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

April 22, 2026

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 2026-Apr-22 vol. A (PDF)

L066A - Wed 22 Apr 2026 / Mer 22 avr 2026

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 April 2026 Mercredi 22 avril 2026

Estimates

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour protéger les travailleurs et la résilience économique de l’Ontario

Members’ Statements

National Volunteer Week

Ark Aid Mission

Ontario budget

3M Canada

Assistance to flood victims

Events in Markham–Unionville

Girls Government

Government investments

Six Pack hockey tournament

Sikh Heritage Month

House sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Highway safety

Hospital funding

Public safety

Government jet

Pride funding

Freedom of information

Energy policies

Tenant protection

Environmental protection

Transportation infrastructure

Rural Ontario

Health care

Public safety

Land use planning

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Government Bills

Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 visant à protéger l’autonomie alimentaire de l’Ontario

Motions

House sittings

Petitions

Energy policies

Social assistance

Ontario budget

Social assistance

Post-secondary education

Orders of the Day

Better Regional Governance Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour une meilleure gouvernance régionale

Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour protéger les travailleurs et la résilience économique de l’Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Estimates

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Treasury Board president.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I have a message from the Honourable Edith Dumont, the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March, 2027, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour protéger les travailleurs et la résilience économique de l’Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 21, 2026, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

An Act to enact the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 105, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 visant à renforcer la réglementation des agences artistiques et modifiant diverses lois.

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

MPP Wayne Gates: I guess I’m speaking.

Interjection: And sharing your time.

MPP Wayne Gates: And I’m sharing my time with Jamie West.

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

MPP Wayne Gates: The member from Sudbury—holy God. What are you guys doing to me? It’s 9 o’clock in the morning. I was up until 2 o’clock in the morning watching the hockey games last night; they all went into overtime.

Let’s get to Bill 105 and the speech. I was here yesterday, fortunately, to listen to the minister speak on this bill. There are a lot of things in this bill that I certainly want to talk about. I did a press conference this week. As we talk about labour and, obviously, the environment—I won’t get to the environment; I’ll probably leave that to some of my other colleagues. If you listen to the minister, you would say, “It looks like everything is wonderful in the province of Ontario when it comes to labour.” I listened to him intently yesterday.

But if you take a look at what’s really going on with labour in our communities right across the province—including in the ridings of the members there, the Conservative members.

CUPE had a press conference with workers that worked in long-term care, retirement homes. These are workers that really, really care about our moms, our dads, our aunts, our uncles, our brothers and sisters. But what they were telling us at the press conference is that they are struggling. They don’t have enough staff. They have staffing shortages on every shift. They have more violence in their workplaces. They are feeling not respected. And a lot of that deals with—including their wages, their benefits, their working conditions.

We had workers come and do, at the same time that afternoon—I want to thank colleagues from the Liberals and the Greens. I did ask the Minister of Long-Term Care to come. Unfortunately, she couldn’t make it. They talked about their workplaces and how passionate they are about it. But they were trying to say, “We’re not getting support. We have so many people who still need long-term-care facilities. We have people that are in alternate level of care in our hospitals that can’t get into long-term care to open up our rooms.”

Then at 10 o’clock, ONA—and this is why it’s important, because it is not just CUPE; ONA, who represents the nurses—the same thing, a press conference, talking about their working conditions, that they’re short-staffed.

So when I listen to the minister say how wonderful it is in the province of Ontario, it’s not remotely accurate—because I’m not saying it. This isn’t coming from Wayne Gates, who’s the MPP for Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake; this is coming from workers who are giving every ounce of energy to their workplaces, but they don’t feel like they’re getting the same kind of respect from the government—and again, their working conditions, more violence.

People are living longer: more dementia—severe dementia, quite frankly, tougher. I can tell you from a personal point of view. My wife and her aunt just over the last few months—her aunt needed to get into a long-term-care facility. And the steps that they had to go through to get in, the wait time they had to do as her aunt had a hole in her leg about this big, trying to get it taken care of because she couldn’t get in a place to stay. It’s happening all over the province. So when the minister says everything is wonderful, it’s not. I want to be clear on that.

And then I listened to them talk about WSIB. And listen, in the bill—there are a couple of things here, and when I really get into my speech, I’ll talk about them. We’ve been fighting for years to have WSIB coverage if you’re working past 65. And again, it wasn’t me; it was unions; it was people that were standing up for WSIB, like Willy Noiles. I know the member from Niagara West is here. I know he knew Willy really well, who passed away last year. I can tell you today, Willy is looking down on this House with a big smile on his face because he was up there almost every day. Somebody was introducing Willy, fighting for WSIB for almost his entire adult life.

So when you put into the bill that they’re going to cover people who have to work—and this is the key: have to work—past 65, we know that’s happening more and more every day because of the affordability crisis that we have in the province. People, quite frankly, can’t afford their groceries; they can’t afford their rent. Seniors are being renovicted because of the cost of rent. So I say to Willy, I support that part of the bill. And I’m sure my colleagues would too, or will, and will speak on it. I’m sure our labour critic, Jamie West, will speak on that too.

So I want to say it’s not like I’m saying this bill is terrible; what I’m saying is we’ve got to work harder. If you want to be a face for workers, then you’ve got to cover what we need. So this is a good one. I think we should expand it, quite frankly. I think, hopefully, we’ll do that during the amendments at the committee stage. I firmly believe that it should be retroactive from when it was stopped. I raised that yesterday in a question, Madam Speaker, to the minister. I’m hoping we do that because I’m a firm believer that if you get hurt at work, you should be covered.

That leads me in—because I’m going to stay on WSIB just for a minute. Like I said, I’ll get to my speech as soon as I figure out where I want to go.

It leads to deeming. I’ve been here 12 years. I’ve talked about deeming almost every year I came here. I’ve put bills forward on deeming a number of times. I want to congratulate my colleagues from the NDP who supported that bill every single time. The Liberals, even though they didn’t do it when they were 15 years in power, and they should have but they didn’t, at least when we’ve done the bill over the last eight years, they’ve supported it. The Greens have supported it.

On the deeming issue, we’ve worked really hard to work together to say, “This is something that is important to workers.” The only party I can’t convince is the Conservative Party. I don’t know why, because they have said that they are the face of workers now, that they care about workers more than the NDP, that we’ve lost the support of labour. By the way, we were supported in the last election by the OFL, which covers one million workers in the province of Ontario. So I don’t think it’s completely accurate, but I understand why you say it.

But on deeming, I can say this very clearly: I think my colleague from Welland—Niagara Centre as well—has been a worker his whole life. He represented workers. He was a rep. I believe it was for SEIU, if I’m not mistaken. He understands about workers.

I worked in a plant for close to 40 years. Some would argue that I worked, but I was certainly going to work every day in that plant. And then I got involved with the union. It was the best move I ever made in my life, because then I understood what unions were. Unions were obviously about treating workers with respect and dignity and taking on issues that sometimes aren’t popular.

I watched workers get hurt on the job. They get metalworking fluids disease, cancers in the workplace, and they go on WSIB, and WSIB would then deem them. What that means is they have a phantom job or a job that they can’t do because of the injuries and the cancers they have. They say, “Oh no, you can do this. Here’s a phantom job for $20 an hour,” and then they cut the benefit. Now they’re forced into going on social assistance, which would be ODSP, and what would happen with the deeming—they would end up starting to live in poverty. All they did was go to work, just like we go to work every day.

We don’t face some of the challenges that workers do in a plant, in a factory, construction workers. Construction workers are getting hurt as well, when they talk about their trades.

But getting back to the plant: I watched my colleagues go out, who are coming to work every day, and all they wanted to do—well, we had a lot of fun on the line too, by the way; in the old days it was fun sometimes. But at the end of the day, all they wanted to do was come to work, earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, go home to their family, get a paycheque so they can have their kids go to play hockey, dance, play ball, do all those things, play the piano—whatever they wanted to do, but so they had the resources to do that. All of a sudden, they get hurt on the job or they get a cancer in the workplace.

They were going to rely on WSIB, and what WSIB found is that they can just deem them and force them into poverty.

I can’t tell you how many times they came to my office when I went to—Jeff will remember—I went through the thing. I was a back-shift committee man for 20 years. I worked steady midnights for 20 years. That was crazy, but I did it. But I did it for a reason: I wanted to coach my kids. I had enough money. I was getting a paycheque. I wasn’t getting hurt on the job.

And then, one of my colleagues gets hurt on the job. He didn’t do anything wrong, by the way. He went to work, comes to work on time, was working on the—at that time, it was called the rotor line, what I was working on, before I became president of a local union. He got hurt on the job, and then they deemed him. He had to live in poverty.

I’ve said to the labour minister: He had seven Working for Workers bills. I have no idea why labour is included in this Bill 105. I don’t understand it at all. I don’t know what an economic resilience act has to do with labour. But I have talked to the minister. I believe that Niagara West has talked to the minister. I know Jamie has talked to the minister. We say, “You’ve had seven opportunities to take care of workers.

If you really care about workers—I’m saying really care about workers—the one worker you should care about is the one that went into work to try to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, gets injured on the job and then they deem him and put him into poverty.” That is the worst thing that can happen to a worker—a worker who has pride in his job and is doing nothing wrong.

So I’m saying to the minister again, I’m saying to the colleagues—I know some aren’t listening on that side. I wish they’d listen to this because they’ve got a friend in every one of their ridings who is being deemed in the province of Ontario. Every one of you guys have it. You should be ashamed of it. You can take the surplus, which you’ve been doing for the last number of years—instead of giving it to the workers who are getting injured on the job you are giving it to corporations and businesses. That surplus belongs to the workers.

You can very easily eliminate deeming in the province of Ontario—not because Wayne Gates is saying it, not because Jeff Burch is saying it, not because Jamie West is saying it, but because that’s what workers deserve. Because without workers, this province is nothing. Without workers, corporations are nothing. Without workers, small businesses are nothing. It’s the workers that make the province run. And if I’m good enough to get a job in that workplace, in a corporation—I use GM as an example because that’s where I’ve come out of. I’ll use them as an example. I give my heart and soul to that company.

I make sure that I’m putting out a good product. I’m doing productivity better than anyone. But one day I go into work and end up dying—not dying, getting injured. I’ll talk about dying real quick, though. I believe everybody on that side—everybody on that side—doesn’t want a worker to live in poverty just for going to work. I believe that. But you have got to tell your labour minister that you have got to get rid of deeming in the province of Ontario.

I have got another one I’d like to see in the bill. I’m going to tell you; I have talked to colleagues here about this one. When I was president of 199, I got a call at 6:30 in the morning. At that time, I was president; I didn’t go into work until about 7:30. I got a call about 6:30. They had an accident in the plant. Joel Murray was his name—young man, had two kids. His wife’s name was Wendy. I go into the plant. I’m not sure what happened. I go down to side gear, and Joel—who had called me a number of times, by the way, when I was in the plant on health and safety issues; he was very safety conscious.

