act to make statutory amendments respecting the transfer of jurisdiction within The Regional Municipality of Peel and the appointment of Deputy Provincial Land and Development Facilitators. I know it’s an important debate, colleagues.

The region of Peel, as our great members from the region of Peel will tell you, is one of the fastest-growing regions in Canada. Mississauga, Brampton and the town of Caledon—well over a million people live within that area. They’ve seen a lot of growth over the past 50 years, past 25 years. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing actually grew up in Streetsville, and he talks often about how much change he has seen in that area of the world. My understanding is his parents still live in Mississauga as well.

Really, it was a testament, the growth of Mississauga, to Hurricane Hazel—not the actual hurricane; I know we’ve been talking about that—the former mayor of Mississauga, and the importance of ensuring we’re building strong communities. I know Brampton has grown significantly as well.

Speaker, as the member from Beaches–East York—who, colleagues, is my favourite Liberal member in this place, even though I’m her second-favourite Tory member. I don’t hold it against her. That’s okay.

Interjection.

Mr. Matthew Rae: At least I’m in the top 10, as the member from Essex says.

We did travel our beautiful province together, colleagues, almost—I’m trying to think how many—two years ago now. Wow, time flies when you’re having a good time, everyone. We travelled our beautiful province. It also relates to our Simcoe bill that we’ve been debating in this place with the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy and very important committee meetings on regional governance. We went to each region a minimum of two times. We went to Simcoe. We went to Durham region. We went to Waterloo. We went to Niagara. We went to Halton. We went to York and we obviously went to Peel as well.

I think it was on a very wintry day, like we’re having today. We went to Peel—beautiful, beautiful Brampton.

Interjection.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes, the great member from Brampton North is supporting—I think it was in Brampton Centre, the actual location of the meeting, but still a beautiful part of Brampton. We were there to hear from—at that time, it was an acting mayor because Bonnie Crombie was currently running for her failed leadership bid.

Interjections.

Mr. Matthew Rae: A little applause on that from the Brampton member.

We met with the city of Mississauga. The city of Brampton also sent representatives; the paramedics as well—their union sent a representative—and some other staff level and interested community members.

We really heard from those on the ground the importance of the different models of governance and how we can improve that, how we can improve efficiency within the Peel area. It really is a fruition of this bill that we have before us today.

The Peel transition board was struck. They did a lot of good work, colleagues. It was under Minister Calandra and it concluded its work with Minister Flack. I know, because I was parliamentary assistant in that role—I’ve been in that role since March 2023. It’s a great ministry—a very busy ministry—to be in, Speaker, because it touches so many different aspects of our province and different acts in the Legislative Assembly.

The Peel transition board really undertook on-the-ground work to understand better: Is there a better way to implement some of the services provided by the region of Peel or the lower tiers—whether that’s waste water, whether that’s roads and bridges, whether that’s social services, paramedics, fire etc. Some we identified as, no, that should remain at the regional level, such as paramedics, fire, police and those types of social and community services. But then other initiatives we identified were the potential for waste water capacity administration but also roads.

I’m pleased to see in Bill 45 that the roads, in particular, are explicitly mentioned in this bill, where they will be given to the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton and the town of Caledon, because those municipalities have reached a certain maturity in their development, where they can maintain those roads more efficiently and ensure that they are up to a high standard versus at the regional level. We’ll be providing that authority if this piece of legislation is passed in this House to those lower-tier municipalities.

That is something we heard from the committee on our regional governance review tour that we had almost two years ago to the day. I know that in regional governance review, we heard a lot about waste water capacity and how we build out waste water across Ontario.

Colleagues, it costs a lot to build in the province of Ontario. That’s because of a variety of reasons, whether it’s the increasing cost to build through inflation, whether it’s the new trade war, unfortunately, we are currently in with our US partner south of us—it costs more to build in the province of Ontario, but that’s not stopping our government. We’re continuing to make those investments and continuing to build the roads, the bridges and the waste water capacity all across Ontario, not just in the city of Mississauga.

But we are investing in the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel in waste water capacity—I believe, prior to the last provincial election, we announced over $35 million to improve the waste water capacity in the region of Peel, an important investment.

Interjections.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes, a very important investment, colleagues, in their ambitious build-out of that waste water capacity in the region of Peel.

But there are other regions that require significant investment. And it’s not for a lack of planning; they’ve made significant plans to do that, but they’ve seen such growth. Ontario is growing, which is a good thing, colleagues, because it means there are more people here in Ontario to be working in our industries, to be sending their children to our schools, to be ensuring our schools have the teachers and educational assistants to meet this growing need. Our government makes those investments on the education side, but that means we need to invest in our infrastructure to build out that capacity.

In the region of York, they need roughly $3 billion to build out their waste water capacity. To do that, I don’t think there’s any provincial government in Canada—or even the federal government—that has that amount of money to build that significant investment of $3 billion, Speaker.

Minister Calandra and Minister Flack heard this constantly from smaller municipalities, mainly—less so our urban municipalities that have a larger tax base because they have a larger population, but our medium-sized municipalities, our rural municipalities and our northern municipalities—on the need for a new model to ensure that they can attract investment and finance the important investments in waste water capacity.

I know we’ve heard from some in this place on how we’re going to privatize waste water capacity. That is furthest from the truth. In fact, in every piece of government legislation, it says “public corporation,” “municipal service corporation”—public, Speaker. That ability is really coming from the feedback we’ve heard from municipalities. They’ve been telling us, “We need a new fiscal mechanism to help attract capital, borrow at more competitive rates, borrow over a longer period of time that we can currently do as municipalities,” because they only have so much capacity as municipalities to borrow.

If a municipal service corporation—and you’re allowed. I know in my riding of Perth–Wellington, the municipality of Mapleton has already set up a municipal service corporation—again, publicly owned—municipal employees and municipal councillors sit on the board they set up. They set it up for their municipality to help fund their size of municipality—under 10,000 people, a very rural municipality in my riding—to build out thousands of new homes, potentially, through their waste water expansion.

They have used this municipal service corp. to provide the $40-million loan over a longer period of time to make it more affordable to the ratepayer, colleagues. I know the government is very focused on ensuring we put forward legislation and our province remains affordable for families, so it’s great to see a municipal partner also have that same view, ensuring that there is affordability and putting less pressure on their ratepayers. The municipal service corp. allows them to spread that out over a longer period of time, and this model is something we should be able to replicate across the province.

Unfortunately, if the municipality of Mapleton wanted to partner with the municipality of Centre Wellington, which is next door in Wellington–Halton Hills, they would not be able to do so because, as the Municipal Act is currently written, it prevents you from crossing those municipal boundaries. For them to be able to do that, to organically create these municipal service corps., they would not be able to do that as the act is currently written.

I know with Bill 60 we just passed, that was part of that bill, allowing the ministry to continue to consult with our municipalities, continue to consult with AMO. I know we are doing that around municipal services corps. and municipal utilities around waste water and water capacity because we know there’s a need and there’s an ask, colleagues. We’re not coming to this House with these ideas out of thin air. We heard this at the regional governance hearings; we heard this at AMO and ROMA and NOMA over and over: the need for this new fiscal mechanism to allow waste water capacity to expand in the province of Ontario without it all relying on the provincial taxpayer or the municipal ratepayer.

I use this example often when I’m speaking with stakeholders or at speaking events. It’s disappointing, or frustrating, I would say, historically, to see pension funds like the Canada Pension Plan, the Ontario public service pension plan or OMERS heavily invest in California or London, UK. Right now, OMERS is helping build the London tube system, but they are not helping build Toronto subways or helping build waste water in Ontario or roads or bridges in Ontario because they don’t have a fiscal mechanism to make that investment on behalf of their members.

I know the Minister of Finance has been working diligently through the Building Ontario Fund to set up a larger fiscal mechanism, but the municipal service corps. can then provide that ability as well to have that investment flow locally and complement the public dollars that are going to be used in these build-outs.

Again, the governance structure would still be a public governance structure. It would still have provincial representatives; it would have municipal representatives. And we’re really working with AMO to bring about organic municipal service corps. We’re not looking to create a province-wide municipal service corps. We’re looking at what municipalities want to come forward with to propose those solutions. I know I had the pleasure of meeting with the eastern wardens, and there was talk of what ways they could collaborate in eastern Ontario to bring forward, potentially, a solution to that, and I look forward to seeing more of that as these consultations continue.

To bring it back to Bill 45, the Peel transition really is the first step in that. A lot of work went through the Peel Transition Board, through experts in a variety of fields. Whether it was engineering, city services, governance or finance, they really went through the Peel transition and identified the strengths where the city of Mississauga or the city of Brampton or the town of Caledon could thrive on their own, stand on their own two feet, and then other services that still needed to remain at the regional level—as I mentioned, social services, police, paramedics and others.

Really, I just wanted to take the remaining few minutes I have to highlight the fact that we’ve had a very ambitious fall legislative agenda, colleagues. We’re passing a variety of important pieces of legislation. We’re having rigorous debate. But today, the opposition spoke for five minutes—

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Less.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Less than five minutes—three minutes. The Liberal member spoke for three minutes of 60 and chose to sit down on a very important piece of legislation.

The opposition members from the NDP haven’t put anyone up yet. I don’t think they’re going to put anyone up.

Interjections.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Oh, they are, apparently, colleagues. They’re going to put someone up now. Now that I’m starting to call them out, they’re going to put someone up. I won’t hold my breath.

But, Speaker—

Interjection.

Mr. Matthew Rae: The Minister of Tourism can hold three minutes—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Order.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Speaker, we’re here to debate an important piece of legislation, but the members of the opposition aren’t putting anyone up. I bring that up because they are saying that we are surmounting democracy, we’re destroying democracy. But when they have an opportunity to speak on a bill, they don’t stand in their place and talk about the bill. They don’t talk at length about what they think we could do to improve it.

The member for Beaches–East York was at committee with me. She heard everything I heard from our deputations about what we could do to improve this bill or regional governance and didn’t provide any of that in the remarks this morning.

