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

October 29, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-Oct-29 vol. A (PDF)

L030A - Wed 29 Oct 2025 / Mer 29 oct 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 October 2025 Mercredi 29 octobre 2025

Orders of the Day

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

Members’ Statements

Riding of Markham–Unionville

Health care

Wordswell Association for Community Learning

King Charles III Coronation Medal

Food insecurity

Windsor Shelter Health Associates

Tenant protection

Top Shelf Canada

Riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex

Bernard Grandmaître

Introduction of Visitors

Ombudsman Ontario anniversary / Anniversaire d’Ombudsman Ontario

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Health care

Health care funding

Ontario economy

Health care workers

Health care funding

Northern Ontario development

Health care funding

Nurses

Small business

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Hospitality Workers Appreciation Day Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la Journée de reconnaissance des travailleuses et travailleurs de l’industrie de l’accueil

Sur-Leen Farms Limited Act, 2025

Petitions

Government accountability

Social assistance

Tenant protection

Post-secondary education

Ontario Place

Interprovincial trade

Social assistance

Gender-based violence

International trade

Police in schools

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à œuvrer pour les travailleurs, sept

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

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

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

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

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

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 28, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to child, youth and family services, education, and colleges and universities / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives aux services à l’enfance, à la jeunesse et à la famille, à l’éducation et aux collèges et universités.

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

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I was halfway through my debate of Bill 33 yesterday, so I’m pleased to be able to be pick up from there.

Bill 33 centralizes all power for our education system with the Minister of Education. I thought the Progressive Conservative party was supposed to be a party of small government and local decision-making. How can Toronto make decisions for rural communities, for northern communities, for any community? I’ve never seen a government of any stripe like this in Ontario that has removed local decision-making for the people and transferred power into the hands of a few, with little accountability or transparency.

Right now, Ontarians are worried, they’re anxious and, for thousands of them, they are out of work. We’re living through a time of great upheaval and uncertainty—economically, socially and geopolitically—and I think all of us in this Legislature hear that from people we have been elected to represent.

It’s within this context—I did a double take, actually, when I read the legislation. It includes a provision where school boards must seek the minister’s approval before naming schools, and I can’t reconcile the very serious challenges that our province and country are facing with a government that spent time and resources deciding this was the aspect of law that we need right now. Why? What problem is the government trying to solve with that part of the proposed law?

I’ve only been an MPP since February, and I get a lot of emails; I can only imagine how many the minister does, after years and years of experience. I have to say, I don’t think I’ve seen a groundswell or even one email demanding that the minister approve school names. The only word I can think of to describe this provision is “absurd.” It’s absurd that this is what we’re spending our time on, especially in these times. It is completely disconnected from the day-to-day lives of people in this province.

So what is this bill really about, then? It isn’t about governance of school boards; it is just a distraction—something the government is very good at: blame someone else for what is really the job of the Ontario government.

A couple of weeks ago, I raised concerns about an unusual deep probing the government has conducted of hospital governance. I worry that there too they are setting up local hospitals to take the fall for what is really a lack of funding from the province. And it isn’t about financial management either. Under this government’s watch, we’re now a province with half a trillion in debt. I’m reminded that my colleague from Don Valley West aptly describes the government’s financial record when she says, “Never has a government spent so much to achieve so little.”

It isn’t about education because if it was, they would get serious about supporting public education, recognizing that the most important investment we can make as a province in our future prosperity is education. It always has been. But no, we have a bill that transfers unprecedented power to the Minister of Education.

The Minister of Education has confirmed that closing schools and selling them off is an option on the table, something that, for all intents and purposes, has been denied to school boards for years. Without enough public funding, this is what trustees have been asking permission to do, to balance their budgets, make better use of their schools and lands, but have been unable to persuade the government to allow them to proceed. Perhaps this is where the answer lies. This is not about students or parents or education. It’s actually about real estate.

This tracks with the secret greenbelt deals, the Ontario Place deal and who knows what deals the province is working on under the extraordinary powers the government has granted in Bill 5.