General Motors had put him on a job he hadn’t been on in a year. He didn’t know—no retraining, no talking to him, no fault of Joel’s. He goes in, he starts changing tools because that’s what you do. When you work in a plant—I did it too when I was in the plant—the first thing you do you is change your tools; that way they are good for the whole shift, right? So you know you’re putting out a good product. Joel went in, he’s got his head in the machine, not knowing—because he hadn’t been on the job for over a year—that somebody had bypassed the light, the switch to stop the part from coming into the machine.

As Joel was in that machine, the machine cycled and crushed him to death. Joel was an outstanding member of Niagara-on-the-Lake. He coached his kids’ hockey team. At that time, it was the U11s.

I walked Joel out of the plant that day with EMS, with the coroner. It was General Motors’s fault. The supervisor was charged. General Motors was charged. It went to court. Obviously, it was terrible on the kids. I got to know Wendy better; I got to know the kids a lot better. And what happened? It went to court. General Motors was fined $350,000. The plant manager was there at the court case. I’ll never forget this. I won’t say his name because I don’t think that right, but he was sitting right in the front row; Wendy, the kids and myself were sitting behind him.

When they said. “How do you plead?” General Motors said, “We plead guilty.” He never turned and said “I’m sorry” to Wendy or the kids. He never once turned and said he was sorry—$350,000.

So when I went back into my workplaces—because I represented over 20 of them—they said, “Well, at least the family is going to get $350,000 to help the kids go to school.” That money doesn’t go to the family. It goes back into general funds. I believe, and I think everybody in this room would believe, that money should go to the family so the kids can go to school, maybe go to university.

Because it affected everybody in that workplace—Joel was loved in the workplace; he was funny; he was a great guy—everybody decided to do a gate collection. This is going back 21 years now. They did a gate collection, and the gate collection was the highest one that we ever had. We do gate collections for Christmas and stuff. For this one here, it was over $20,000 that went to the family; it helped a bit for the family.

But you know what never happened with Joel when he went to work at 6 o’clock in the morning that day? He never got to say goodbye to his family. He never got to kiss his kids again. He’s never seen his grandkids because his life was taken from him because of a safety incident in the plant.

I wanted to tell that story because I really believe that collectively we should put a bill together and say that if you get killed on that job, that money goes to the family. I really believe that.

I don’t want to bring you down early in the morning, but that was very, very hard. That was one of the hardest things I ever did, walk out one of my brothers in a plant, who got killed on the job.

We had another one who got killed on the job too. It was in hydro. He got electrocuted. I didn’t know him as well. Obviously, I’m not a hydro worker; I’m not a skilled trades guy.

I should start my speech now, I guess. So I’m going to say I’m proud to rise today on behalf of the people of Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake to speak to Bill 105, the so-called Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act. I’ve already said this, but I’ll say it again: Why are these two together? This makes absolutely no sense—none. Maybe this is a step—I guess maybe the labour critic, who’s in front of me here, Jamie West, knows better than me that maybe they’ve finally gotten off Working for Workers. Working for Workers is a hard thing to defend when you don’t work for workers, and I gave you some examples of where you’re not working for workers.

I talked about nurses today, Jamie, and what struggles they’re going through. You talk about education workers with our members from London who talk about education and the problems we’re having in education. It’s everywhere: Classroom sizes are too big, way too big, violence in our schools, staffing shortages, and that’s the things we know. We have 700,000 people today that are unemployed—unemployed—and we have staffing shortages in education and in health care. Does that make sense to anybody? That means it’s funding. If you’re not funding our education system and you’re not funding our health care, what do you do?

You’re making hospitals lay off people. In my riding—I don’t know about everybody else’s riding because I really stay on Niagara—we had 99 people get laid off just before Christmas, had their jobs cut. They say they’re going to place them here and place them there, or they’ll get laid off. But what happened that same day—and this is where I talk about priorities and where you’ve got to think about workers.

I’m talking to the Conservatives on this one, because the same day in Niagara, Speaker, when they announced they were cutting 99 jobs in Niagara to save $10 million because of their deficit, this government made an announcement of $125 million that was going to go to private clinics—private clinics. There’s the problem with health care. You’re privatizing it. Instead of spending every single tax dollar—because we’ve got to pay extra taxes for health care—take that money and put it into our public system, publicly funded, publicly delivered.

Why are you giving $125 million to a private system when we’re laying off close to 100 people in the public system? Can somebody explain that to me? Why not take that money and put it back into the public system, and then we wouldn’t have to lay off nurses and PSWs.

We just had another announcement in Niagara: PSWs just got laid off. I don’t have the numbers on it, because I got a call on it Sunday morning and they couldn’t give me the numbers Sunday morning; they’re probably out now. PSWs are being laid off. Some are going to have to go back down to part-time. We’re going to have no PSWs on our midnight shift in our hospital.

Before I get into some more stuff in my speech—I’m going to stay on health care. I’ve only got a few minutes left; I think my colleague wants to speak as well. Well, he called me this morning and told me he was speaking. It wasn’t like—he kind of advised me. He’s the critic; he’s going to do whatever he wants. But he was kind when he said it this morning at 8 o’clock, when we talked.

I just don’t understand, on the health care file. I have been talking about this now for a number of years. Actually, it’s about 22 years. I think my colleagues from St. Catharines and Niagara have been doing the same thing with the Port Colborne urgent care centre.

The Fort Erie urgent care centre was a hospital. Twenty years ago, under the Conservatives, they wanted to close it. That community rallied, with 5,000 people. I think Jeff was probably there at that time. I think Malcolm Allen was there as well, from Welland. Some 5,000 people came and fought for that hospital. They were able to save the hospital, but it became an urgent care centre over the last number of years.

What have they done now? The Conservatives have done this, nobody else. I’m not blaming anybody else. The Liberals should never have allowed it to happen in Fort Erie, either, when they were in power. But our urgent care centre in Fort Erie now, instead of operating 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, is now being operated 10 hours a day, and it’s shut down after 8 o’clock at night, at a time when our population has gone from around 28,000 people up to 37,000 or 38,000, at a time when—I don’t know if anybody notices—a lot more seniors are everywhere in our communities, especially in Niagara.

I think we are about 30% seniors. In Jeff’s riding, they did the same thing in Port Colborne with their urgent care. They want to close it. What are we doing?

This goes back to what I was saying, about how you’re laying off people in a public system. You’re giving money to the private system, to CEOs, so they can make money. As a matter of fact, there are billions of dollars to be made in health care if you are giving it to private, because it’s about profit; it’s not about care. We saw that in long-term care. You can say whatever you want about long-term care. That became private, and the minute it became private, we had all the problems. It was exposed during COVID.

When we lost 6,000 of our moms, our dads, our aunts and our uncles during COVID, 78% of those were in a private setting. Think about that: Some of our moms and dads died from the basic needs of not getting enough water. They died of dehydration. Privatization doesn’t work.

But getting back to Fort Erie: On Saturday, we had a rally. Actually, it was a town hall. The community showed up again, like they always have, with story after story after story talking about how important the urgent care centre is in Fort Erie. We had somebody come and tell the story that they were having a heart attack. They wouldn’t have made it to St. Catharines, Jennie Stevens’s riding. They wouldn’t have made it to Niagara Falls. They went to the urgent care centre. The urgent care centre stabilized them, and then they took them to Hamilton.

He told the story that without the urgent care centre, he’d be dead today. He was crying when he spoke about it. His wife was crying when they were speaking about it. They were hugging.

Urgent care centres are important in every single community—Port Colborne and Fort Erie. And then the AG report made it even clearer because, as we know, in our hospitals today our emergencies are 12-, 14-, 16- or 18-hour waits. And it just happened. I’ll give you a quick example. I’m probably not going to get my speech done now.

I’ll give you a quick example. My daughter had some health issues. We took her to the St. Catharines hospital; she lives in Fenwick. She goes there, she goes in the emergency room, she goes to triage, and then they tell her, “Go wait here.” She waited there for about six hours. She finally gets called in, thinking, “Okay, I’m going to go see the doctor.” Well, that’s not what happens.

You go from there into another room where they sit you down for another six hours. Then after about six hours, they say, “Okay,” they call your name and then you go to a waiting area where you wait for the doctor to come. Now you’re looking at another two, three, four hours. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

My daughter took 18 hours to see a doctor. I won’t tell you what the issue was; it’s not important. That doesn’t happen at an urgent care centre because you get in right away. The wait time in the urgent care centre in Fort Erie is about an hour and a half, maybe two hours. Our member, Jeff—what would it be in a Port Colborne urgent care centre? A couple of hours?

Mr. Jeff Burch: At least.

MPP Wayne Gates: Yes, a couple of hours to get in and see a doctor. So you go to the emergency room and it’s four, six, eight hours. And we have people laying all over the halls there. We have hallway medicine there.

I’m saying to the government, instead of investing $125 million into private clinics, invest it into urgent care centres in Port Colborne and Fort Erie and keep them open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. What will that do, Madam Speaker? That will alleviate the wait times in your emergency rooms because, as we know, most people don’t have a family doctor today. You’ve got two choices if you don’t have a family doctor: You can go to an urgent care centre—which would make sense, by the way—or you can go to the emergency room and wait 12, 14, 16 hours.

I would say—like the AG report has said—invest that money back in your urgent care centre. That will alleviate the problem that we’re having in our emergency rooms, and the flow would be better. Yet what are you doing? You’re closing urgent care centres. It makes no sense. Everybody is telling you, “Don’t close urgent care centres. It’s not in the best interest of health care.” And they’re saying, “Well, it costs too much.” You can’t argue that when you’re spending the kind of money you’re spending in private clinics, investing in private.

I’m going to finish by saying this: Some of you say, “Well, private works.” It didn’t work in long-term care, and we’ve got the facts there. Some 6,000 people died during COVID—78% were in private long-term-care facilities and retirement homes. We’ve got the proof, but here’s the biggest proof: the number one killer, the number one reason people claim bankruptcy in the United States of America—does anybody know what it is? It’s health care costs. And why is that? Because it’s private.

Do we want to go down a system where we’re having a private health care system when it’s the number one reason in the States for bankruptcy? Is that what you want to do to our seniors and our families? I say no.

I’m going to turn this over to my colleague Jamie West to finish up the next 30 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member for Sudbury.

MPP Jamie West: Thank you to my colleague from Niagara Falls for his lead debate on Bill 105.

This is an odd bill. I know when people are watching this, it looks like we’re always arguing back and forth, but I have a good working relationship with the Minister of Labour. We had a meeting, maybe two weeks ago, talking about what was going to be in this bill. The end result from the conversation we had was, I said that there won’t be a lot for me to criticize. He went, “Hmm,” and I think he went, “Hmm,” because he didn’t tell me all the stuff that was in the bill.