Speaker, it was disappointing to see that the members of the opposition aren’t putting anyone up.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I think it is too early for them—

Mr. Matthew Rae: It may be a little early. We can send up some more coffee from the Speaker’s office.

We’re here to debate important legislation. I am proud to stand in this place to debate whatever bill is before this assembly to ensure that we have a fulsome debate on every piece of legislation that comes before this place because it’s important work we do in this place.

We aren’t surmounting democracy. We are not trampling on the democratic rights of Ontarians. We had an election this year—which, I know it’s hard to believe, colleagues, was still this year. I know many of us have tried to suppress that memory of knocking on doors in the snow. When it first started snowing a couple of weeks ago in my riding, I started to get some flashbacks from that. I hope we don’t have to do another door-knocking campaign in a winter campaign.

Interjections.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes, I think we all can agree on that, colleagues.

But we had that campaign. We heard directly from the people of Ontario. It was great to see that the good people of Peel region sent back every single PC member. We swept the entire region, colleagues. We even won the seat Bonnie Crombie was running in. Wow, that’s saying something. The former mayor of Mississauga couldn’t win a seat in the city of Mississauga. I think the good people of Mississauga knew who they were voting for when they voted for the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville and brought her to this place as part of the PC government here. It was great to see that they sent an entire, strong PC majority government back to this place.

The entire region of Peel voted for Premier Ford and our great PC members there because they knew we bring forward pieces of legislation like Bill 45 to ensure that we strengthen Peel region, to ensure that we continue to invest in Peel region, to ensure that we give them the tools to make the investments that are necessary, ensuring that we create the conditions that get more homes built, that get more roads built, that get more hospitals built. I know they’re going to build one of the biggest hospitals in the country in Peel. We’ll take a little more hospital funding in Perth–Wellington.

We don’t need a big, brand new hospital like Peel region, but it’s great to see the Minister of Health make that investment. The good people of Peel keep sending back this government because they know they’ll continue making those investments in Peel region.

I encourage all my colleagues—I think all of them will vote for Bill 45. I know government members will continue to rise to speak on Bill 45, but I encourage all members in this place: Let’s get up. Let’s have a rigorous debate, as is the right of every member in this place, to speak on Bill 45 to ensure that we have a vigorous debate on this piece of legislation—another great bill from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing—to ensure we advance forward these key initiatives, ensuring we’re building a strong Ontario and, by extension, a strong Canada.

I look forward to the questions.

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

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member for his comments today. You mentioned democratic rights, so my question is a two-part question to you. Do you believe that freedom of speech is a fundamental democratic right that should never be infringed upon except in the case of hate speech? And if so, why has this Conservative government three times overridden Ontarians’ fundamental right to freedom of speech with three separate bills using the “notwithstanding” clause?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Well, we’re going all over the place today, colleagues—“notwithstanding” clause.

The “notwithstanding” clause is a part of the Canadian Constitution. It’s part of the Canadian convention or parliamentary democracy, which has come over many generations of debate in various chambers from British tradition, and it is a part of the Canadian Constitution. It is a tool that was put in so that Pierre Trudeau could get the document signed and get all of the provinces on board. I know other provinces and various governments have used the “notwithstanding” clause.

We were elected, Speaker, a third-time majority—an historic majority—to continue to get things done for the people of Ontario. I know we’ll continue to put forward pieces of legislation that will be debated in this place, and members have the right to stand and comment on every piece of legislation in this place. We’ll continue to bring forward pieces of legislation that build a strong Ontario and a strong Canada.

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

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’m revoking your title. You’re going, now, to the bottom.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Please address the Speaker.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Speaker—and maybe it’s because you’re sleep-deprived with your newborn. I’m going to give you a pass on that.

But you mention democracy, and since you mentioned it, do you feel that your government is respecting democracy when you rush through these bills and you do not go to committee on so many of these bills to allow Ontarians to come down and share their thoughts on the bills with us?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I’ll go to the member, but first, I’ll remind the members to address the Speaker.

The member from Perth–Wellington.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you, Speaker. It’s disappointing that now I have to work my way back up that list, but it’s something to aspire to, I guess.

I will say that we as members in this place receive a variety of feedback from constituents and Ontarians. I get many emails and phone calls during the day and week. We have opportunities to rise for an hour or 20 minutes, depending on our slot in the speaking order, to share those concerns on the floor of the assembly. The member opposite had the opportunity today to do that for many of the concerns on Bill 45 she was hearing from those members in her riding in this place, and she chose to only speak for less than five minutes. I have had plenty of opportunity—I’m at my max, actually—for my speaking allotment and the ability to provide that feedback on the floor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from Brantford–Brant.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’m pleased to rise in the House today. I appreciated the speech and discussion about the bill from the member from Perth–Wellington.

Speaker, through you to the member, it seems that there’s a narrative out there about this piece of legislation—and I’m not sure where it’s coming from—that having municipally owned, publicly owned service corporations are somehow privatizing our waste water and water management across the province of Ontario. I know the member spoke about that during his speech also.

I appreciate the fact that he’s trying to counteract that, because where I’m from, in the corporation of the county of Brant and the corporation of the city of Brantford, they have wholly owned municipal service corporations and even business corporations that keep the public interest first and allow private money to go into those in order to support those things. I was wondering if the member could speak a little bit more about how important it is to open up that avenue of funding for these municipal service corporations.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you, Speaker—a great point from my colleague from Brantford–Brant. As the House leader mentioned this morning as well, I believe, “corporation” is still in the title of many municipalities. But the municipal service corporations are public.

As I mentioned, the township of Mapleton has established one already, and many municipalities can choose to do this already. It is a public utility and a public corporation, where the municipal councillors and the municipal employees and industry experts—so non-municipal employees, which you need on these boards to ensure good governance, but also that funds are being allocated in the appropriate manner.

That is really the goal of Bill 60 and Bill 45—in this legislation we’re bringing forward. This is what we’re hearing from our rural and northern municipalities, in particular, because it’s the one fiscal mechanism they’re able to use to fund some of this very important infrastructure to get more homes built, which I think all of us in this place would agree is an important goal.

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

Mr. Chris Glover: I appreciate the comments from the member from Perth–Wellington. I asked about whether he thought that freedom of speech was a fundamental democratic right that should never be infringed upon, and he talked about the “notwithstanding” clause being part of the Constitution. It is part of the Constitution, but this government has used that “notwithstanding” clause to override Ontarians’ freedom of speech and other fundamental freedoms and legal rights in three separate bills. In the most recent act—it was Bill 24—it was to prevent education workers from going on strike.

Do you think it was worth stripping Ontarians of their fundamental freedoms and legal rights under the charter in order to prevent education workers from exercising their legal right to fair bargaining and to potentially go on strike if that bargaining didn’t result in a contract?

Mr. Matthew Rae: I just want to correct my earlier record. The “notwithstanding” clause is not in the Canadian Constitution. It’s in the Canadian charter. But I think the member opposite meant Bill 28, which was repealed. We’re really, again, as a government on this side and the majority rump, focused on bringing forward ideas—all members, not just the cabinet and the Premier.

All of us are tasked by the Premier to bring forward ideas and legislation that will make Ontario the most competitive place in the G7 to do business and to really make it a strong and vibrant place to raise a family and grow a business, ensuring that we have a strong foundation for democracy because we’ve seen, over the years, if the country becomes poor, the chances of totalitarianism set in; the chances of dictatorship or communism increase. And so we want to ensure that we have a strong economy so we have a strong, thriving democracy.

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

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Through you, Mr. Speaker: As the member across from Perth–Wellington mentioned, in our magical mystery tour of the regional governance trip all around Ontario, we went to many places. I forgot Orillia. That was one. So we did that, and everyone used their energy and their time and their efforts to come and see us and explain their stance on the issue and their expertise and their lived experience. I’m just wondering, what is happening with that? I asked everyone at that committee if they thought this was an exercise in futility or if something would actually happen, and I think Ontario elected officials deserve an answer from this government.

Mr. Matthew Rae: I think some of the important work that committee did is being reflected already in the piece of legislation that we’re debating in this place, Bill 45, as I mentioned, that we’re debating today. But Bill 60, around the municipal service corporations and the public water service corporations, is something we heard about throughout the committee hearings—all members did in those very robust committee hearings, spending more or less December, January and February travelling our beautiful province—to some snowy parts of our province as well.

We’ve already been seeing some of that implemented in a piece of government legislation. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will continue to look at how we can implement suggestions through that committee and all committees.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member for Mississauga–Malton for a quick question.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a Peel transition bill, so I have to ask a question. The question is very simple. You know, for years residents of local councils in Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon have been calling for a governance model that better reflects their size, growth and capacity. Do you think this bill is providing that to us?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes. But I still have 19 seconds left, so it does because, again, it demonstrates that our government is listening to the people of Ontario. We are not listening to the downtown Toronto elites and those who may be living on Bay Street or University Avenue. We’re listening to the people in downtown Mississauga or—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to address this act. But I have to say first, this whole discussion about the restructuring of utilities, as was promoted by the member who spoke just before me, is one that I’m very concerned about. The reality is that as you move utilities, whether they be hydro or water, away from direct control and ownership by municipalities or, in the case of the former Ontario Hydro, one opens the door to very large-scale privatization, and that is simply the reality.

The whole process that Mike Harris started, and which was carried on by Kathleen Wynne, of taking these utilities that were directly owned and controlled by municipalities and setting them up as separate corporations, facilitates privatization. And I don’t think there’s any question about that when you look at the historical record. Kathleen Wynne took the structure that was set up by Mike Harris and privatized Hydro One. It was no longer something that was directly under the control of the province. She privatized it.

What the member was talking about is setting up structures that will facilitate that privatization in future. Alectra, which was a municipally owned—still is a municipally owned—electricity distribution corporation, has actually privatized parts of its operations. So what the member was talking about is a system that takes us down the road towards privatization of utilities, which undermines the financial stability of the society. There’s no getting around it. When you privatize these fundamental utilities, you open the door to profiteering, you open the door to a focus on getting money extracted out of the society and not actually putting it back into the society.