I’m not against school consolidations or closures if we need to adjust to meet the needs of the population, to meet the needs of our kids and our families. But how will sites be selected? How will the government proceed in consultations? And if they proceed, will we see a process like Ontario Place, like the Skills Development Fund, where winners are hand-picked by the minister’s office and sold off without regard to fairness, transparency or accountability? Speaker, those were the words that the Auditor General used to describe it: the process was not fair, transparent or accountable.

Time and again, especially where Ontario’s public assets are concerned, we see the interests of the public on the sidelines, increasingly fending for themselves.

As for the proposed changes implicating our post-secondary institutions, again, I confess, I cannot imagine what business the minister has in determining student fees as typically determined by elected student unions who are elected by the student body—elected. I can tell you that I have not received any emails or calls from my constituents requesting this change. There is no one in this chamber who can make the case that they know better than the students what their needs are.

But I did receive this email from a constituent, and I thought it was interesting to hear from a student in post-secondary education, given their busy lives while they are studying. It says:

“I am a student in your riding. I am writing to share my deep concerns about Bill 33, the Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025, and what it could mean for students like me.

“As a student, I already face the daily pressures of balancing classes, part-time work, and the cost of living. Access to supports on campus such as mental health counselling, food banks, peer programs, and wellness services has been absolutely essential for me and many of my peers. Without these services, I do not know how I would get through my studies.

“Bill 33 worries me because it could take away the ability of students and student associations to decide what supports are most important for us. These services are not luxuries, they are lifelines.

“We need access to these supports, and as a student I am willing to continue paying fees that help me and others succeed. I urge you to stand with students by encouraging the government to amend Bill 33,

schedule 3,

section 21.1, which allows” them “to regulate student fees.”

That was from a student, and I’m sure many of you have students in university right now. I know my son is in university right now and those services that they get access to matter to them. The mental health services matter to them. When I was at CAMH, we worked closely with our local university to make sure there were pathways there so people could get what they need.

This just feels like the thin edge of the wedge. What if a student university newspaper or radio station makes what the minister considers an intemperate comment? This bill grants unprecedented power to the minister to take action against student unions at will.

On Bill 33, the Council of Ontario Universities said this: “serious concerns for the post-secondary sector as it conflicts with governing legislation, increases administrative burdens, and fails to address the root causes of student access challenges.

“With a deep understanding of their own students and communities, Ontario universities are best placed to make decisions that support their unique mission and values. Ontario universities were designed with the principle of being autonomous entities, free from government interference and best positioned in meeting student needs.”

In fact, this is something I, as a Canadian, and I know many Canadians, have really valued that we have available to us in this province.

“Bill 33 enters into areas where universities have well-established and rigorous systems and expertise that have served students well.”

Again, pointing the finger elsewhere is a well-worn strategy used by this government. It’s the fault of local governors or it’s the fault of the federal government—it’s the fault of anybody but themselves. Health care and education are the core responsibilities of the province. Ontario is dead last, by a long shot, amongst all provinces in providing provincial funding per student to our colleges and universities. In this government’s own blue-ribbon panel, per-student funding was 44% of the average of the rest of Canada, while per-student funding for universities was just 57% of the average of the rest of Canada.

Universities and colleges had no choice but to seek more international students and higher fees associated with them to keep their doors open for Ontario students.

This is where we are. Our public education and post-secondary institutions are in crisis. There’s nothing in this bill to help to remedy that.

I think about the kids I see every day within my own riding. I think about my son, his friends, teenagers. I’ve seen their school system change over the time since they were in kindergarten to now. The size of the classes is far larger than they were before. You’ve got to agree with me on that.

I can say that, again, the mental health needs of students have changed and increased. Just this morning, we were meeting with social workers over breakfast and we were talking about how important it is to be able to provide those kind of supports in our schools, more of them, more access to that—again, more access to the kind of services students want and need in their universities.

But the move with this bill is not about that. It’s not about our kids. It’s not about increasing the funding that we need in our education; it’s not about seeing it as an investment in our prosperity and in our economy. For these reasons, I simply cannot support this bill.