Instead of this being a labour bill, this is an omnibus bill. It was tabled by, I think, red tape reduction, but it’s a mix of weird parts. It’s 170 pages, and I think the reason it’s 170 pages is so they could throw in some poison pills, so they can point their finger and they’ll say, “Oh, so you don’t care about people paying for the uniforms. Oh, you don’t care about actual workers. Oh, you don’t care about”—but they don’t want us to talk about the decertifying of unions that this bill enables. They don’t want to talk about the bad parts.

So because it’s such a large bill and I have such a little amount of time to speak to it, Speaker, what I’m going to do is I’m going to break it down into sections: good, fine and bad. I might go through it a little quickly just so I can get through all of them and expand on them if there’s enough time at the end.

But the opportunity right now is ripe for a labour bill—it has been for the last eight years, honestly. There have been several—I’ll put those in quotes—“Working for Workers” bills. They kind of nudge the line ahead, but they haven’t made great changes for people. They’ve helped a lot of people in small ways, but people are looking for real help and real support. We’re in a situation right now where there are 60,000 people in Ontario who have lost their jobs. And so people are thirsty for that sort of leadership that you’re not really seeing in this bill.

Let’s start with what’s good: The good part of the bill has to do with talent agencies. It’s going to create a director of talent agencies to regulate who can be a talent agent. It’s going to have some regulations to define what agencies are and what talent workers look like. And it sets some prohibitions on charging fees for entertainment workers.

These are all things that ACTRA is very supportive of. These are things that are long overdue. If you had a membership of workers, especially actors—you know, we often think of the actors who are in People magazine and stuff, but when you’re starting out as an actor, you’re not working as often and so you’re counting on fair support. If you’re getting gouged and ripped off in your wages, it’s not fair for you. We know that ACTRA supports this, and I think it’s a good thing.

I want to maybe remind the government that something else you can do to help ACTRA is you could help the ACTRA commercial workers. The ACTRA commercial workers, Speaker, have been locked out since April 26, 2022. Today is April 22, 2026, so we’re looking at four years of being locked out, and they’re commercial actors. Not only has the Conservative government not supported them or helped them with this, they’ve actually—in those many, many ads you see promoting all the great stuff the government is doing, they used replacement workers for them. So instead of just saying, “Hey, we won’t work at that agency.

The agencies have locked out these commercial workers,” they said, “Well, we can’t get involved, but also, we’re going to buy ads from the commercial agents who have locked out these workers”—so four years of being locked out without support from the Conservative government.

And so that’s a good part of the bill. I think it would be improved if you started helping out those locked-out commercial workers.

Schedule 6 of the bill is the Ombudsman Act. It basically requires the provincial Ombudsman to be bilingual.

There are a lot of communities, including in Sudbury, where about 33% of my community speaks French. My wife is French. More and more newcomers, especially from Africa, speak French primarily. And farther north, you get to Hearst and you may not be able to find someone who’s bilingual, right? They primarily speak French.

So when you’re trying to reach out to the Ombudsman and they don’t speak your mother language in a country that purports to be bilingual, that’s pretty embarrassing. And so I’m glad they’re putting it into writing. They’re going to make this happen for them.

The next one—I know I said I’ll do “good” and “fair” and “bad.” This one I put under “unsure” because this literally was tabled two days ago and started debate yesterday, and I haven’t had time to look into it thoroughly. Like I said, it’s 170 pages, this entire bill—an omnibus bill.

This is about retirement homes. It basically replaces the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I haven’t had enough time, really, to look into this. So it’s probably fine, I guess. I don’t really know. It wouldn’t be a deal-breaker anyway, mixed into the rest of the bill, unless someone brought something really tragic forward to me.

The part that’s fair—and “fair” can be a mix of “sort of good but could use some improvements,” is

schedule 1. It’s basically that employees no longer have to pay for their uniforms. If you watch the news, that’s how it came across. You wouldn’t have to pay for purchasing and laundering your uniforms, except in some cases. I think the intent is for small businesses, in certain cases. So the part that’s sort of—when I say it’s fair, it’s that we have to ensure that this is actually enforced and available and not just a speaking point, because many workers aren’t able to enforce things.

We know that there is a severe reduction in the number of employment standards inspection officers who are out there to police this sort of thing. We know that there is—I think the note I have is $60 million of uncollected stolen wages for workers. I think the actual number is closer to $100 million. And that’s money that workers actually reported and had basically investigated and proven to be stolen. We know the actual number is probably much higher than that.

So if you’re an employee in a lot of these workplaces who are provided a uniform—you’re thinking of small franchises; many people are making minimum wage at those places—and you are desperate for work, you’re not going to fight your employer over this, because it’s so easy to dismiss an employee, find lack of work and just write them off. We need to ensure that this is actually happening.

I believe, in the slide deck that was provided, I mentioned the franchisees. There was a little conversation—I’ll connect with the minister just to confirm—but I believe that if you’re in a franchise, you won’t be considered a small business. They won’t be just looking at that specific franchise location. Look, it’s like Tim Hortons—they will look at all of the employees for the total number.

The other part—a bit of a loophole in here—is that the legal definition of a small business is any business with less than 99 employees. So I’d be interested in further looking at the bill to see if the bill actually stipulates what the government is considering, in this situation, a small business, because I don’t think the general public would consider somebody with 99 employees a small business and have them be exempt from this situation.

It would be heartbreaking, as an employee, if you got a job and you had to buy a uniform—or several uniforms, say, if you’re full-time, because you can’t wear the same clothes every day. You thought that it would be covered by the employer because it’s a requirement of the employer, and then you found out that, “Oh, they have 98 employees, so they don’t have to follow this rule.” That would be really unfair.

The next part that I would consider fine is

schedule 5. It’s from the Occupational Health and Safety Act. There are a couple of parts in here.

The first one is they’re changing the definition in the act from “occupational disease” to “occupational illness.” I’m not really sure, because the broader definition of “occupational illness” has “occupational disease” in it. I think it may be an opportunity where the Conservative government might feel like “disease” has a negative impact when people hear about it. If they haven’t enforced it properly and somebody is ill or sent to hospital or dies from occupational illness, it might sound better than “occupational disease.” But I’m not really sure.

The next part, and this is why it falls into “fine” and not “good,” is that the ministry can reimburse employers for the cost of required protective headwear—hard hats. From my understanding with the conversation I had with the Minister of Labour, construction employers, or construction places, are going to require chinstraps for certain types of work. We know that in construction head injury is one of the leading causes of critical injuries and fatalities. I think changing requirements of what you need for PPE makes sense.

I don’t know if it makes sense to say that, for a company like EllisDon, the taxpayers of Ontario will subsidize them for their personal protective equipment. It just doesn’t make sense to me. EllisDon—I tried to figure out how much they made in Ontario. I couldn’t really find it. But I know in Canada they made $5.6 billion—somewhere between 50% to 70% of that came from Ontario. So just as a ballpark, let’s say $3 billion was made in Ontario by EllisDon. Now the province is going to subsidize their hard hats? Look, it’s the cost of doing business, man. We shouldn’t be paying for it. They should be paying for it; they’re making a healthy amount of money. That makes sense.

The next part of that

schedule 5 sets out the terms that the provincial Chief Prevention Officer can collect personal information. A while ago, there was an announcement that people could self-report occupational exposure. This just allows the Chief Prevention Officer to look through that information. I think it makes sense. It’s fine. The only problem is that this self-reporting Occupational Exposure Registry—it’s only good in workplaces with workers who actually know about it and promote it, and probably for those who already have a well-functioning joint health and safety committee.

If you have a bad employer, or you have an employer who’s pretty good but just doesn’t know, it’s not going to do anything for any kind of workplace. If you’re thinking about reducing occupational disease—and that is a looming number of people that are compensated, traditionally, at the end of their work life. It costs us literally billions of dollars to cover this. If we can be helping people before they’re inhaling things, before they’re absorbing things that are causing occupational disease, we’d be much further ahead than having a stack of papers that some people were able to self-report and maybe the Chief Prevention Officer will have a look at one day.

The next part, and this falls into the “fine” category, is about safety training harmonization. In our conversation, I was told that this meant that Ontario was going to look across all the provinces and see what the highest level of training was, and we would move to that highest level of training so our workers could work anywhere. And if somebody wanted to work here, they would have the highest level of training, and the best training generally brings down incidents of accidents, fatalities and injuries.

But the bill actually says, “recognizing ... for training, personal protective equipment or other equipment that comply with the requirements in another Canadian jurisdiction or the requirements under an agreement entered into between Ontario and another Canadian jurisdiction.”

The way I read that, basically, is that if we agree with you, we use your training. And it cautions me because—I almost picked up the Kleenex box as a prop—the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario is about this thick. It’s a hefty thing. There are lots of regulations for different industries, but the main act is substantial, maybe an inch thick. In Alberta, it’s about the size of a People magazine. It’s not as thick. I’m not saying Alberta is doing anything wrong, but I’m just saying that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is written because people have died. Everything in there is because someone has died, and that’s how they make these changes.

If the minister now has discretion to decide what is adequate protection for Ontario workers, that is a step backwards. I don’t mean this as an insult to my friend the minister, but I’m a health and safety expert. I have worked in health and safety for about 16 years. I taught at a university for health and safety. I’m not sure if I’d be qualified to determine what was adequate protection for other people. I don’t know the background of the Minister of Labour right now, but he doesn’t have that same background in health and safety that I have, so I’d be cautious about someone completely unqualified making determinations for workers who could be injured or killed in the workplace.

There are a couple of changes to WSIB that originally I thought were fine, and as I talked to injured workers’ advocacy groups they tell me they’re are not great at all. But I’ll keep them in the “fine”

section because they’re generally a positive step forward: not perfect, but a positive step forward.

There is a cap, so if you are injured and on WSIB, you automatically retire when you turn 65. It’s unfair for a lot of workers who plan to work longer than 65. For example, I don’t plan to retire at 65. I plan to continue working. If I retire here, if the Conservative government somehow gets lucky and replaces me here, I return back to the smelter. I don’t want to retire when I’m 65. I have plans, and I have kids I want to help get through school and that sort of thing.

And so now, instead of just saying, “Look, we’re going to move it to 70”—because we know that the amount of money people on WSIB make is ridiculously low. Instead of saying, “We’ll just move it to 70 instead of 65,” the worker now has to appeal to continue past 65, and they’ll have to prove that they intended to work beyond 65.

Someone like me, we have some savings towards post-secondary education for our kids. I could point to that and say, “I didn’t plan to retire at 65. Here are some savings. Here are the ages of my kids who are planning to go to college, university, trade school, whatever else.” I could make that argument. Or maybe you could show your mortgage: “Well, my mortgage isn’t going to end until I’m 68.” That’s a reasonable argument.

The only problem with that reasonable argument is that WSIB is best known for denying people. Somewhere around 70% of occupational disease claims are denied, and you have to fight and you have to appeal two to three times in order to be successful. That worries me, because in a perfect world for sure this will work, but it’s not a perfect world. It’s the world we live in right now, and WSIB is not really good at quick decision-making unless it’s to deny people. They’re really good at frequent denials and multiple appeals.