I’ll give you an example of where public ownership has had huge beneficial impact for Ontario’s economy. People may or may not remember the former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm—a bright person, wrote a book about her experience being the Governor of Michigan: A Governor’s Story, a simple title. And one of the things that she found hugely problematic in the fight in pre-Trump days over auto investment and the competition between Ontario and Michigan was that in Ontario we have publicly funded health care—publicly owned and run health care—and they didn’t in Michigan.

This was a huge competitive selling point to the Big Three, because they could see that their health care expenses were dramatically lower in Ontario.

Whereas in the United States, they were paying fortunes to these privately owned insurance companies, duplicating administration everywhere, that made it extremely expensive for them to provide the benefits to their workers that they needed to provide in order to operate. Ontario, with a publicly run health insurance company, had a huge competitive advantage over Michigan.

So we don’t want to be in a position where we will put ourselves at competitive disadvantage with other jurisdictions by losing that public ownership, introducing a profit stream that eventually will mean—or sometimes not eventually, sometimes very quickly—higher prices and a loss of funds that would stay circulating within our economy, but in fact seeing those funds taken out of Ontario, sometimes out of Canada. That is a real, substantial concern.

The member also mentioned the beneficial impact of having Canadian pension companies, pension operations, invest in these corporations. I just want to point out that OMERS, which is the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System—provides pensions for municipal employees across this province, a major pension fund in Canada—went all in on Thames Water in the UK.

Margaret Thatcher privatized the water system. People may not be aware that there were substantial health problems that flowed from that because Thames Water cranked up the cost of water. What they found in the UK was that, because the cost of water was so high, they had increased incidence of diseases related to lack of cleanliness, that people were not washing as often because they didn’t have the money. And it actually showed up in their health stats, those kinds of diseases.

So that was one side of it: higher prices, meaning that people could not consume the water that they needed to consume. But the other side of it is that Thames Water is in deep financial trouble right now. OMERS just wrote off its 32% share in Thames Water, declaring it effectively a zero operation. Thames Water needs a billion dollars to continue operating. This privatized water company with a monopoly on water in the greater London area is not functional.

OMERS has had to write off many billions of dollars in investment in that private company. I don’t want the pension funds that people in Ontario depend on put in a situation where they are hopeful that some private managers will actually be able to run a monopoly. I mean, seriously. A recommendation that we move away from municipal or provincial ownership of critical utilities is not a responsible recommendation.

And with those comments, I want to move on to the bill. I am a bit surprised to be speaking to this bill today. I got a note late last night saying, “You’re going to be talking to Bill 45 tomorrow morning. I hope you’re enthusiastic about it.” I said, “Yes, of course I’m enthusiastic.” I have wanted to talk about Peel region for a long time, and as one of my colleagues said, “The opening line should be ‘to Peel or not to Peel.’” And it wasn’t a great line, but I enjoyed his sense of humour.

So I thought a bit about some people who have, in the past, spoken extemporaneously on issues before this House. I remember Peter Kormos, the member for Welland—years ago, and this was when I was very new—getting up and talking for an hour. And in the course of the debate, I realized that he was looking at the different gargoyles and carvings around the room as inspiration for his next round of comments. I had never seen that before. I was deeply impressed. I’m not going to replicate it today.

And I will say as well, Shelley Martel, when I was here early on—I think I was here a few months—she was scheduled to speak to a bill. I watched her come in through those doors. From the Sergeant-at-Arms, she got the Hansard for the previous day, which had the speeches about the bill. She came to her desk, stood up with the Hansard in hand, and really extemporaneously and quite creatively, wove a one-hour speech. I was deeply impressed. I am not going to do that, friends. You will be spared. Count your lucky stars.

Former environment minister Jim Bradley, once, in question period—so not a long speech—was clearly focused on something else entirely when the Premier at the time referred a question over to him. He had not been paying attention; we could all see that. He was reading something. And so, he stood up, and for about a minute and a half, said absolutely nothing, but spoke directly to the question that he had not heard. And we were all impressed. He got a standing ovation at the end of that. I can’t do what the greats did, but I will do what I can.

I have to say, one of the first things that struck me about this bill—and I know you can’t use a prop, but I’ll just hold up the bill and say, this is not a thick bill. This is not an omnibus bill. This is not one of those bills that you read when you have difficulty getting to sleep at night because you go through it too quickly.

But one of the things that’s really striking about it is, of the three pages of the bill, one page is “immunity from liability.” And I have to say, I’m deeply impressed because I’ve seen a lot of “immunity from liability” clauses since this current government was elected. I’ve never seen as many before. One of the most striking to me in the past, was protection against anything that could be called misfeasance or malfeasance. And I thought, whoa. This isn’t omissions or errors. You’re saying you have immunity from doing bad things. It’s a good thing this government doesn’t have the ability to declare immunity from the Criminal Code, because we’d be seeing that here.

In any event, one page—one whole page on immunity. You know what it says to me? There’s going to be a lot of cranky people at the end of this process. Someone—some large number of someones—are going to be very unhappy. Because if you have to have that much protection against lawsuits, against the thought of lawsuits, against people who were thinking of lawsuits but didn’t get to file them—man, you’re doing something that’s making people really unhappy. So that is an issue.

Anyway, enough of introductory remarks. I, Speaker, will take great liberties with comments by my colleague the member from Welland because he has spoken to this. I’m going to extract some of the more interesting stuff. I appreciate the work that he did in his leadoff. One of the first things that he had to say was the comment that this bill was being presented as something that was new, that was well thought out, that municipalities were voluntarily taking

part in. I go back to the immunity from lawsuit section. Man, nothing says everybody’s happy like a page of immunity from lawsuit in the legislation—one third of the legislation.

I have to say that my colleague was probably quite correct when he said this wasn’t a new or well-thought-out bill. This has been the culmination of a three-part saga. It’s a lesson, he said—and I agree—in how not to make public policy, how not to implement public policy, why it’s dangerous to ignore your own experts, why it’s undemocratic and irresponsible to avoid meaningful consultation. Man, it’s got to be dangerous if you’ve got that much armour against lawsuits.

The member noted that you should go back to the roots of this story, both interesting and tragic. The Premier started talking about this with what he described as a deathbed promise to his friend Hazel McCallion to dissolve Peel region. I’m not going to comment a lot further on that other than that it concerns me that that would be the genesis of this particular activity. That declaration by the Premier caused a lot of confusion and a lot of disturbance in the Peel region.

A few things that he noted about Peel region that people need to understand: The region went into a panic after the government initially announced what it intended to do. There were council meetings. The region wanted to impress upon the government exactly what kind of a huge undertaking it would be to dissolve any region but especially the region of Peel—once again, why you need a full page of protection against lawsuits in this act. One third of the act is covering your backside against any legal challenge.

What the people in the region of Peel did was put together a list of all the things that Peel did. It, I think, would be educational for anyone to look at what they noted. One in 10 Ontario residents live in Peel—one in 10. The earlier speaker from the other side talked about the size of Peel, its significance, and you know, he had a point. Peel’s population is 1.5 million people, and that’s from 2023. You can imagine that in the intervening years, it has grown. It’s the second-largest municipality in the greater Toronto area and larger than six of Canada’s provinces—not a small village, not a hamlet somewhere.

Nothing against hamlets or villages, but this is going to be an awful lot more complex than a 5,000-person town.

It’s financially secure and stable. It’s maintained a AAA credit rating for 27 consecutive years. In 2022, it was one of 14 Canadian municipalities to receive the AAA credit rating and one of eight to receive a AAA credit rating from Moody’s Investors Service. So it’s a stable organization. One could even say it’s financially successful. One has to ask, if it’s not broken, why is this process going on trying to fix it?

A little bit about debt: $1.8 billion worth of goods travel to, from and through Peel every day; 36% of truck trips in Ontario start or end on Peel region roads; Peel’s goods-moving industry contributed $49 billion worth of gross domestic product to regional, provincial and national economies; their roads carry 21% of all goods-moving GDP in Ontario.

That is quite the industrial and economic powerhouse. This is not a backwater. This is not an afterthought in our Ontario economy. It’s a substantial place. When you mess with a locally very successful economy, man, you need to do it carefully because you don’t want the unintended consequences raining out on this region.

Peel has the second-largest water and waste water system in Ontario and the fourth-largest in Canada with an infrastructure replacement value of $26 billion. That’s about the size of Thames Water. Thames Water is, as I say, underwater right now.

The whole waste water issue was carved out and put in Bill 60, which has passed. I note the comment from the other side earlier that it would be a great idea to have pension funds owning these corporations directly. Well, I want to note that Peel’s utility rates remain 30% lower than other GTA municipalities.

Where is the problem here? If their rates are 30% lower than other municipalities, why would you mess with that structure? That’s pretty successful. I wish Toronto’s water rates were 30% lower than other municipalities. I wish other municipalities were able to achieve what they were able to achieve here.

Another indication of the size and scope of the government that we’re dealing with: Peel Regional Police, the second-largest municipal police service in Ontario and third-largest in Canada.

This is where it gets interesting as well because the health care system in Peel is very substantial. Peel paramedics, the second-largest paramedic system in Ontario, responds to over 140,000 calls in a typical year. It’s the third-largest community housing provider in Ontario. Peel Public Health is the third-largest in Ontario and one of the largest in Canada.

It has the second-largest waste management program in Ontario.

Again, I have to ask, what was the pressing issue other than a deathbed wish to take apart what seems to be a well-functioning machine? What would be the justification for doing that? Why would you put yourself in a position where you have to don all of this legal armour against potential lawsuits? What is driving this? I’m not going to answer that in this speech because, frankly, I don’t fully understand the roots of what are driving it.

But on the face of it, if you have a successful organization, why would you take it apart? What drives this?

Peel includes over 200,000 businesses, and 8.6% of the population live in poverty with approximately 25,000 residents receiving Ontario Works and they depend on Peel region delivering uninterrupted services. Of course, when this process started in 2023, it threw not-for-profit organizations in the Peel region into a state of anxiety because the number of clients across Peel that depend on Peel region and all the services they support—those non-profit agencies and those who depend on those agencies rely on Peel’s financial health and political stability to ensure that their social problems are addressed.

As a service manager and primary founder of Peel’s affordable housing system, Peel froze federal, provincial and regional funding to 51 community housing providers, including Peel Housing Corp., which is the largest community housing provider in Peel.

Some 69% of individuals in Peel identify with a racialized group, the highest percentage of racialized individuals in the GTA, and their long-term care was the first to receive butterfly model-of-care accreditation in Ontario.

We all know they’re home to Ontario’s busiest airport, the Pearson international airport.

They provide $10.3 million annually in funding to over 150 community agencies in the non-profit sector.

Just imagine then, Speaker, given all that I’ve cited about the size, the scale, the scope of Peel’s activities, that the Premier would go and make an offhand remark to a former mayor of one of the three municipalities, “I’m going to break it up. We’re going to dissolve the region.”

Well, I have to say there is a potential for substantial unintended consequences. Now, to some extent, apparently, the government is aware of this, which is why it is armour-plating itself on the legal side so that one third of this bill—one third; that’s amazing—is about protecting the province against legal liability.

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

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the member opposite for his remarks this morning. I wanted to ask the member about the power of consensus. We know this bill embodies co-operation, not conflict, and reflects the collective will of the municipalities, the local government. Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon and Peel region all agreed it was time for a more efficient, locally accountable model.

For the member opposite, will he stand with the municipalities in Peel region and respect their wishes by supporting this legislation?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: First of all, I appreciate the question from the member. It’s fairly straightforward. I’m going to listen to the other speeches on this. I’m going to listen to my House leader and his sage advice on how we go forward. But I have to say, again, if there’s that much consensus, why is there so much effort on legal protection? If you’re in a room of happy people, you know it’s unlikely that they’re going to sue you—well, okay, it depends on the room you’re in.

But mostly, when people are happy with an initiative on the part of the government, they don’t think about lawsuits; they think about how we move this forward. What it says to me, with all of this protection from lawsuits, is that there’s an apprehension on the part of the government that there are going to be a lot of unhappy people when this—

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the member for Toronto–Danforth for your presentation today about the Peel transition bill. My question is about how we think this bill is going to impact how much ratepayers pay. Do you think this bill is going to increase the amount that ratepayers are going to pay for water and services, or do you think it’s going to decrease the amount that ratepayers would pay?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question from the member. First of all, because water rates are currently 30% below the average in the GTA, one has to ask, what are the opportunities here?

I would say that if, in fact, the structure that’s being proposed—which is simply setting up a separate corporation—opens the door to further or future privatization, it inevitably would lead to much higher rates. You introduce a line item in an operating budget, which is the profit that has to be paid, and then you’re adding an expense that didn’t exist before. Now, it is not being proposed, I gather, immediately, that the new—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Response, please.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Pardon?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Response, please.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I am responding—it sets the stage for much higher rates in the future.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: Thank you to the member for Toronto–Danforth for your remarks. You understand municipal governments and municipal structure, how it works.

Peel region—not only Peel region, but Ontario—most of the municipal regions have grown exponentially. The world took a U-turn, you know. We are sitting on a 50-year-old, 100-year-old municipal structure. What we are trying to do: We are modernizing the municipal structure and the municipal governments.

I have to thank Minister Flack and former Minister Paul Calandra for coming forward and coming up with these wonderful changes.

Does the member agree that empowering a mature municipality like Peel region to take direct control of key public works functions reinforces the local democracy—you talk about democracy—and allows local councillors, who are the ones closest to the people, they bring the ideas—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’ll confess I didn’t hear clearly all that was put forward, but I gather the essence is that we have a 50-year-old structure here and there’s an opportunity to modernize it. Why wouldn’t you do that?

What I would say, Speaker, is that if something is so obviously successful, so obviously able to deliver services at a lower cost, so obviously able to attract economic investment, so obviously a substantial part of Ontario’s economy, that one has to be extraordinarily careful when you put your hands into it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Response, please.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, one thing alone, then: The idea of taking away their water and waste water system and setting up an independent corporation is not an indication that you’re going to be improving the system. It says to me you’re going to put it in jeopardy.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is again to the member for Toronto–Danforth. I listened to his speech, and I was struck by how he talked about the stability and the effectiveness of the existing corporation. Just to summarize, he mentioned that it had gotten a very high rating from Moody’s and that it was providing services at a rate that was 30% lower than the GTA average.

My question to the member is: What is going to happen now if they move down this path of giving it a different corporate structure? What do you think can happen to the stability and the rates?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question. To some extent, it is hard to be certain what will happen. I was on Toronto city council in 1997 when the megacity amalgamation initiative was brought forward by the then Conservative government. I have to say, having gone through that, that it destabilizes a community for a long period of time, notwithstanding the fact that, as I remember, there wasn’t a lot of language in the—we called it the megacity bill. There wasn’t a lot of language about immunity for the province from lawsuits.

But the whole question of reorganizing the workforce, the certification votes that had to go on, the reorganization of city departments and the reorganization of services that were being delivered caused, for a number of years, tremendous difficulties. So I expect the same at least here.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Through you, Speaker, to the member from the Danforth: I appreciate his input and his years of experience in dealing at different levels of government.

I was wondering if he could provide the House an answer to this question, which is: We have before us a piece of legislation, colleagues, that was crafted directly with input from the region of Peel and all the municipalities there. This is fully supported by the entire region, and the levels of government there in Mississauga and in Caledon and—the third one escapes me right now.

But I was wondering if I could ask the member, then, the direct question: This is a piece of legislation that was crafted by these municipalities. We have it before us here as a direct result of that consultation, supported by all of them. Will the member listen to those municipalities and vote in favour of the legislation?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: First of all, I appreciate the question from the member. That’s one that I am going to answer for myself as I listen to further debate and I discuss with our House leader.

My sense has been that there has not been the same calm, happy approach to this that you’ve outlined in your question. Again, I note the extensive piece in this bill for protection against lawsuits. That says to me that there’s a lot of unhappy campers. That’s always a bad indicator, when you go into a deal where everyone wants to protect themselves against a big lawsuit. Our critic on this expressed a lack of confidence that there was actually a lot of consensus and happiness on the part of those who are part of this process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): There’s only 30 seconds left. I think we’ll move on to further debate.

Further debate?

Mr. Deepak Anand: Well—

Interjection: You won’t forget Peel, will you?

Mr. Deepak Anand: Absolutely. Speaker, I cannot forget Peel. I cannot forget Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon.

And, member from Brantford–Brant, talking about Brampton, I actually think people from Brampton call me, already, a resident of Brampton. The reason is simple: When I came to Canada in 2000, my first basement I rented was at 36 Oaklea Boulevard, Brampton. Then we moved to 165 Kennedy Road, which was Brampton. The first house we bought, 71 Native Landing, was Brampton. My first job was at High Polymer Labs, 188 West Boulevard, Brampton. My daughter was born in Peel Memorial, Brampton. So, if you really look at my early days of life, it was in Brampton.

And, my goodness, I have seen Brampton growing from 325,000 to over 800,000 people today. Look at that expansion—same as with Mississauga. When I moved to Mississauga in 2003, the population was close to 525,000—today, officially, about 750,000 to 775,000. With all the students that we have in Malton, you add another 20,000 or 30,000; that’s about close to over 800,000.

So that’s why, Mr. Speaker, we have this bill called the Peel Transition Implementation Act. The bill is something simple but important: making local service providers stronger, faster, more responsive for the people of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon, and the growing communities, like Mississauga–Malton.

For decades, Peel operated under a structure which was created in 1974. I always give this example: When my brother and I were young, we had a house and my parents felt, “They’re both not independent. Maybe they can help each other.” So they gave us one single room to stay together. He was three years older than me, so I can look up to him, ask him if I need help. And with the passage of time, when we both grew, we both became independent, and we actually had our own independent needs also by this time. So that was the time when my parents felt, “Okay, they need independence and they need independent rooms.”

So, in the same way, when this whole structure was created in 1974, Mississauga was, back then, 75,000 homes. Today, even Mississauga–Malton has 45,000 homes. And the population back then was 330,000, and today we have, as you all know, a dynamic city of 250,000 homes and over 760,000 people on book. Across the region, the growth of roads, traffic, waste needs and stormwater infrastructure has accelerated at a pace. The old model is not good enough, was never even designated to handle that growth.

So what is this bill doing? Bill 45 reflects this reality. It recognizes how much Peel has grown, how complex our needs have become and how urgently we must modernize the systems people rely on every single day. I was hearing from the member from Perth–Wellington. He said it so well: This is the government that listens to the people, and we are continuously progressing on making sure we have a strong Ontario where people are heard and we work with their progress. So, speaking of this, that’s what we’re doing through Bill 45: strengthening Peel by bringing key local services directly under the cities that understand their neighbourhoods best.

I don’t have much time, Speaker, but when I come back, I will be talking more about what we’re going to do in this bill. But I just want to say this is the bill which is focused on making sure that things are clear and we have a unified system. It means that our regional roads—the ones people rely on every day—will now be planned, maintained, repaired and upgraded by the same cities, by the same people; the same people are going to be taking those decisions who manage the rest of their transportation network.

Snow clearing—another great example—long-term planning, transit coordination—something which the people of Mississauga and Brampton need will be done by them, making the system smoother and more responsive.

And, looking at you, I’m kind of seeing nodding. Okay, I’m going to sit down and we’ll continue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): The time has come for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Ecumenical meeting in Istanbul

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: The ancient city of Constantinople, present day Istanbul in Türkiye, last week was the setting for a historic meeting that brought together spiritual leaders from around the world. At the centre was the commemoration of the 1,700-year anniversary of the first ecumenical council held in Nicaea in 325 AD, a pivotal event in Christian history.

Present were Pope Leo XIV, head of the Roman Catholic Church, and ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, leader of the Orthodox Christian Church. Their meeting brought together religious leaders, political representatives and many pilgrims to celebrate the feast of St. Andrew, the first-called apostle, the founder and patron of the church in Constantinople.