The other part that worries me with this is that there are many people who are living paycheque to paycheque. What if you don’t have a mortgage? What if you don’t have any savings for your kids? Maybe your plan is to continue working because every extra cent you have will go to help your kids when they’re in post-secondary. That could be your plan, and that’s a lot of people in Ontario. This bill does not address that, and so I understand now why the injured worker groups said that this may not be a positive step forward the way it sounds. It sounds really good. It may not be helpful to as many workers as it should be.

The next portion of this

section is about returning loss of earnings to 90%. Not to go too long into this, but basically, right now, you get about 85% of your loss of earnings with WSIB. My colleague from Niagara Falls had mentioned, probably, deeming and how deeming can say there’s a job at a parking lot, potentially. It doesn’t matter if the job exists. They could just say, “You could work at a parking lot, make this much money and we’ll carve off some of that WSIB that you can get.” You may not have the job; they just say you could get one, and then they cut it back.

But let’s say, in a perfect world, you’re making 85%. They’re going to increase this back to 90%. This is something that we’ve been calling for as New Democrats for a long time, injured worker groups have called for for a long time and unions have been calling for for a long time. Injured worker groups—in previous labour bills, we moved this as amendments; the Conservatives have voted against it—but I had asked them once, what does that 5% mean? It means the world to them, and so this is a very positive thing that is happening here. I want to recognize that. It’s just that whole—that

section ends in the fair part.

The part about this is—two parts catch my eye. One is that it’s great that they’re doing this, that the Conservatives are doing this. In our first conversation, they told me it was the Liberals who had reduced it to 85%, but I did the research. It was actually the Mike Harris Conservatives that cut it back on January 1, 1998, so that was a while ago.

Then what Mike Harris did was—actually he said, “There’s an unfunded liability” and so more workers were denied, and because more workers are denied, they have to fight for it, and many get exhausted and can’t do the fight so a surplus builds up. And what they do with the surplus is they give billions of dollars back to employers. So when my colleague from Niagara Falls was talking about that worker who died in his plant, it’s possible that that plant could get a refund—in a plant where somebody had been killed. I know this because I worked in a plant where someone had been killed, and they got a refund.

So what happens is the Conservative government of Mike Harris, the Liberal government as well, the Conservative government again now—I think three times, under Doug Ford—they have done this again and again, giving back money to employers, even employers who have horrible safety records and saying they have this surplus—and the surplus is basically from injured workers who aren’t receiving the money that they should be getting.

There’s another

section in this:

Section 44.1 says, “if a material change in circumstances occurs, the board may review payments to a worker for loss of earnings for any period beginning on or after the specified date and may confirm, vary or discontinue the payments.” There are some bad employers—there are some great employers, but there are some bad employers out there who harass their workers, who threaten them that they’ll be fired, who do all sorts of horrible things to injured workers. This is a loophole that opens for them that will encourage them to continue to harass them or continue to appeal to the WSIB to reduce their loss of earnings so that worker gets off their books, and so that’s not really great.

Another part of this

section is WSIB benefits for residential care facilities. My colleague from Ottawa South, I believe, has brought this up many times during different amendments for certain labour bills. It’s a positive step forward. It’s basically people who are working in, let’s say group homes, residential facilities, who will now have WSIB care.

I was actually surprised that there are workers out there who don’t have—this was a few years ago when I learned about this—coverage, because in all of my workplaces we always had coverage, and so I wasn’t aware. So there are approximately 1.5 million workers in Ontario who do not have WSIB coverage. If those workers get injured at work, there’s no coverage for them. That’s about one in four workers in Ontario. That’s a startling number.

There are some people who are excluded from this coverage, and we need to expand the coverage. Child care workers, for example: I don’t understand how they wouldn’t have WSIB coverage. Kids jump around and move around and knock things over and bump into people, and some small children, especially for child care workers, have to be picked up, brought to places, carried, that sort of thing. There is that potential for injury. It’s weird that they would be excluded. So it’s generally a fair thing, but one of those we could do better, we could do a little more.

The next

section is

schedule 3. I’ve got about 10 minutes; I hope I’ll get through all of this. It’s fine, but it makes it also bad. They’re changing the open period. So basically there’s a three-month period in a collective agreement where unions can raid each other. I’m not in favour of raiding; I think it’s a bad practice to begin with. We should just outlaw it completely instead of changing it. So what they’re doing is they’re going to change it. They’re going to reduce it to two months.

And if your contract goes beyond three years—some people have a collective agreement that’s four years, five years; it depends; you might sign that for stability in the industry—it will just start on the second-last month of the CBA. I don’t know why we wouldn’t just eliminate this. I don’t know why we’d want unions to raid each other. It causes instability in the workplace. There are processes where workers are not happy to form their own union, to decertify and everything else. This is the poison pill in this bill. Everything basically for labour is fine in the bill.

The poison pill for labour—and it seems like the Conservatives always want to have some horrible parts so that they can say, “Oh, you didn’t like the carrot,” and not want to talk about the rotten garlic in the bill.

This bill will allow for an employee to apply to have their union decertified if they don’t have a collective agreement with the employer within six months of forming a new union. And the Conservative government knows this—they won’t make eye contact with me because they know this.

When you first form a union, it’s unlikely that you’ll have a first contract in the year. Many of them get forced farther and farther along. There are all kinds of delay tactics that are put in. There are, in fact, industries of anti-union, union-busting organizations who will come in to help stop a union from forming, that employers will spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars on to stop a union from forming, and then will pressure the workers.

And typically, what happens is, whoever organized the union—let’s say my colleagues around me, we formed a union. We all come from union backgrounds, and so we organized our workplace. The NDP, by the way, is the only workplace out of the three parties that have unionized employees. We’re very proud of them: COPE and OPSEU.

But let’s say we organized it. Well, what can happen is—we’re in another workplace, we’re all working together, we organize a union, and the employer, actually, would probably fire all of us—the first thing they would do to the people who organized it. And then what the employer would do afterwards is he would delay contracting out.

Now the Conservative government is allowing another feather in the cap of the employer to have the place decertified because all that employer has to do is hire a friend of the family, a brother, somebody else—salt it with someone anti-union—to apply for decertification. And if they don’t have a first contract, that means the adjudicator more than likely will have to agree with them. So basically, this is a union-busting bill just hidden in here. That’s a horrible part of the bill. It’s something we cannot support at all. It will have to be removed if you want any support from us.

Let’s get into the bad part. The government is fascinated with reducing environmental protections in general, and the public’s right to know information about environmental protection. The bad part of the bill is

schedule 2. They put it nice in front, in the beginning.

Under environmental assessments, the public can no longer request that the minister refer an environmental assessment to the Ontario Land Tribunal. So the public basically can’t ask questions, can’t request experts look into this. The minister no longer has to conduct, and he no longer has to publish, a review of the comprehensive environmental assessment. The minister no longer has to provide an opportunity for public comments. So you can’t ask them to do stuff; you can’t comment on it.

And this

part I find—I mean, all of this is egregious. But the fourth part of this: The minister can refer an environmental assessment to cabinet for a decision. The Ontario Land Tribunal is typically where they would go. Now, you can send it to cabinet, and we know already that cabinet agreed to buy the Premier a $30-million plane, so I think they can be whipped into making whatever decision the government wants them to do.

But more importantly, the OLT has subject matter experts. They are experts in their field. We’re not. I don’t care who we are in this room. There may be a handful of us, our background may be in the environment, but I’m saying that a majority in cabinet are not experts in this field, and we should have expert decisions left to experts.

Think about building your house. Do you want your house built by somebody who’s never built a house, or do you want it built by an architect? Right? The bridge you’re driving on: Do you want it built by whoever is in this room? We’re all great people; we’re just not engineers. Maybe we shouldn’t be the ones designing and building the bridge. Pulling us out isn’t about quick decision-making; it’s about making the decisions that the Premier wants. We cannot support that because that’s bad.

Another part of this

section is about landfill expansions. Bill 5 was touted as a mining bill, but buried in Bill 5 was the Dresden landfill project. This is really embarrassing for one of the Conservative members because he knocked on doors and promised to be opposed to this landfill project, and then, shortly after his election, the Premier buried into Bill 5 the expansion of the Dresden landfill, which I believe is five kilometres from downtown. So you’ll have dump trucks back and forth through downtown all the time.

This is a picturesque kind of small town—picture a Hallmark movie area—and now there will be dump trucks randomly back and forth as they go into it. So basically, I guess there are other cronies and greedy donors who have approached the Conservative government and said, “Hey, my landfill, too.” That will allow what happened in Dresden to happen to any landfill in Ontario. It sort of slipped under the door.

While the Conservative government is out there making announcements about how much they love workers and everything else, they don’t want you to think about how they’re going to be able to decertify unions. They don’t want you to think about how they’re trying to bypass public opinion about landfills as well.

The next part that’s bad has to do with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Act. So basically this is a weird thing, and it was floated earlier and then pulled back. The idea of this is it’s going to prioritize international medical graduates who are from Ontario. On the surface maybe that sounds good because we want people who are training here to stay here, to work here, to whatever else.

They made these criteria, if you’re an international medical graduate—and we all need doctors, right? Many people in Ontario—I don’t know the number off top my head—are on a waiting list, and that waiting list might as well be forever. It’s not a short waiting list. There’s a shortage of family practitioners; there’s a shortage of medical practitioners across the field.

If you are an international medical grad and you are a good doctor, you can’t come here to Ontario unless you’ve gone to an Ontario high school for two years—in my head I picture people who have done their MD and then go back, like an Adam Sandler movie, to grade school or high school for two years so they can qualify for this—or you have to go to an Ontario university in-person for two years, or you have to have lived in Ontario for at least 24 weeks leading up to your application.

I don’t know why we’re putting barriers up to doctors. If you are a doctor, you are an expert in the medical field and you want to come to the city of Sudbury—in fact, there is a doctor who is an expert in his field, who’s been in the city of Sudbury, Dr. Koka. He’s been in Sudbury for probably 40 years, maybe a little more. Dr. Koka is one of the reasons that Sudbury has the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, also in Thunder Bay. He fought for it and brought it here. But Dr.

Koka is originally from India, and then practised medicine somewhere in the UK—I don’t remember off top of my head—and came to Sudbury, decided to practise in Sudbury and expanded medical care. He’s excellent in his field, and he’s brought more doctors over and he’s a strong advocate. He comes here regularly to speak on behalf of the OMA. I don’t care where he went to school. I care that he can practise medicine and do the job.

My colleague from Niagara Falls talked about how long people are waiting: four hours in the waiting room and emergency room to go to another waiting room. You’re not actually seen by—the waiting room doesn’t get super huge. You just get to a secondary waiting room for another four hours, and then you get to a third waiting room for two to three hours. If we had doctors, that would eliminate that.

A lot of people who are in emergency rooms are people who don’t have family physicians, and so when they have an illness they can’t get rid of, when you have a cold and after two or three days it doesn’t go away and you think, “Maybe I need extra care”—they end up in an emerg; they end up in walk-in clinics. They don’t have primary care.