This gathering reflects the ongoing commitment toward dialogue, unity and reconciliation among the world’s largest Christian confessions. The symbolism of the two spiritual leaders side by side as Pope Leo embarked on his first foreign visit illustrates the enduring pursuit of peace within and beyond religious communities.

Patriarch Bartholomew, the longest-serving patriarch in history, contributed his pastoral wisdom further highlighting the shared commitment to and need for spiritual leadership and collaboration.

Government’s record

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Speaker, as we gather with friends, family and loved ones this holiday season, what about those who don’t have warmth or shelter and the things many of us take for granted?

The Ford government came to power in 2018, and their legacy has been marked by raising homelessness, expanding encampments and the complete annihilation of hope for far too many people. Housing is health care, and housing is fundamental. Without stable housing, not much else matters.

According to London’s homelessness dashboard, nearly 1,500 people are currently homeless, with 45 active encampments in our city. Every day downtown and in beautiful Old East Village, we witness human suffering and hardship, scenes created by policy failures of the Ford government and an appalling lack of provincial care.

London is not unique. In every single city, town and municipality across Ontario, the same heartbreaking realities are playing out. The Ford government is ignoring small businesses and downtowns, leaving proud business owners increasingly frustrated by the lack of provincial supports, care and investment.

Let’s invest in housing with wraparound supports. It’s both an ethical and moral imperative and is far less costly than abandoning people.

Secondly, double social assistance rates and get people above the poverty line so they can rebuild their lives.

Lastly, stop attacking renters’ protections. Restore rent control, reinstate vacancy control. These are the most effective steps we can take to improve affordability.

This season, I encourage all members to volunteer at your local soup kitchen or church dinner. Listen to people we serve, not just with your ears but with your heart.

This Christmas, may we choose compassion over indifference.

Holiday events in Ajax

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: The holiday season is here in Ajax, and our community is filled with warmth, celebration and opportunities to come together. St. Nick is truly in town.

Across the town, there’s a wide variety of festive activities bringing neighbours and families closer together. A highlight for me was our annual Santa Claus parade and Santa’s Spectacle of Lights. It was truly wonderful. The streets were full of smiling kids and families. We enjoyed seeing all the happy faces sharing excitement—and I promised my constituents I would wear this blazer in the Legislature.

From tree lightings and neighbourhood gatherings, Christmas in the Village, seasonal concerts, Hanukkah celebrations and new year’s activities, the joy of Ajax is for all to see. Our recreation centres and community spaces are busy with winter break programs to keep kids engaged, and these celebrations remind us how strong our community spirit is and how much joy we create when coming together.

But as we enjoy these special moments, we must also remember that many in our community are struggling right now. Costs are rising, and the holidays are a difficult or lonely time for folks. So I’m proud to see the caring spirit of Ajax on full display—our mayor and council collecting toys for the holidays for families who can’t afford it on their own, community groups working together, food drives. These acts of kindness reflect the very best of who we are, and while not everyone can give in the same way, each of us can still extend that warm sense of community to all by reaching out to a neighbour and offering some support.

Filipino community

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I rise today to proudly recognize the vibrant and growing Filipino community in the riding of Eglinton–Lawrence. This community plays a vital role in the life or our neighbourhoods, from health care workers and caregivers to educators, small business owners, faith leaders and volunteers. Filipino Canadians have long been known for their courage, deep sense of family, service to others and unwavering faith.

This summer, I had the privilege of visiting Our Lady of the Assumption Parish during a special gathering with His Eminence Cardinal Frank Leo. It was an incredibly moving experience to witness thousands of Filipino families come together in prayer, celebration and unity. The energy and spirituality in that room reflected the strength of a community rooted in faith and service.

Today, we welcome board members from the Philippine Chamber of Commerce Toronto, an organization that champions Filipino entrepreneurs and strengthens economic ties across the city. Their work helps small businesses thrive and creates opportunities for the next generation of leaders.

Filipino organizations are continuing to make a real difference every day, like Philippine Legacy and Cultural Alliance, Kababayan Multicultural Centre, Taste of Manila and Fiesta Extravaganza.

To the Filipino families of Eglinton–Lawrence, thank you for everything you do.

Suzanne Obiorah

MPP Catherine McKenney: I rise today to congratulate Suzanne Obiorah, the CEO of Somerset West Community Health Centre, on receiving the Order of Ottawa.

I have had the privilege of knowing Suzanne for over a decade, and throughout that time, I have witnessed her unwavering commitment to our community. Her leadership exemplifies what it means to serve with both competence and compassion.

During my time on city council, I was pleased to see the city of Ottawa recognize Suzanne’s talents and recruit her from Somerset West Community Health Centre. And when I left council, I was equally pleased when she was encouraged to return to the community through the centre, bringing her expertise back to where it continues to make such a profound difference.

The Order of Ottawa recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to our city. Suzanne’s dedication to health equity, community wellness and supporting our most marginalized neighbours makes her deeply deserving of this honour.

Somerset West Community Health Centre serves thousands of residents in our community, providing essential primary care, mental health services and community programs. Under Suzanne’s leadership, the centre continues to strengthen its role as a vital hub for health and well-being.

Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Suzanne Obiorah on this well-deserved recognition and in thanking her for her continued service to Ottawa Centre and to the entire city of Ottawa.

Marten Falls First Nation

Mr. Will Bouma: Good morning, Speaker. I am pleased to rise in the House today to highlight the recent community partnership agreement our government has signed with Marten Falls First Nation.

Martin Falls First Nation is a remote Anishinaabe community approximately 400 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, located where the Albany and Ogoki Rivers meet. Our government is providing $39.5 million for important community infrastructure while supporting the development and construction of the Marten Falls community access road.

I had the honour to meet with Chief Bruce Achneepineskum last Thursday and was pleased to be able to share a lovely lunch alongside the entire Marten Falls First Nation. It was during lunch that Chief Bruce told me his community is mainly accessible by air, with winter roads available seasonally for usually six to eight weeks. I was humbled and elated to see the reactions of the chief and council as they described to me how much a road would enhance their lives and their community by better connecting them to the rest of the province.

I am proud to represent a government that is committed to strengthening its partnership with First Nations, as seen through the community partnership agreement with Marten Falls, by partnering on critical infrastructure projects that will enhance the lives of so many.

My time last week together with the chief and council from Marten Falls was deeply informative, and the bonds that we created will serve as the foundation for this continuing and greater partnership.

Total Communication Environment

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a celebration for the 45th anniversary of TCE, Total Communication Environment, in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean.

TCE began in an Ottawa living room in 1979 as a result of the determination of Christine Wilson to have better care options for people with developmental disabilities and special communications needs, like her son Jamie.

In 1981, TCE opened their first home, welcoming six children with multiple disabilities, including Jamie. As the children aged, TCE created new homes offering age-appropriate care so that residents could remain within TCE rather than having to move on to another organization. Today, TCE serves 90 individuals of all ages in 14 supportive living homes, cared for by over 200 staff. They receive person-centred care, offering them access to programs and events that respect each individual’s interests.

Like many organizations providing residential care and day programming to people with developmental disabilities, TCE has been squeezed by persistent underfunding of the sector. How we care for our most vulnerable members says a lot about who we are as a society and, right now, our record as a province isn’t so great. But I’m grateful for organizations like TCE that put in the hard work and overcome all of the challenges to keep providing great care and support.

Thank you to all of the TCE staff, volunteers and board members, and to the Wilson family for showing up every day with great commitment, and congratulations on an amazing legacy.

Fertility services

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Recently, I had the opportunity to visit ONE Fertility and Trio Fertility, two fertility clinics in Burlington doing remarkable work to help more people across Ontario start and grow their families. During my visit, I heard how life-changing access to fertility care can be, and I saw the dedication of the clinicians, the nurses and the specialists who support individuals on what is often a very deeply emotional journey.

Speaker, our government’s recent $250-million investment to expand access to fertility treatments is already making a real difference. This funding is one of the largest fertility investments in Ontario’s history and will support 25 new and expanded clinics, including six new IVF clinics helping to triple the number of families benefiting from publicly funded fertility supports. Fertility care is more than about treatment; it’s about hope, dignity and giving people the chance to build the families they dream of.

I want to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to the teams at ONE Fertility and Trio Fertility in my community of Burlington for their leadership and their compassion. Their work is helping more people in my community realize the possibility of parenthood.

Infrastructure funding

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I have more great news from Essex county, this time from the town of Kingsville. The province of Ontario has a multi-million dollar fund called the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund. It helps municipalities build things like water lines and sewer lines.

The town of Kingsville applied for and received a grant under this program in the grand sum of over $9 million. This fund will help Kingsville build the infrastructure necessary to build homes in the province of Ontario—single-family homes, semi-detached homes, multi-residential homes—a home for every taste and a home for every style.

I want to thank the Minister of Infrastructure and the leadership of the Premier for introducing this remarkable infrastructure fund that is building infrastructure not only in Kingsville and in the county of Essex, but across the province of Ontario so that we can build more homes for the future: homes for young people, homes for retiring people, homes for everybody because everybody can find a home in the province of Ontario.

Minor hockey

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I seek unanimous consent to wear the jersey of the Kitchener hockey team, the Kitchener Rangers, during my member’s statement.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Kitchener Centre is seeking unanimous consent to wear the Kitchener Rangers jersey during her member’s statement. Agreed? Agreed.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

All across Ontario this weekend, families, kids and volunteers head to arenas, turfs and gyms. While I played only my first game of hockey last week—thank you, Dave Smith—my kids have enjoyed the sport from a young age. We hockey moms endure early mornings, games out of town and a hit to the pocketbook. I might groan sometimes, but it’s all worth it because you see the joy in your kids’ face when they hit the ice.

None of this would be possible if it weren’t for the hard work and dedication of minor sports organizations and our volunteer coaches. To coach kids is a special gift. There’s so much to do: setting up drills, organizing tournaments, staying up late, waking up early, putting up with behaviour and everything in between. They support kids to become athletes. They build the character of the next generation. They inspire them when they’re feeling sad. They dry their tears when they lose, and they savour core memories with wins. But above all, they help our kids build healthy relationships and to see value in themselves.