Why you would want to throw a wrench into this makes no sense to me. It feels like red meat to the base, right? There are certain people that hear this as a dog whistle. “We need local doctors,” and some people hear that as a dog whistle, and I think that’s something that’s disgusting that we shouldn’t be having in legislation.

The Ontario Medical Association president, when they floated this last time, said the policy may end up deterring internationally educated physicians at a time when the government is trying to attract them to our province. Of course, there has been significant push back, not just from the medical community, but from patients as well. Because this is frankly racist—or I guess not frankly; its subtext is racist—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Questions?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I really enjoyed the discussion and the perspective our colleagues from the other side have been presenting, especially the member from Sudbury. I would like to comment on a few items, especially on the health care part. Talking about the changes proposed here to give priority to Canadians who became doctors: Speaking about the two years of high school—it’s giving some advantage for the Canadians who graduated from high school here, and they’ve gone and they did their study outside Canada. They are still Canadians; they have every aspect of the Canadian citizenship.

My question is, why do we not look into the absolute benefit of the bill instead of talk about the stuff which is not in the bill?

MPP Jamie West: The question is about doctors. I think that if you have legislation that the Ontario Medical Association comes out against, then maybe your legislation is not great.

The other part of the question was about why am I talking about things that are not in the bill instead of things that are in the bill. I talked about all the things that were in the bill and the reasons they were wrong and the way to improve them. That’s actually our role, as opposition: to improve bills and find ways for the bills to be better. Your role is actually to listen to our feedback and say, “I think they have a point. Let’s make this bill better. Let’s make it as good as possible.”

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Lisa Gretzky: My question is to either one of my colleagues who got up and spoke today.

There were 200 workers who worked at Diageo who are now currently not employed there anymore. The plant is closed. This government would like to say, “Well, 80% of them found jobs or retired.” They were forced into retirement; let’s be real. The reality is, there are 200 jobs from our community gone—gone.

Interjection.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: Good-paying jobs. And the government did nothing to actually directly support those workers.

To the point one of my colleagues made about union-busting baked into this bill—union-busting: Right now in my community, for nearly nine months, the workers at Titan Tool and Die have been locked out by the company. The company has shipped equipment to the States and said, “We’re not operating anymore.” And yet, the company is using scab workers to do the work of the Titan workers.

So can either of my colleagues say where in this bill is anti-scab labour legislation, or maybe why this government hasn’t supported it the numerous times that we have tabled it?

MPP Wayne Gates: I thank my colleague for the question. There are two things in the bill that are a problem. The problem is that they’re going to try to get unionization quicker—taking it away from workers. The minute you attack that, the workers on that, it’s an issue.

On her workers in Windsor, that she has done a great job on—you cannot have scabs take our jobs. That should have been in Working for Workers bill number one. We should have got rid of scabs. Some 98% all collective agreements are settled without strikes; why are you fighting for the 2%? In their case, can you imagine being on the picket line and watching that bus show up with a bunch of scabs to go in and do your job? If you forced the scabs not to be used, they’d be back at the bargaining table tomorrow to get a closure agreement for these workers. That’s what should be happening.

The anti-scab should have been in Working for Workers bill number one. We’ve told the minister; our labour critics told the minister—everybody has told you what you need to do.

You can’t be working for workers if you’re allowing scabs—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member for Beaches–East York.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, Madam Speaker. It’s always so amazing to see you in that chair.

To anyone over there beside me, I have a question: Just when you think there’s nothing left to kill with environmental protections in Ontario, we see the environmental assessment

section in this bill, and I’m just wondering about your thoughts on that.

MPP Jamie West: There’s a pretext out there that the environment is too overburdening and there’s a tiny grasshopper or something—that is not the reality of what’s happening.

The government, more and more, muzzles the ability of the public to ask questions. We work for the public. We’re responsible to the public. We should be listening to them. The government muzzling people on questions they have about protecting the environment doesn’t make sense. The government deciding that they know better than subject matter experts on the environment that the government actually employs doesn’t make any sense either. And the government deciding that the minister is no longer accountable to the public doesn’t make any sense either.

I’m not saying that every time there’s an appeal or a question, that person is right. What I am saying is that the public, who we work for, has a right to get answers from ministers.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP George Darouze: Thank you to the member from Niagara Falls for his presentation this morning. I appreciate listening to him.

I heard the member mention that the NDP is in favour of our proposed changes to the WSIB that would allow eligible workers to receive benefits after age 65.

I was wondering whether the member and his party are also in favour of our proposal in

schedule 9 to increase loss-of-earning benefits from 85% to 90%, which is the first increase in 30 years.

MPP Wayne Gates: Well, I’m glad you were listening to my presentation. I appreciate that.

I’m certainly in favour of increasing the 65—there are some problems there, and hopefully we’ll get them fixed at the amendment time, so hopefully that happens.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you to my friends from Sudbury and Niagara Falls for their presentations—both great champions for workers.

To my friend from Niagara Falls: The practice of deeming is something that he has been fighting for many years. My father actually worked at the General Motors plant in St. Catharines; Wayne was the president of the local when my dad worked there. I can remember the deaths and injuries that he talked about, because when you’re a family member and you see that happen in a place where your parents work, you remember that kind of thing.

The practice of deeming, we often forget, has a huge effect on workers’ families. I’m wondering if my colleague from Niagara Falls would like to comment on the effect that the practice of deeming has on the families of workers.

MPP Wayne Gates: Deeming is one that we’ve been fighting for a long, long time. Back to the family: You go to work every day. You’re getting fair wages, fair benefits. You’re taking care of your family. You’ve got your kids ready for university. It could be playing hockey, playing baseball.

What happens when you get deemed is you drive your family into poverty. And a lot of times, what happens is the family makeup disappears. You end up having marriage split-ups; you end up having mental breakdowns because of the fact that you’re now living in poverty. You can’t provide for your family. So deeming is one of the worst things that can happen to a worker who just goes to work every day to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and gets injured on the job through no fault of their own. It kills the family. It kills their opportunity to live a quality work life. This government should make sure that they put deeming in the next bill they do.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. Stephen Blais: I listened intently to both presentations this morning. The bill has a number of measures that will continue to centralize power within cabinet. I think we can agree that there have been some pretty big concerns about the decisions cabinet has been making recently—the bobbleheads approving a private business jet, as an example, for the Premier’s use, because apparently flying commercial is too scary and there’s turbulence, and somehow a luxury business jet will deal with that particular problem.

So I’m wondering if you can take the remaining time in your debate this morning—50 seconds or so—to elucidate a little bit about the concerns with centralizing more power with cabinet.

MPP Jamie West: It’s an interesting question, because right now in the news it’s been about the Premier purchasing this giant jet that can only land in a handful of airports in Ontario, spending $30 million. The Premier said cabinet universally signed off. That means everybody signed off on it.

But it’s at the point now that there’s so much conversation about this jet that I’m actually thinking it’s a smokescreen about the FOI, and that people won’t be able to find information about other scandals: scandals like the SDF boondoggle, the greenbelt scandal, the Therme project. The science centre has a roof that was going to collapse imminently, even though we had record snowfall and it did not collapse, and the engineers said the roof was perfectly safe.

I think that this government makes many bad decisions, and then having cabinet sort of circulate the power means that the Premier basically has all the power in the public—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): We’re now moving on to members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

National Volunteer Week

Mr. Matthew Rae: This week marks National Volunteer Week, an opportunity to recognize individuals who strengthen our communities through service.

This past weekend in the town of St. Marys, I had the privilege of celebrating Terri Iredale, who was recognized as a life member of Kin Canada. Terri is a true community-builder, with decades of service to the Kinette Club of the town of St. Marys and to Kin Canada. She served as national president during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a time that required steady leadership and commitment. Congratulations, Terri, on a well-deserved recognition.

I also had the opportunity to attend the U13 A OHF Championship in Listowel, Ontario, where the Southeast Surge captured the gold medal. Events like this do not happen without volunteers. Parents, coaches, local businesses and community members came together to organize a successful provincial tournament and raise the support needed to host it. Volunteerism is a strong foundation of our community. It’s the quiet, consistent work of people who choose to give their time and energy back to others.

We’re fortunate to live in a province where the spirit of service continues to thrive. Happy National Volunteer Week.

Ark Aid Mission

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I rise today to recognize the extraordinary work of Ark Aid street mission in London and to call for a more responsible, sustainable approach to funding homelessness services in Ontario.

Ark Aid provides roughly 25% of London’s shelter capacity, serving some of the most vulnerable residents with dignity and compassion. Over the past year alone, they have delivered more than 300,000 meals, provided over 36,000 overnight shelter spaces and supported more than 1,000 individuals on their path towards stability and housing.

Yet despite their critical role, Ark Aid organizations and organizations like it are forced to operate on unstable, short-term emergency funding. This start-and-stop approach wastes resources, burdens staff and prevents long-term planning.

Seniors are the fastest-growing demographic turning to Ark Aid shelter. At the same time, local hospitals discharge between five and 13 unhoused individuals each day into the shelter, which is not equipped to provide ongoing medical or personal care.

In Ontario, 85,000 individuals experience homelessness, and, with over 2,000 of those in London alone, I urge this government to commit to matching the federal government emergency funding and to partner with community agencies like Ark Aid street mission to build a funding system that is reliable, coordinated and that is prepared to address homelessness.

Ontario budget

Mr. Ted Hsu: The government hit the skip button for its budget bill and detailed examination in committee. That’s the stage where mistakes are fixed, but this government likes to rush and is too lazy to check its work.

I easily found a typo in the budget bill regarding freedom of information: “The sources of the personal information that is intended be collected” should read “intended to be collected.”

I easily found a grammar mistake in the budget bill regarding conservation authorities: “When appointing a person ... who are not members” should be “When appointing a person ... who is not a member.”

Because the government is skipping committee stage, these typographical and grammar mistakes won’t be fixed. These small errors are symptoms of a larger disease: the reckless haste of a tired government, sloppy, careless and drunk with power.

What about more serious errors? We shouldn’t have to wait for a crisis to find out what more serious errors they missed.

Send this bill to committee. Hold the public hearings. Fix the bill.

3M Canada

Hon. Steve Clark: I rise to celebrate a great corporate citizen, both in my riding and in Canada. On May 1, 3M Canada celebrates its 75th anniversary since opening its first plant in Brantford in 1951.

Today, 3M operates three R&D labs, as well as seven manufacturing plants—six of them in Ontario, in Perth, London and Brockville in my riding. 3M Canada’s 1,200 employees, including 340 in Brockville, manufacture products that Canadians use every day to make their life easier and safer. From duct tape to masking tape, sandpaper, Scotch-Brite pads and lint rollers, these iconic products are proudly made in Ontario.

One of my highlights as MPP was opening 3M’s N95 plant in Brockville, built in just eight months during the pandemic. 3M stepped up when our country needed them most.