I want to thank the Kitchener Minor Hockey Association, and of course, our coaches and volunteers.

To the Pirates: I want to thank Mike, Cody, Nicole and Craig.

And to our Lady Rangers coaches, Bob, Derek, Jamie and Craig: Let’s go, Rangers!

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I’d like to draw your attention to the Speaker’s gallery. With us today we have the former Speaker in the 39th Parliament, Steve Peters, who was also the representative for Elgin–Middlesex–London in the 37th, 38th and 39th Parliaments.

Also joining us today is the former representative for Hamilton Mountain, Monique Taylor, who represented Hamilton Mountain in the 40th, 41st, 42nd and 43rd Parliaments.

Welcome back.

Joining us in the public gallery is Brad Duguid, from Scarborough Centre, representing Scarborough Centre in the 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st Parliaments.

Welcome back.

Applause.

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: I’m pleased to welcome Dr. Rob Beanlands, president and CEO, and Jennifer Kuss, vice-president of communications of the Ottawa Heart Institute.

I would also like to welcome Francois Abdelnour, who is the energy director at Ivaco Rolling Mills, who is here with us today. He is actually here with AMPCO, Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House members from the Ontario Real Estate Association from my riding, Cornerstone Association of Realtors: Lou Piriano, Goris Nazari, David Zalepa, Bill Duce and Stéphane Hamade.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I had a wonderful meeting this morning with the Niagara realtor association, and I’d like to welcome Ms. Finora and Sarah Hart.

Welcome to your House, and thank you for your lovely meeting.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’d like to welcome, from my riding of York–Simcoe, community leader Tariq Marwan, of Bradford, as well as Karol Kwiek, who worked as a summer student in my constit office. He’s visiting Queen’s Park today with his mother, Magdalena.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Trevor Jones: I’d like to welcome members of the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance to Queen’s Park and remind all our colleagues to please attend their reception this evening in rooms 228 and 230.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: I want to welcome Joe Reid from the city of Belleville. Thank you for coming, and welcome to your House.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’m delighted this morning to introduce two distinguished guests who are visiting all the way from Italy: Donato Bellisario, the mayor of Pescosolido, a beautiful municipality in the region of Lazio; also, Enrico Neri, councillor of Pescosolido.

I’d also like to welcome people from Vaughan–Woodbridge: Marino Moscone, Mary Mauti, Sam Ciccolini, Sabrina Baldesarra, Aldo Carinci, Anna Cianfarani, Carlo Corsetti, Enzo Neri and Angelo Carnevale.

Welcome—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Niagara Falls.

MPP Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome Wayne Harris, Marv Mulder and Linda Mulder. Thanks for coming to the deeming press conference today. Welcome to your House again.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. I’d like to welcome jazzy Jerry Krzywda from TRREB—Toronto real estate board—and OREA, here in the House today, and everyone else—

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’d like to welcome Matthew Grainger, a constituent of Northumberland–Peterborough South. He’s a talented young man with a bright future and my favourite staff member at the Premier’s office. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Bill Rosenberg: I’d like to thank my staff from Thessalon today: Robin Horwath; Maria Trudeau; MaryKaye Karhi; Robin’s wife, Susan; and the boss, my wife, Jeannine.

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I’m pleased to introduce members from the Toronto Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Our Lady of the Assumption Parish who are here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I would like to welcome, from the Ontario Real Estate Association from my riding of Thunder Bay–Superior North, Karen Hill, Bob Pfaff and Erin Nadon. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: We have a number of folks who are here today with the Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario. I want to especially acknowledge Brad Duguid and Jeff who are here as well. I appreciate all of you coming for breakfast and I’m looking forward to the meetings later today.

MPP Monica Ciriello: I’d like to welcome two councillors from the city of Hamilton, Councillor Spadafora and Councillor Francis.

Hon. Steve Clark: I’d like to introduce members of the Rideau-St. Lawrence Real Estate Board: Chris Wiltshire, board president; Andrea Denison; Connie McNamee; Dana Pearce; and Paul Martin. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: I’d like to welcome to the House this morning Mr. Barry Evans from Durham, a leading trial and appellate lawyer in the province of Ontario. Welcome.

Hon. Stan Cho: Speaker, are you ready for this? A legend in Canadian music is here. Seven-time Grammy award winner—music from Drake to Eminem to Nicki Minaj—Boi-1da right there in the gallery. Welcome to the Legislature.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like welcome Liana Bacon, Paul Kusnierczyk, Luc Bock and Tanya Vanden Berg from the Ontario Real Estate Association, Sudbury region. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I would like to welcome Marco D’Angelo and Maureen Cosyn Heath, who are with the Ontario Public Transit Association.

House sittings

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

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. I’d like to announce to the House that the night sitting scheduled for this evening has been cancelled.

Remarkable Women at Queen’s Park

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Colleagues, as you will recall, I recently launched the Remarkable Women in the Workplace initiative, a monthly recognition program celebrating the outstanding women who work for the Office of the Assembly. These individuals exemplify dedication, professionalism and leadership in their roles, and this initiative is a small but meaningful way to honour their contributions to the Legislature.

Today, I’m pleased to draw your attention to the Speaker’s gallery and introduce our newest honouree, Sara Bortolotto, administrative financial coordinator for parliamentary food services. Since October 2023, Sara has been leading our cafe operations with energy, passion and a sharp eye for quality. Originally from Italy, she brings a deep appreciation for food—cannoli—and beverage and a true love for hospitality. Her guest-first mindset and strong work ethic help ensure the cafe runs smoothly, even on the busiest days. Sara has introduced new service ideas, supported staff training and built a welcoming environment that keeps people coming back.

On behalf of all members and staff, I extend our heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Sara. Thank you for your remarkable service to Ontario’s Parliament.

Applause.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, 1,000 families in Sault Ste. Marie got some pretty terrible news: 1,000 workers got their layoff notices; 1,000 families got the rug pulled out from under them just before the holidays. This is going to be really devastating for that community. These are good union jobs that built that community, built this province. These are workers who are ready to roll up their sleeves to build this province once again.

So, to the Premier, why didn’t the Premier have a plan to protect those jobs?

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

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I wanted to start today by saying that we are not only thinking about those 1,000 workers and their families in Sault Ste. Marie, but we are working tirelessly to support them. We will be dispatching a POWER centre immediately to Sault Ste. Marie to make sure that those workers have the support and the retraining that they need to find new opportunities.

But, Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it: President Trump is coming for our steel jobs, our lumber jobs, our manufacturing jobs. He wants to see all of them shipped down to the United States, and Algoma Steel is on the front lines of that battle, with crushing 50% tariffs that block market access to the United States, where they derive 60% of their revenue. That’s why we stepped forward with the Protect Ontario Financing Program, which supplied $100 million of support to that company when they needed it the most.

The very frustrating thing on this side of the House is that that party likes to talk about support for workers, support for manufacturers, but every time we put forward a measure, they vote against it. You can’t just talk about supporting workers; you have to be about supporting workers. We are going to support those workers in Sault Ste. Marie.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Wow. Wow. Let me tell you, the workers want paycheques, not handouts, Speaker. They want good, unionized jobs, and these workers, they want stability.

Let’s talk about that $100 million that the government handed over to that company, because we have seen this play out so many times before. I was in the Soo just last month, and let me tell you, those steel workers told me that what they wanted was to be at the table. They wanted to be at the table themselves, but instead what happens every single time, just like every other time, the Premier sits down with the bosses and he hands them the paycheques while they hand the workers the pink slips. That’s what happens.

So my question to the Premier is, why did the Premier hand 100 million taxpayer dollars over to a company without any guarantees that they would save those jobs?

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. That $100-million loan that we made available to Algoma Steel, in partnership with the $400 million put forward by the federal government, is to help them get through this transitionary period as they move to electric arc furnaces, which will not only be more efficient and help them better control their inputs as their outputs waned because of the trade crisis, but it will make sure that there is a future for steel jobs in this province and a future for steel jobs in Sault Ste. Marie.

We know that those workers don’t want bailouts. They want to get back to work, and that is exactly what we are delivering to those workers. Through our POWER Centres, through our support for this sector, we are making sure that high-quality steel continues to be made in Ontario by the greatest workers in the world, and we will never back down from supporting our 17,000 steel workers.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, this is getting pretty tiring. I don’t know what the government doesn’t understand about attaching strings to 100 million taxpayer dollars. We have 3,000 workers in Brampton facing layoffs; we have 1,200 in Ingersoll; there are hundreds and hundreds of people all across this province—in Oshawa, elsewhere—who don’t know whether they’re going to have a job tomorrow—1,000 more people in Sault Ste. Marie without jobs.

Instead of bringing the workers to the table and ensuring that they could keep those jobs, this government is always more focused on putting money in the pockets of their friends and their donors. So 1,000 workers and families are watching their jobs disappear. They deserve good jobs. They deserve good wages. They deserve a government who is going to stand up for them every single time to defend their families, to defend their livelihoods. Why will the Premier not stand up for those workers?

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Madam Speaker, the statement that that member just made was so manufactured, she might qualify for a tax credit. But, unfortunately, she would vote against that tax credit, just like you voted against the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit; just like you voted against the Ontario Together Trade Fund; just like you voted against the $30-billion package of support that we have put forward to protect workers, to protect industries, to make sure that our jobs are not shipped down to the United States.

These workers knew that this was a big opportunity to make sure that steel production continues in Sault Ste. Marie. We know how important it is to that community; we made the investment to guarantee the future of high-quality steel made in Ontario, made in Sault Ste. Marie, and we have secured the future of that industry.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: That’s quite a performance, but it’s not going to put gifts under the tree or food on the table.

Interjections.

Ms. Marit Stiles: That’s right.

Speaker, let’s talk about what this government’s priorities actually are because yesterday, in committee, public servants have confirmed what we have been saying all along: The Minister of Labour has been picking winners and losers for the Skills Development Fund.