3M’s contribution goes far beyond creating good jobs and supporting our economy. The company is deeply committed to giving back. In Brockville, 3M supports our United Way through its annual Harvest Lunch. 3M also invests in young learners by supporting St. Lawrence College’s mobile skills labs, the Boys and Girls Club STEM and education centre, and the Girls Inc summer STEM camps.

Speaker, I ask everyone to join me in congratulating 3M for 75 remarkable years in our country. Thank you so much.

Assistance to flood victims

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: As we approach the final week of April, communities across the far north are preparing for spring flooding. Record snowfall across the northeast, thick ice on the Albany River and rising water levels in rivers flowing into the Moose River basin are all increasing the risk of emergency evacuations.

Evacuations can happen with little notice and with significant consequences that go far beyond the immediate emergency. Evacuations disrupt education, isolate families and friends, and they place pressure on communities already in crisis.

Too often, communities are left managing these risks with limited resources and delayed support. There has been little progress on basic accountability measures like performance indicators and reporting on risk, despite these gaps being identified in the 2022 Auditor General’s report and again in the 2024 follow-up.

Coordination matters. Compassion matters. As we move into peak flood season, compassion and coordination with First Nations municipal leaders must continue and increase to make sure the ministry’s evacuation planning meets the needs of the reality on the ground. Let’s work together with communities to respond to emergencies, address long-term relocation needs and support local leaders who understand their communities best so we can ensure safety, stability and resilience.

Events in Markham–Unionville

Mr. Billy Pang: I rise today to celebrate remarkable milestones in our community. Recently, I had the pleasure of honouring residents marking significant birthdays, including their 90th and 95th birthdays, as well as retirements. These achievements reflect a lifetime of experience and wisdom. They remind us of the rich contributions our seniors bring to our community. As the local representative, it’s always my honour to share in their special moments.

I also had the pleasure of celebrating 53rd and 60th wedding anniversaries. Over the past few days, I was delighted to distribute dozens of happy couple certificates, recognizing couples who have reached 25 or more years of marriage or partnership. These certificates honour their enduring commitment and love. These milestones inspire us all and remind us of the importance of family, community and lasting relationships.

I am glad to be part of these joyful life journeys, and I look forward to celebrating more milestones like these with our residents in Markham–Unionville.

Girls Government

MPP Alexa Gilmour: With us today in the galleries are 16 grade 7 and 8 girls from Dr. Rita Cox-Kina Minagok Public School and Holy Family Catholic School in Parkdale. They are a part of this year’s Girls Government program in my riding.

Now, Girls Government is a non-partisan initiative designed to get girls excited and involved in the political process from a young age. It was started in Parkdale–High Park in 2008 by former MPP Cheri DiNovo and has been implemented across Ontario by MPPs of all parties.

It has been such an honour to continue the program this year. The girls have continually inspired me with their vision of an inclusive neighbourhood and their commitment to working together to create those visions to reality through research and through lifting up their voices.

The students’ own community of Parkdale has long been at the forefront of Ontario’s housing justice movement. Programs like MURA and organizations like Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust, Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre and the new Dunn House provide deeply affordable supportive housing for many residents, and the girls today will be advancing this important work here at Queen’s Park by advocating for affordable housing.

I also want to thank the teachers for sponsoring the program this year because they made it possible.

Public schools: If we want the future for our children, we have to invest in the future of public education.

Government investments

MPP Bill Rosenberg: Today I rise to speak about the municipality of Wawa and its importance in advancing the province’s vision for growth in northern Ontario. Wawa is a regional service hub, providing essential services to five surrounding communities in Algoma–Manitoulin. There are five major gold mines operating within a 200-kilometre radius, with more planned to come online.

Recently, the province invested $6 million in housing-enabling water and sewer infrastructure, a contribution that has been welcomed and deeply appreciated by the community. This historic investment positions Wawa to advance housing development for the first time in nearly 30 years. It represents a practical and meaningful step forward, aligning directly with Ontario’s broader objective to increase housing supply across the province.

While this funding has made Wawa development-ready, the next critical step is ensuring projects move to reality by attracting investment supporting construction in our northern communities. Algoma–Manitoulin region is open for business, ready to grow, welcome investment and contribute to Ontario’s economic future. We understand that northern Ontario development comes with unique challenges, and continued collaboration and partnerships are essential.

Wawa is committed to working with the province, the private sector, mining industries and Indigenous partners to support responsible development and long-term regional prosperity. With available land and strong partnerships, Wawa stands prepared to contribute to Ontario’s housing and economic development priorities.

Six Pack hockey tournament

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I want to give a huge shout-out to the Langton Oldtimers, who held its 29th annual Six Pack hockey tournament last weekend.

Their tournament is a true highlight of our community calendar, bringing together players, families and fans under one roof of what I say is the best barn in this province. Langton Six Pack boasts five days and nights of hockey and showcases some of the very best hockey in the area across multiple divisions. OHL, AHL, NCAA and pro players grind it out in the carded division. There is also an open, an old-timers’ and a women’s division. Hockey fans most definitely get a variety of action, and players get a workout because the name “Six Pack” means there are only six players per team.

I want to thank the Langton Oldtimers for their efforts ahead of the tournament and over the course of the five days. Everything is well thought-out and everything runs smoothly. By the end of the weekend, these guys are exhausted, but their enthusiasm never wanes.

I’d like to give a shout-out to the small crew of Norfolk county employees who worked day and night to keep the arena spotless, despite the revolving door of players and fans.

Congratulations to all players, but I’d like to do a little shameless kudos to the two teams iced by Underhill’s Farm Supply and me. The women’s team I played on clinched the championship, and I can finally hang up my skates.

In the carded division, my son and his NCAA teammates ended up first in their pool, but lost a hard-fought, very entertaining battle in double-elimination overtime. What an incredible final match up to cap off the weekend.

We all look forward to the 30th anniversary in one year’s time, and it’s events like these that remind me how fortunate I am to live in small-town Ontario, where events like these are plentiful.

Sikh Heritage Month

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I rise today to recognize Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi, an occasion of profound significance for Sikh communities here in Ontario and around the world.

Vaisakhi marks the creation of the Khalsa in 1699 by Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Guru, a defining moment that represents the core values of Sikhism: equality, service and justice. Throughout the month of April, Sikh Heritage Month provides an opportunity for all Ontarians to learn more about the rich history, culture and contributions of the Sikh community.

Madam Speaker, in Brampton and across our province, the Sikh community continues to play a vital role in strengthening our social fabric. From acts of “seva” and community service to leadership in business, health care and public service, their contributions are deeply valued and widely felt. It is also time to reflect on the importance of inclusivity, diversity and unity—principles that make Ontario stronger.

On behalf of this Legislature, I extend my warmest wishes to everyone celebrating Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received written notices from the government House leader indicating that temporary changes in the weekly meeting

schedule of the House are required, and therefore, pursuant to standing order 9(h), the House shall commence at 9 a.m. on Monday, May 4, 2026, for the proceeding orders of the day, and pursuant to standing order 9(g), the afternoon routine on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, shall commence at 1 p.m.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Rob Flack: I want to welcome to our House Ontario’s Big City Mayors, chaired by Mayor Marianne Meed Ward—they represent 70% of Ontario’s population—here for their first advocacy day. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you for coming.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: It is my great pleasure to welcome two of my constituents, Dr. Darren Cargill and Amy Seibel, who are the parents of the Windsor West page who is also the page captain today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and congratulations, Owen.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It is also my pleasure to introduce the family of co-page captain Livy Matthews from the riding of Toronto–Danforth: parents Joseph and Maya Matthews, and her sisters Camilla, Emilia and Aurora Matthews. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I’d like to welcome all of the representatives from the Canadian Credit Union Association. In particular, I’m meeting later today with Duncan de Chastelain, James Craig and André Brisebois, and a special welcome to Sandy Stephens, Nick Nestico and Brent Furtney. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Mohamed Firin: I’d like to recognize, from my riding of York South–Weston, Paolo Abate; his wife, Stephanie Mandrapilias, will be joining us shortly; Maria Mandrapilias, his mother-in-law; and his two children Athena Abate and Leonardo Abate. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’d like to welcome to the House the mayor of Haldimand county, Shelley Ann Bentley.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’m so honoured to introduce eight fabulous guests from various long-term-care homes and AON Inc. here at Queen’s Park today: Michael O’Keeffe, Courtney Jilesen, Tera Pollack, April Coulter, Julie Parcells, Dominic Adesanya, Ray Barlow and David Friedman. Thank you for your service to our seniors. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Trevor Jones: I’d like to offer a warm welcome to my staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness, as well as the Dairy Farmers of Ontario; the Beef Farmers of Ontario; Ontario Federation of Agriculture; the Christian Farmers Federation; Grain Farmers of Ontario; Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’; Holland Marsh Growers’; Ontario Dairy Council; agriculture, food and rural affairs tribunal; and the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: The members of the Girls’ Government are in the House. I want to welcome members from Dr. Rita Cox-Kina Minagok and the members of Holy Family Catholic School, and a special thank you to Karen Ridley, who has run this program with us for many years. Welcome to your House.

M. Guy Bourgouin: J’ai le plaisir de vous introduire Emilie Lemieux, qui est la directrice du Manoir à Kapuskasing, et aussi Sophie Mondoux—je vais vous dire son

titre en anglais : « behaviour support team lead ». Bienvenue à Queen’s Park et aussi dans votre maison.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Happy Earth Day, everyone. Today, I would like to introduce you all to Mother Earth. Some of you respect her more than others, but let’s all take care of her today.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): That is not an introduction.

I recognize the member for Cambridge.

Mr. Brian Riddell: I’d like to welcome the mayor of North Dumfries township, Sue Foxton, and her AEO, Andrew McNeely.

MPP Tyler Watt: It’s my pleasure to introduce in the Legislature page Nihaal Singh and his father, Harpreet Singh, who are both constituents in my amazing riding of Nepean.

Today is Nihaal’s page captain day. I would like to give you a warm welcome, and good luck today. You are making Nepean proud.

MPP George Darouze: I would like to welcome an amazing constituent from Carleton who is also the executive director of the Manotick Business Improvement Area, Kelly Belair, to Queen’s Park. Earlier this week, the MBIA was recognized by the Ontario Business Improvement Area Association with an award of excellence for their Taste of Manotick event in 2025. Congratulations on this recognition, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Bill Rosenberg: I’d like to welcome representatives from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, Egg Farmers of Ontario, Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario, Flowers Canada, Meat and Poultry Ontario, Northern Ontario Farm Innovation Alliance, Ontario Association of Veterinary Technicians, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission, Ontario Dairy Goat Co-operative, Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers, Ontario Sheep Farmers and the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the members and to all of our guests; I have a hard and fast rule that we have a limited amount of time for visitors. But of course, you’re all welcome to come back at 1 o’clock for introduction of visitors to introduce your guests.