Did the Premier know that his minister was hand-picking low-scoring applications for the Skills Development Fund?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, that’s not new news; it’s something I’ve stood in this House and said. We take ministerial accountability. I’m proud of the decisions we’ve made as a government to invest in workers in every corner of the province.

Just this morning, I was at a labour conference in Etobicoke where we had employers, where we had union representatives alike. We talked about the investments to build. They recognized, for the first time, a significant commitment to nation-build: a commitment to build new nuclear that’s going to bring 18,000 jobs with small modular reactors alone and another 30,000 jobs with the Pickering refurbishment.

The civil construction investments this government is making are critical to support an economy at a time when we so desperately need it. To put men and women to work, to build hospitals, to build schools, to build public transit infrastructure, we’re supporting them with skills, investment funds and investments to break down barriers for a talent pipeline to support that work.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, it’s hard to keep track of his answers because one day he takes responsibility; the next day, he blames somebody else.

We know that the minister picked all the projects. We also know that he decided how much money they would receive. Don’t just take it from me; take it from the very public servants that he has tried to throw under the bus: $2 million to the Premier’s family dentist, $7.5 million to Keel Digital Solutions—that’s the company that’s connected to the Paris groom. We’re following along here—$10 million to the Premier’s favourite nightclub owner and more than $100 million to the clients of the Premier’s campaign manager.

You’re all seeing this, right, aren’t you? You’re seeing this too.

Can the Premier explain what direction he gave to the Minister of Labour to hand out these grants?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as you heard yesterday, it was documented: the monthly reports that are done, the audits that are done, the transfer payment agreement process where that’s negotiated.

Of course, we’re going to make those investments that support men and women; that support people in the skilled trades, for example; that support health care workers.

Again, this morning I met with a number of leaders from various locals around Ontario. They said that for the first time ever this government is investing in meaningful pre-apprenticeship pathways, breaking down barriers for underrepresented groups to enter the trades.

We have a record number of people who have signed up: 105,000 active apprenticeships right now in the system. We’ve seen more youth registering for apprenticeships, whether it’s a LIUNA local, carpenters, IBEW in Durham region—in my community alone, entering the incredible nuclear workforce. And it’s millwrights; I saw millwrights this morning as well. Not one of those locals, the member of the opposite has visited. She has never taken the time to talk to a single worker that has benefited from this fund. She’s just politicizing it.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: You can’t seriously think that the people of Ontario are going to let you get away with this again. You can’t seriously think—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Your donors, your friends, your campaign manager, their lobbyists—this is not a coincidence, right? The scandal is not going away. The Premier’s dentist, his favourite strip club owner, his campaign manager: every road leads to the Premier. We know the buck stops with him.

When is the Premier ever going to show up to answer the questions of the people of this province about this scandal—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): This is the third day in a row.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, he should show up, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): You have been warned.

Do you want to answer that? I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. David Piccini: Thank you, Speaker. I’m happy to.

Yesterday, Speaker, we saw officials talk about the continuous improvement of the Skills Development Fund that was established in the wake of a global pandemic to get people back to work, to get them back to the office. A key tenet of this government, something we took to the people just a few months ago, was a commitment to build a stronger Ontario.

Again, the member opposite has never visited one of the local training centres that have benefited, one of the local unions, the men and women who are building a stronger Ontario, Speaker—as I said, in the nuclear sector, the incredible investments to support homes and infrastructure.

You know, Speaker, in my community alone, we’ve seen historic investments in waste water treatment plants, in trenching and shoring, to ensure that we have the critical sewer trunks needed to support new homes. These are specific things needed to support a growing Ontario.

It’s a shame she couldn’t be bothered to visit the local of any of those local unions that are actually doing the work, benefiting from the Skills Development Fund.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Ministry of Labour’s staff appeared before the public accounts committee. It was clear from their testimony that it was the minister who was responsible for all decisions related to the Skills Development Fund. So we asked them, “Can you provide us with a list of all those Skills Development Fund applicants, their scoring, how much money they got?” We were told that was confidential advice to the government. I just think it’s reasonable for Ontarians to expect to know why the minister made the decisions that he did.

So will the Premier release the full list of Skills Development Fund applicants to this House so we can get to the bottom of this?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I appreciate the great work that officials in our ministry do each and every day to support our labour sector, to support men and women in training across Ontario and the work that was done yesterday to explain the important work of this fund. Of course the minister makes decisions. Who else in the ministry would? And we’re doing it to support the men and women of Ontario.

When he asks about priorities, we talked about priorities that we took to the people—a priority to build; to protect workers; a priority that’s going to actually build hospitals; that’s going to build new nuclear plants, plants that they wanted to close down; priorities that are going to ensure we have the infrastructure to support homes; priorities to build new schools, new hospitals. It’s men and women supported by the Skills Development Fund that are getting the job done.

I would ask that member—I would encourage him: Visit one local, talk to one of the programs, actually talk to apprentices that are benefiting, because it’s changing their lives. It’s giving them access to better training for a better job with a bigger paycheque.

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

Mr. John Fraser: So the minister respects his public servants so much that when they said, “Don’t do it. It’s a risk. Don’t do it,” he said more than half the time, “I’m going to do it.” That’s a lot of respect, Minister. I could see it on their faces yesterday.

So we asked for a redacted list of the 670 high-scoring projects that this minister and maybe the one before rejected. Simple: We just want to know, why did you choose the strip club owner over the great-ranking project or the family dentist over the great-ranking project or the lawyer appointee over the great-scoring project? It’s obvious what’s happening here.

Can the Premier release the list of the 670 high-scoring applicants?

Hon. David Piccini: In fact, when I became minister, we released the full list of all SDF recipients from rounds 1 to 3, and we continue to.

Speaker, just go look at newsroom. We’ve publicly announced every single SDF recipient and the incredible work that they’re doing.

I think to some important partners. This morning at that conference, we talked about the value of work that Oaks Revitalization has done—Mark Tenaglia, Joe, for example, two people doing incredible work offering a second chance for men and women in the construction sector, for people who want access to better training. We visited them. We’ve seen their program that’s supported through the Skills Development Fund. It’s getting people on job sites.

And then I’ve often reflected on the Bridgecon project that I visited two weeks ago, where I met one of their graduates. These are real Ontarians getting better training, working.

That member can’t even name one because he’s never bothered to actually visit the sites to see the incredible work being done, Speaker. It’s changing lives.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Maybe the minister didn’t hear me clearly. I asked for the list of the 670 high-scoring applicants who didn’t receive money because maybe their work would have helped Ontarians get jobs. Maybe that wasn’t as important as rewarding a friend or an insider. There are 700,000 people in Ontario out of work; 1,000 of them in Sault Ste. Marie found that that was going to be the case with them. It is incredible that this minister can’t answer any questions—simple, straightforward questions.

I guess my question for the Premier is: Since you’re rewarding your friends and insiders and donors, how do you look those unemployed Ontarians in the eye and say, “I’m helping you”? Because you’re not.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, we are: 100,000 Ontarians have achieved employment within 60 days or less thanks to the Skills Development Fund. Find me one program in Ontario that has those sorts of outcomes. I’ve stood up here and spoken about the continuous improvement measures we’ve taken with the program, a program that is changing lives. We’ve met the youth unemployed through youth employment services. There’s incredible work they’re doing to take unemployed youth, give them rapid training to land jobs.

We know that the previous government just wanted a service sector. They didn’t care about tech jobs. They didn’t care about jobs in the construction sector. We saw a declining number of men and women in apprenticeships. The service sector alone can’t build the highways, hospitals, roads and bridges we need.

It’s not a surprise they wanted to shut down the Pickering plant. They didn’t want to build the Ontario Line. They opposed the Bradford Bypass. They opposed Highway 413.

Working-class men and women in Ontario see the value of these projects. It’s putting people to work—

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

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday at committee, Keel Digital Solutions and the fact that they got tens of millions of dollars and continued to get it while they were under forensic audit came up. It’s still not clear how that could happen.

If the President of the Treasury Board wants to step in here, I’d really appreciate it. But what I want to know is, can the minister or the Premier explain to us just exactly what checks were done for all the applicants of the Skills Development Fund?

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

Hon. David Piccini: As I said and as the ministry officials highlighted yesterday, we work closely. I take accountability for this program that has continuously improved over every successive round.

Let’s not forget its origin stemmed from the pandemic, when people were literally dividing their families into social bubbles. We were trying to get people back to work to kick-start this economy to support the hospitality sector that was ravaged, to kick-start construction projects to support the incredible growth we need to see in this province.

Now we’re nation-building. We can no longer rely on our closest ally, who has launched an all-out assault on our steel sector, on our automotive sector. We need to have a program that is there to rapidly support and train workers with better training for better jobs, and we’ve done it.

We’ve highlighted the programs. We’ve brought many of the recipients here, and 100,000 people have achieved employment within 60 days or less. The Auditor General spoke about the strength of the KPIs, about the strength of retraining. We’re going to keep doing that for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Yesterday at the public accounts committee, we asked the ministry staff about what background checks were done on Skills Development Fund applicants. We know that they’re now checking to see if they’re a lobbyist or a consultant. It’s a little late for that, but we know already, so that’s not really much of a background check for us. It’s not clear what background checks are being done about the principals in companies, the companies themselves, any individuals involved with a Skills Development Fund application.

I didn’t hear an answer in the minister’s last response. So can the minister please explain to us just exactly what background checks are being done?

Hon. David Piccini: As I’ve said before, the team reviews. We have thousands of applicants that come in through the Skills Development Fund. It’s an oversubscribed program, speaking to its efficacy and the strength of the work that this program does.

The member referenced that we have a public registry, and we’ve taken steps, thanks to the recommendations of the Auditor General, to continue to improve the program. I’m grateful for the officials in our department who we’re working with to implement those changes, changes for a program that has, as I said, helped 100,000 people find employment.

In the north, the Ring of Fire, you’ve seen two announcements the Premier’s made this past week. We’ve helped people like Jennifer with the common core training—Jennifer with Musselwhite mine. She’s now working up north.