Question Period

Highway safety

M me France Gélinas: I want to start this question period on a different tone, by saying thank you to all members of this Legislature for voting in favour of the NDP motion to make Highway 11 and Highway 17 a nation-building project. Thank you.

During the debate, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation said, “When we take a look at some of the work that has been done to date, more than 50% of the corridor has been widened to four lanes....” I’m strong in math, Speaker; half of Highway 11 is not four lanes. Can the member explain?

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Our government is committed to supporting northern members. Our minister is in the north today talking to members of the community about the great work that we’re doing under the leadership of Premier Ford.

To date, we’ve invested over $650 million through the northern highways program and $150 million in that stretch of the highway that the member opposite is speaking about. The expansion of Highways 11 and 17, the widening from Coughlin Road to Highway 582, the

section east of Highway 587 to Pearl Lake: Those are some of the things that we’ve done when it comes to widening, 2+1 and other projects that our MTO officials are looking at and working with the municipality on.

As well, I’d like to mention that a letter has been penned by the Minister of Transportation, as well as the Minister of Northern Economic Development, to make this highway a priority project not just for Ontario but for Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: I also want to thank the Legislature for supporting the NDP motion. We hope the government will not play political games by blaming the federal government for dragging their feet, but with the response he just gave to my colleague, I can see the games have started. This is just like saying, “We have the safest roads in North America.”

My question to the minister: Can you clarify again what you meant when you said 50% of the corridor has been widened to four lanes? Because we don’t see it.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you to the member for that question. But working with our municipal and federal partners isn’t playing games, Speaker; road safety is a non-partisan issue. It doesn’t matter which political stripe you belong to.

We need to make sure that Ontario has the strongest and safest roads across North America. That’s why our Minister of Transportation and our Minister of Northern Economic Development wrote that letter to the Minister of Transportation for Canada: so we can make sure that this is a project of national significance. That’s why we need investment from the federal government: to ensure that we have smooth transportation not just through the province of Ontario but throughout Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thanks for the support for the motion. Thank you for writing a letter to the federal government. Perhaps as a sign of goodwill to the federal government and to show that it’s also an issue of provincial significance, you could return the over $150 million that your government has diverted from northern Ontario road projects to the south. Perhaps that would be a sign of good will.

Will the Ford government return the $150 million to the northern Ontario roads budget that it took from the south? It’s going to take more than a letter; it’s going to take cold, hard cash.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: There’s no need to talk about returning money, because our government is investing money in the north. Our government is supporting northerners.

Every single initiative that this government has put forward to support the north, the NDP voted against it. Everything that we do to make sure that we’re twinning highways, that we’re supporting growth—improving winter maintenance, hiring more transportation enforcement officers, putting on more blitzes, making sure that roads are safer in the north—every one of those measures, that member opposite and that team voted against, but our team believes this is a non-partisan issue. That’s why we all voted last night in favour of the member opposite’s motion to support the northern highways and make sure that it’s a critical project for the growth of not this province but this country.

Hospital funding

MPP Robin Lennox: Speaker, in Scarborough, people are waiting nearly 20 hours in the emergency department before they get a hospital bed. Meanwhile, at Hamilton General Hospital, the Urgent Medicine Day Unit is providing hospital-level care, testing and consultation while ensuring patients can return to their own beds at night. It’s reducing pressure on our emergency departments and preventing hospital admissions.

To the Minister of Health: Why aren’t we learning from innovative initiatives like these and scaling them up to ensure that they are available in communities like Scarborough that need them?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: We continue to make record investments in our hospital system. Since taking office in 2018, our government has increased operational funding to our hospitals by approximately 50%. That is an enormous increase in operational funding.

Of course, in addition to operational funding, we have enormous investments—multi-million dollar investments—in the capital stream of hospitals as well. As we speak today, there are 17 major multi-million-dollar capital projects under way in the province of Ontario building new hospitals, renovating hospitals and making additions to hospitals.

These are the investments that our government is making in the hospital system to give people the care that they need in our publicly funded medical system.

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

MPP Robin Lennox: I think the member opposite may be mistaken on his math because it’s actually been the greatest cut to our hospital budget that we’ve seen in the past year.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say that Ontarians are tired of hearing how much money the Conservatives are throwing at the problem. They want to hear about impact, they want to know what has changed and they want to know that care is going to be available where and when they need it.

So can the minister point to one single measurable outcome—not investment, an outcome—that has improved hallway health care in communities like Scarborough after eight years of the Conservative government trying to fix it?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I’m a little bit surprised that the member, being a medical professional herself, is unaware of the remarkable progress that we’ve made.

Let me underline just one remarkable statistic that every member of this House will appreciate: Since this government took office in 2018, we have had a net increase of 15% in the number of nurses working in the publicly funded medical system. That is according to the Canadian Institute of Health Information, which compiles that information. I underscore the fact that it is a net increase in the number of nurses working in this publicly funded system because that takes into effect not only the 100,000 new nurses that have been added but also those who have left the system due to retirement or other reasons. It is a net increase.

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

MPP Robin Lennox: As the member opposite pointed out, I’m a health worker, which is why I care about results, not false promises.

One in six people in Scarborough right now do not have a primary care provider. International medical graduates can be part of the solution, and they want to be. We know that many of them plan to enter into careers in family medicine. But this Conservative government is putting up more barriers for them to train and practise in Ontario. IMGs even had to take this government to court to get them to pull back their thoughtless policy.

So my question, through the Speaker, is for the Minister of Health: Why are you creating barriers for international medical graduates hoping to contribute to our Ontario health care system and improve access to health care in diverse communities like Scarborough?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: On the contrary, this government is actually making it easier for internationally trained individuals in the medical field to practise in Ontario. Not only are we doing that, but members of this House will have the opportunity to vote on those measures and tell us where they stand.

In addition to that proposition, we have increased the number of individuals being trained in the medical field for doctors by approximately 350 additional training positions by 2029. And in addition to that, we have increased by over 500 positions the number of residency positions that will be available across the province of Ontario. A residency position is a training position for a medical graduate. That is a huge increase, Madam Speaker, making opportunities abound.

Public safety

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: My question is to the Solicitor General. The government lost 150 prisoners, and no one is being held accountable. The minister knew and never told the public. The minister knew and failed to act. The minister knew and did nothing—zero transparency, zero accountability. But yesterday the Premier let it slip that there are at least—at least—six prisoners on the run in Ontario right now.

So to the minister: In the name of public safety, can you confirm how many prisoners are actually on the run right now on our streets? What crimes did they commit, and were the victims notified?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Thanks to the member for the question. It’s very simple: We inherited a system that was broken. We were committed, and we are committed, to fixing it. We’re committed to fixing it by making sure that we have additional resources, which includes 3,330 new correctional officers. It includes the new technology. It includes, for the first time, having the courts speak to the jails in real time.

But something else, Madam Speaker, and this is very important: In the rare event that there is an improper release, the police of jurisdiction will never hesitate in issuing a public safety announcement. The member knows that. And in the absence of receiving such an announcement, people in the community should know that the police feel there’s no inherent high risk.

At the end of the day, we’re not going to stir up fear like the opposition. We’re going to get the job done, we’re going to fix the problem, and we’re going to keep Ontario safe.

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

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Listening to that answer, it’s no wonder why the public is fed up with politicians. Just look at who is running the show over here.

Yesterday morning, a security guard in my riding was shot. He was shot while trying to stop a jewellery store robbery at the mall. And do you know what? That shooter is still on the run right now. Criminals are running wild in the streets, shooting up jewellery stores, terrorizing people in their homes, and these are the answers we get.

Meanwhile, you have a Premier over here who has been caught with his hands in the cookie jar buying himself a private jet. What world are you people living in?

To the minister: Will you finally hold yourself accountable and admit that you were asleep at the switch?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Let me just clarify for the member opposite, since he may not know what the role of the Solicitor General is: The Solicitor General’s role is to set policy, pass legislation and make sure that we have investments in police service, like our police service in Toronto. The Solicitor General must never interfere in day-to-day operations of police matters.

And, again, to the member opposite: If there was a situation where there was any threat to any community across Ontario, whether it’s the OPP, municipal or First Nations police services, they would never hesitate to make sure the public is aware by putting out a public safety announcement, and they do it from time to time. In the absence of seeing this from an improper release, there’s no inherent higher risk to the community.

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

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: If the Solicitor General wants to talk about what his role is, I’ll tell him what his role is: His role is to keep the criminals in the jails.

Our questions have been clear and they have been simple: How many criminals were lost in 2025? How many in 2026? What have they been charged with? Were any of them violent offenders? What are their sentences? What is the risk to the public? Zero answers—zero accountability.

But do you know what? Maybe if this government funded schools properly, they’d be able to educate themselves on what accountability actually is.

After eight long years, this tired Conservative government is out of touch and putting the public at risk.

So I’ll put the question to the minister once again: Will he hold himself accountable and provide the public with the information they need to keep themselves safe? Yes or no?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Madam Speaker, in the rare incidences when an improper release takes place—and I want to put this into proportion for the member opposite. This represents a fraction of 1% of the total discharges, and 1%—less than 1% of a fraction is not acceptable. That’s why we are working very hard to fix a problem we inherited.

The investments that we’re making in our public safety are without modern-day precedent. It’s about the 2,100 new police officers who are on the street, and that’s 360 in Toronto—my police service, and it’s actually your police service too.

We should stand with our police services and feel confident that God forbid there was a threat to any of our communities, the police will not hesitate in issuing a public safety announcement. That’s their role. I’ve got full confidence in them to do their job.

Government jet

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

I’ve been involved in government procurement for most of my adult life, in one way or another. I have had the privilege of leading organizations, managing significant budgets and being accountable for my actions. An important part of being a leader is being answerable for those decisions.

Yesterday, the Premier said that the cabinet unanimously approved the purchase of the Premier’s private luxury jet.

To the President of the Treasury Board: Why did she think it was a good idea to buy the Premier a $29-million luxury private jet?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Good morning, Madam Speaker, and through you to the member opposite: Do you know what is unanimous? Our support for the Premier of Ontario, unanimous in support for building this great province—$1.2 trillion.

I don’t know if you noticed, but we have to grow our economy. That’s what pays for our great health care, our education, our social services. We have to continue to invest in our workers, in our training, into our schools, into our colleges and universities. That’s what I think this government stands for. That’s how you pay for the great investments.

It would be great if the opposition would support our budget and vote for the budget, which has a lot of measures to boost this economy, to support workers, to put more money back in the pockets of individuals and families, to put money back in the pockets of businesses. It would be fantastic—maybe a little bit of leadership from that side of the House—to vote for the budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Kanata–Carleton.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: Well, that was truly, truly disappointing on so many levels. I would have hoped the President of the Treasury Board would have had the courage to answer. But all we have is non-answers to legitimate questions.

Since the Minister of Finance was so willing to answer that question on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, I have a question for him: Where in the budget is the line-item purchase of a luxury private jet for the Premier, and if it’s not there, why isn’t it, and where did the money come from?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, first off, I am very fortunate and privileged to work with the best President of the Treasury Board that we’ve ever had, the MPP for York–Simcoe.