The members opposite laugh. They’ve never actually visited a mine. They’ve never actually gone to speak to the workers and speak to the folks being retrained. Why? Because they vote against every measure to unlock the potential of the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

The leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, you know, $2 billion has gone out the door, and you’d think you’d might want to know who you’re dealing with when you’re sending that money out the door. It’s part of assessing risk: knowing who you’re dealing with.

Does the minister, in assessing risk, check for things like previous dealings with the Ontario government? Do they check for litigations, settlements involving the government? Do they check for securities violations, sanctions or anything that would be untoward or a risk for the government? Instances of fraud? Through you, Speaker, does the minister check for any of these things?

Hon. David Piccini: This program is about impact, and the impact that it’s having on everyday Ontarians. The team at our ministry does work, as we’ve mentioned—monthly visits, audits, visits of successful SDF funding recipients.

We heard yesterday about the strength of those visits to assess training and the work that it’s doing to change lives. When we talk about impact, we think about the 100,000 Ontarians that have found employment within 60 days or less.

We think of underrepresented groups—the young people in Hammer Heads, an incredible program that’s putting people like Marvin on the front lines of the work that we’re doing with the GO train. There are so many—Ontario Line, GO train—but it’s Union Station where I met Marvin, Speaker, a Hammer Heads graduate who’s now a foreman with Alberici.

We’ve spoken about employers, about the linkages with labour to build a stronger Ontario. This program is having an impact and we’re proud to support these young people on their apprenticeship journey.

University and college funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Thousands of jobs are being lost at Ontario colleges and universities across the province. Student services are being cut, hundreds of programs have been cancelled and entire campuses are shutting down.

In the middle of a trade war, this is hurting students, it is hurting communities and it is hurting local economies, and it’s only just beginning. A college president told me that without an urgent increase in government funding, everything will be on the table: more layoffs, more program cuts, more campuses closing.

Speaker, what is this government’s plan to deal with the $2.1-billion revenue loss facing Ontario universities and the $1.5 billion that our colleges need now to stay afloat?

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

Mr. Deepak Anand: The question has two components. I’m going to start with the first one and I’m going to take the second one in the supplement.

Before I start, I want to say thank you to all the educators, the students and the faculty at the colleges and universities. Today, Ontario is strong because of strong partnerships between this government and all of you. So thank you for that.

The question’s first component talks about the funding. I want to share with everybody, through you, Madam Speaker: In the last nine months alone, our government has invested nearly $1 billion—with a B—into publicly assisted colleges and universities to fund over 100,000 more seats in programs that produce graduates to meet Ontario’s market demands.

This is not enough, Madam Speaker. We also included $750 million to fund 20,000 STEM seats annually and $75 million in construction-related programs to fund 7,800 new seats.

We are making these investments because we believe in a strong future for Ontario, which is going to come through—

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: This member should know that Ontario provides the lowest per-student funding in all of Canada.

We are seeing college programs like culinary and hospitality closing down at Loyalist, George Brown, Confederation and elsewhere. At the same time, this government is funnelling money through the Skills Development Fund to low-scoring, private sector companies like Scale Hospitality.

Instead of investing in our public post-secondary system, we hear that this government is now floating the idea of making students pay more. Speaker, a funding formula review that only moves money around won’t fix the problem. Will this government commit today to the increased per-student funding that our colleges and universities urgently need?

Mr. Deepak Anand: Thank you to the member opposite for that important question because something that we believe is our future is our students. Talking about the international students, something which we have seen a growth of—between 2013 to 2023, there was a growth of 397%. It’s kind of saying that you have to drive on a highway and your instructor is asking you to increase the speed and then asking you to apply your brake with the wall in front of you. That’s exactly what happened.

Madam Speaker, this government is here to support our students. But we didn’t stop here. We continue to work to make sure we are modernizing the funding model to be a more responsible, sustainable and future-ready framework that fits the current post-secondary landscape. This includes discussion with how we can better make sure—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Government accountability

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Ontarians work hard. They pay their taxes expecting that money goes to support hospitals, schools and transit. Instead, this Premier has built a system that rewards insiders: donate and you get access; don’t and the door slams shut.

Yesterday we learned that yet another major donor to the Conservative Party, an Etobicoke dentist with close ties to the Premier, was awarded $2 million from the skills development slush fund. Speaker, can the Premier explain why he gave $2 million to an Etobicoke dentist/donor instead of using that money to help workers?

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

MPP Mohamed Firin: Speaker, I’d like to thank the member for the question. We’ve got a province to build—$200,000 worth of infrastructure. That needs workers, and that’s why our Skills Development Fund is funding those workers. Some 700,000 workers have been trained through this program. One in seven of those workers received a job within the first 60 days. That’s something to be very proud of.

I’ve travelled this province, and the minister just mentioned earlier today the Hammer Heads program, a program in my riding of York South–Weston that’s delivering real results. What that program is doing—there’s a hundred youth that have graduated from that program, but the program is motivating thousands of marginalized youth across my riding that they’re going to have an opportunity, that there’s an opportunity for them when they get trained.

Speaker, I’ll tell the member—

Interjection.

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

Back to the member for Don Valley North.

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Speaker, the minister still refuses to answer the question. Ontarians still don’t know what criteria are used or what safeguards exist to prevent political interference. I guess no matter what it was, it clearly didn’t work. This matters, Speaker, because only a small handful of dental companies in Ontario even received Skills Development Funding, and at least two have direct ties to the Premier and to his party.

The other week it was $10.5 million to a Tory strip club owner. Today it’s $2 million to a dentist in the Premier’s inner circle. When will this disrespect for taxpayers finally end?

MPP Mohamed Firin: Speaker, I’d like to thank the member opposite. And I’d actually like to correct myself. It’s actually $220 billion worth of infrastructure.

Speaker, through the Skills Development Fund, we’re supporting every sector, whether it’s our health care—52,000 health care workers are being funded; $60 billion worth of hospitals that we’re building. And you know what they need, Speaker? They need workers—the same program that the member opposite voted against in the budget.

It’s sad. They go out there and pull stunts and talk about how they support these workers, but when it comes to it, they don’t vote for the workers—$70 billion worth of transportation announced by the Minister of Transportation, but when they get the chance to vote for it, they vote no. The $30 billion to protect the workers of this province, as the PA over there mentioned—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Response?

MPP Mohamed Firin: —again, they vote no. They can ask these questions but then continue to vote no again and again.

Housing

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ontario families want to see homes being built faster and more affordably in our province. They are tired of delays, red tape or empty lots sitting idle. They want action. Under the previous Liberal government, we saw unnecessary rules and outdated processes slow down construction and drive up costs. This resulted in fewer housing starts and higher prices for families who are already struggling.

Our government is taking a different approach. Under the Premier’s leadership, we are putting people first and making housing more affordable by removing barriers and speeding up approvals.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is protecting Ontarians and building a stronger, more affordable housing market for everyone?

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

Ms. Laura Smith: I want to thank the member from Wellington–Halton Hills for the incredible work he does for his community every day. Thanks for the question.

Our government is focused on building homes, not bureaucracy. That’s why we’ve taken action to streamline approvals and eliminate unnecessary site plan requirements that added months of delays and thousands of dollars in costs. These changes mean home builders can spend less time waiting and more time building. We’re setting clear consistent standards across Ontario so that every municipality plays by the same rules. This is about common sense: cutting red tape, lowering costs and delivering homes that Ontarians need.

By removing duplication and uncertainty, we’re helping families move into homes faster, making housing more affordable to everyone. We will not allow unnecessary rules to stand in the way of building homes for the people of Ontario. We’re committed to ensuring every family has access to housing that builders can work on without unnecessary delay and confusion.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: Thank you to the PA for that response. Ontarians can’t afford more delays and high costs. They want a fair, predictable system that gets homes built quickly and affordably. For too long, municipal red tape and previous government mismanagement stood in the way. Those delays drove up costs, slowed down projects and made it harder for families to find a place to call home. Our government is saying no to the status quo. We are working with municipal leaders and home builders to get shovels in the ground faster so we can build more homes.

Speaker, can the minister share what steps our government is taking to remove the barriers that stand in the way of getting homes built for Ontarians?

Ms. Laura Smith: The member is absolutely right. Every delay adds costs and every cost makes housing less affordable. That’s why our government is continuing to bring common sense back to the housing system. By removing redundant site plan controls and standardizing building requirements across Ontario, we’re saving builders time and saving homebuyers money. We’re cutting costs, reducing duplication and ensuring that every municipality plays by the same clear rules: one building code, one standard, one Ontario.

The opposition believes in costly delays and complex processes; Ontarians rejected that approach, giving us a strong mandate to keep building homes faster and more affordably. The message is quite simple: It’s time to build homes, not bureaucracy. Families deserve homes that they can afford, and we are delivering on our promise. Together we’re building stronger communities and creating opportunities to ensure Ontarians remain in a place where—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Hospital funding

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

This government is a jobs disaster for Ontario and for Hamilton. A recent stat shows a loss of 4,000 Hamilton jobs from September to October this year alone—job losses in manufacturing, in steel, and now we are facing hospital job losses. The health minister has stood in this House many times and blamed local hospitals for this crisis, but these job losses are a direct result of government cuts to our hospital.

Premier, the finger pointing and the blame game has to stop. We need you to take responsibility and do something to make sure that our Hamilton hospitals are fully funded and fully staffed.

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member from the doom-and-gloom party—that nothing can be built and when we do build things, you vote against it.

Let’s go back to 2018, when the NDP and the Liberals destroyed our province, chased 300,000 jobs out of this province. Let’s remind people that there’s 1,080,000 more people working today than there were in 2018. Let’s remind everyone the GDP was $825 million under your watch; it’s $1.21 trillion.

We’ve attracted $70 billion of investment here, creating hundreds and hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and you vote against it. You vote against the health care spending that we’re doing. We’ve increased health care, hiring 100,000 nurses, 20,000 doctors—$60 billion in builds. But guess what? You don’t believe in that