I don’t know if the member opposite understands that this is a team sport and our budget is supported—$244 billion, almost a quarter of a trillion dollars, to support the families and the individuals, the workers, the businesses small and large in this province.

So I’d ask the member opposite: Are you going to support this budget? Are you going to support Ontario? Are you going to support Team Ontario in this time of challenges economically?

This is the time for true leadership. We’ll see if they stand up.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: It was really a very simple question.

Okay. Yesterday, the Premier said that the cabinet unanimously approved the purchase of a $29-million luxury jet. Those are the words from the Premier himself.

Does any minister here know the price of a loaf of bread or a litre of milk or a carton of eggs? Have you any idea of the financial pressures that the people of Ontario are currently under?

The question is simple, to any minister—any one of you. Any minister can answer this question.

Interjections.

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

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: Can any one of you tell me why you all thought that it was a good idea to approve the purchase of a $29-million luxury private jet for the Premier when so many Ontarians are struggling?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Education has been warned.

The member for Don Valley North has been warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member has been warned.

I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, the fact is not only is that in the budget, but there are $244 billion of investments clearly in the budget for the people of Ontario:

—$210 billion of investment in infrastructure to build hospitals: Are you going to support the builds for hospitals?

—$70 billion for transit: Are you going to support the investments for transit?

—$35 billion for highways: Are you going to support that?

—$60 billion for long-term care as part of the health care sector;

—$40 billion for our builds right across the province for education, for health care and lots more colleges and universities.

Madam Speaker, while I’m at it, the HST cut: 13%, helping a lot of families in Ontario.

I’ve got to ask the opposition, are they going to vote for or against putting a $130,000 tax cut into the pockets of families?

Pride funding

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: My question is to the Premier. Today in the chamber we have representatives from local Pride organizations of all sizes, from Toronto to Timmins. They are part of a coalition of over 60 organizations for Pride festivals across Ontario. They are asking this government to create a dedicated Pride fund with a small investment of $1.5 million annually for three years. This modest request represents less than 1% of the taxable revenue that Toronto Pride generates for government coffers each year.

Will the Premier establish this Pride fund and make it available to these organizations before Pride Month in June?

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

Hon. Stan Cho: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. I know this is a very important issue for the member, and I deeply respect the Pride community and what they offer the great mosaic that is Ontario. Of course, the community enriches our community and increases tourism. We know that. That’s why, since 2018, our government has invested in Toronto Pride specifically, with funding of nearly $2 million. In fact, when you look at last year’s funding for Pride festivals, nine festivals were funded to the tune of nearly $500,000.

Speaker, through Experience Ontario or through the great minister of multiculturalism, we are continuing to fund. In fact, that minister—the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism—announced $25.5 million over two years to make sure that faith and cultural communities, including the Pride community, have safe and secure places to practise their faith, showcase their culture and, of course, celebrate who they are.

Speaker, this government will continue to support the great Pride community here in Ontario.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: To the minister: He would know that Pride organizations are not eligible for the security funding that he has just cited.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Of the more than 60 Prides in Ontario each year, most are small, volunteer-run events in towns like Timmins and Sioux Lookout—the only 2SLGBTQIA+ organizations in their communities. These Prides aren’t expensive, but artists, spaces and permits still cost money.

Small and rural Prides save lives and ease the burden on our mental health care system. They generate well over half a billion dollars to Ontario’s GDP.

Through you, Speaker, to the Premier: Will you release $1.5 million today to ensure Prides big and small across Ontario can continue supporting their communities?

Hon. Stan Cho: Look, we on both sides of the House agree that the Pride community is, of course, an important community in Ontario. That’s why this government has been there, in eight years of being elected, supporting these festivals with $2.5 million in investments for festivals not just in Toronto, but in every corner of this province.

I mean, look, we’re a big province. We can fit 14 European countries in here, and Pride communities are important in every single corner of Ontario. That’s why we continue to fund these festivals to the tune of millions of dollars, as I just said in my first answer.

But Speaker, the reality is we need both sides of the fence to be, when cameras are off, just as equally supportive. Before us, we have a budget bill that includes those supports once again for the Pride community. The members need to vote for that, not just when the cameras are on through their words, but also when the cameras are off and we’re doing what’s most important in this Legislature and voting for this.

Let’s continue to support Pride communities in Ontario.

Freedom of information

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: While this failing Ford Conservative government talks big about being accountable, their flagrant action of evaporating freedom-of-information laws speaks louder than their words.

Speaker, it’s interesting: The finance minister introduced these changes in his budget bill, but he didn’t make one mention of them in his debate, and he certainly didn’t mention the purchase of a private luxury jet.

Would we expect an accountable finance minister to say nothing about the overhaul of a major law?

Interjections: No.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Would we expect an accountable finance minister to say nothing about buying a luxury jet?

Interjections: No.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: This government is doing everything in its power to keep its dark deeds from seeing the light of day.

Through you, Speaker, to the finance minister, why did you approve the purchase of a private luxury jet?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, I think the House leader has addressed that. The Premier has addressed that.

But you mentioned the budget, so let’s talk about the budget. Let’s talk about the $101 billion in the health care sector for the Minister of Long-Term Care, the Minister of Health to fund primary care. Are you going to support us in supporting doctors in this province, the $3.4 billion, yes or no?

Hon. Paul Calandra: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: The Minister of Education has answered it on their behalf because he’s got the courage to answer what they’re going to do—not vote for investing in our health care family doctors in this province.

Are you going to vote for the extra billion dollars we put into home care?

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Did I hear a no? I heard a no. I’m doing your job, Speaker; I heard a no.

Madam Speaker, it’s very clear—

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Speaker, I understand why the finance minister doesn’t want to talk about that. It’s kind of embarrassing.

But let’s talk about why this government wants to change FOI laws. It’s because FOI requests are the reason we know about the shady Ford Conservative government’s $8.3-billion greenbelt giveaway. It’s because of FOIs that we know the Conservatives gave hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to their friends through the Skills Development Fund. And changing the FOI laws now? It’s all about hiding the Premier’s phone records.

Now, Speaker, the Premier is feeling the heat about buying a private jet. He told reporters, “There is no one in this country that is scrutinized more than I am.” Well, it’s because this Premier’s actions deserve a lot of scrutiny.

My question to the finance minister: What else are you hiding?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Oh, boy. Okay.

Madam Speaker, it’s all there. I’m out every 90 days, 300 pages in the budget.

But let me ask this House very simple questions. Let me phrase it this way: Is that side of the House going to support an HST tax cut—simple question—yes or no?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Are they going to support a small business tax cut helping 375,000 businesses, yes or no?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Are they going to support investing $236 billion in infrastructure to put people to work right across this province, yes or no?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Are they going to support this budget and support 16.2 million people in our $1.2-trillion economy, yes or no?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: So I put this to you, Madam Speaker, to this side of the House or that side of the House: Are you on this side of the House going to vote for this budget, yes or no?

Interjections: Yes.

Energy policies

Mr. Will Bouma: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Global demand for critical minerals is rising rapidly, driven by advanced manufacturing, clean energy and new technologies. At the same time supply chains remain highly concentrated in just a small number of countries, creating economic and security risks for Canada and its allies.

Ontario has a unique opportunity to step up and leverage our resources, workforce and expertise to become a stable and reliable supplier in an increasingly uncertain world.

Can the minister outline how our government is positioning Ontario to meet this growing demand and strengthen our economic security?

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

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the member. We recognize this is a critical moment for Ontario and for Canada. Global demand for minerals will increase by over 500% by 2050, with countries like China controlling up to 85% of processing capacity.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, we’re taking action to position Ontario as a stable, reliable partner in the global economy. Ontario already has a strong foundation: over 371,000 mining claims, over 400 exploration projects and over 77,000 jobs in the sector. These are good-paying jobs in northern and remote communities. And we’re building on this strength with a competitive 10% mining tax, targeted incentives and support for development.

This is how we create jobs, strengthen our supply chain and ensure Ontario is a reliable partner in a rapidly changing economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Brantford–Brant.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for the encouraging update.

Speaker, we know that mining is not just about resource development; it is also about the long-term economic opportunity it creates for workers, for communities and for the broader economy. From jobs in remote and northern communities to the local businesses that support them to the industries across the supply chain that depend on these resources, the impact is significant.

Can the parliamentary assistant explain how our government’s long-term plan is ensuring that Ontario continues to create these opportunities, attract investment and build a stronger, more resilient economy?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: We understand success in this sector requires a long-term strategic approach, supporting exploration, enabling development and strengthening the broader supply chain. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’re seeing growing investment and activity. Over 300 companies are working on almost 400 projects, creating jobs and opportunity, particularly in the North.

Today, Ontario is home to 37 active mines, the majority in northern Ontario. These projects support local business and services and drive job creation across the entire supply chain, from exploration and processing to manufacturing and advanced industries.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which allowed red tape and delays to drive away investments and jobs, our government is creating the conditions for growth. This is how we build a stronger economy, create jobs and support communities, securing Ontario’s place in the global supply chain.

Tenant protection

MPP Alexa Gilmour: It’s always a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Parkdale–High Park. My question is to the Premier. This weekend, history was made in my riding as hundreds of tenants from Scarborough to Etobicoke to North York gathered for the founding convention of the Toronto Tenant Union. As tenants continue to face exorbitant rent hikes and unfair treatment by corporate landlords city-wide, they are building a movement to fight back—but they shouldn’t have to.

When will this Conservative government close the loopholes and bring back real rent control so that tenants don’t have to fight so hard just to afford a decent place to live?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: It’s important to note that the tenants do have avenues for resolution. They have the independent tribunal of the Landlord and Tenant Board, and we’ve been working very hard to put the resources in that space so the tenants can have their day to have their matters dealt with. I applaud anybody that gets together to share information, and hopefully the tenants can be educated on the tools that they have available to them to have their matters heard.

I can tell you, if the opposition is interested in helping the system generally, they can stop blocking appointments to the Landlord and Tenant Board by pulling them for standing committee and putting them on hold for 30 days. I would ask the members opposite if they would agree to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Parkdale–High Park.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I’d like the member opposite, if he could, to read the report by Tribunal Watch—just how much this government has destroyed the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Speaker, this is not just theoretical. Residents at 77 Spencer Avenue just learned that their corporate landlord has been approved by that board for a 4.38% above-guideline increase, retroactive to 2023. Low-income neighbours in my riding are facing thousands of dollars in back rent, and they are talking about having to leave. Right next door, tenants at 75 Spencer are on their second month of a rent strike, fighting a 5% AGI—all the while, the building is in disrepair. Whole communities like mine are being destroyed by unfair building and rent practices.

Will this government ban AGIs that are unfair so people aren’t pushed out of the neighbourhoods that they love?

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you for the opportunity to address this. I’m wondering if the member opposite wants the landlords t