I urge the government to do the right thing: get serious about funding our public education and post-secondary institutions. If you want to put in place new legislation, put it in the places where we need it to do just that, to serve them better, to make sure that—they are an investment in our future. I don’t see signs of that in this bill anywhere; maybe the members opposite do, but I don’t. If we want to get serious about supporting our children’s future, let’s get serious about our public education system. Let’s invest in them and make sure that it is there for the long term to meet their needs.

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

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I appreciate the remarks from the member opposite.

Back in 2010, one of my former Scouts, Robert Woodrich, was the University of Windsor Students’ Alliance VP of university affairs. He said this of the Canadian Federation of Students: “CFS does nothing on our campus except for undermine our stance on many issues. All we want to do is leave. We don’t wish harm on any other student bodies, we just want out. They are making that very hard for us.”

He’s referring to CFS disallowing disaffiliation referendums held on campuses across Ontario, and Canada, for that matter. In 2010, when he made those remarks, 170,000 students represented at universities across the country who voted to disaffiliate from CFS were disallowed from doing so because of these anti-democratic fees that CFS has put in and anti-democratic practices.

My question to the member opposite is: Is she in agreement with the CFS disallowing student unions from removing fees from students, just as CFS has shown that they are willing to do?

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I do note that the quote is from 2010 and the correspondence that I had from a constituent is from this year.

Again, I come back to: What are we trying to achieve through all of this and through this bill? What are we trying to do for our universities and our colleges right now? Is this the most pressing issue to address for those students? I think that what the students are looking for, actually, is for us to publicly fund our system in a way that it deserves. If you look at the budget that’s in front of us for post-secondary education, it is a decline over the next three years from this government. I expect students would like to have access to their public system, first and foremost, above anything else.

I think that that’s where this government should be focusing its efforts and making sure that we’re going to have the system that we need there for the future.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thanks to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her comments on Bill 33. I think that we are in agreement that this is truly not about public education. Some of us understand that when you do get public education right, there are a number of other issues that fall into place, like justice, the economy, strengthening democracy, for instance. The bill does give unprecedented powers to the Minister of Education, and for someone who served as a trustee for 10 years, I can tell you that though our powers were steadily whittled down to almost nothing, undermining our roles as duly elected trustees, we fought to hold our voices and our power for parents.

I really want to ask the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: What do you think is really the motivation for Bill 33, because it certainly is not about public education?

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Thank you very much for your question. Yes, I agree with you. I don’t think that the motivation is necessarily making sure we have the most excellent public education system in the world, which is exactly what should be our goal.

In my remarks, I commented a little bit on the choices that school boards are even trying to make to balance their own budgets after being underfunded for years and years, decisions around land use—I sometimes question whether this is what this whole act is about. It’s about consolidating powers of the Minister of Education for different uses of lands, selling those lands. And I can tell you, if that is this plan, I certainly will be watching closely to make sure every single cent of that goes back into our education—not that I would support it.

I believe that there are other motivations here other than just making sure that we have a truly excellent public education system for our students.

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

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: When I’m out in the community and I’m talking to—whether it’s teachers, school administrators, folks when I’m out door-knocking, what I hear over and over again is students with special needs not getting the support that they need in the classroom, and it ends up actually resulting in a lot of the issues and challenges that we’re facing in our education system. When we talk about violent incidents in the classroom, a lot of that ends up resulting from larger class sizes and students in the classroom not getting that support that they end up needing.

It impacts other students, then, who are just trying to learn, who are trying to do what they need to do. It comes up at the door, believe it or not, Speaker.

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

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: My question is, do you think that this bill is really more of a smokescreen to hide the underfunding and the challenges that our teachers and educators are facing in the classroom?

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Thank you to my colleague the member from Ajax for that important question. I too hear a lot from my constituents about how we’re currently not able to meet the needs of all of our students. In fact, I recently sent a letter to the Minister of Education on this topic because I’ve seen it in my own school board, where they were making choices to try to prioritize some of the additional educational supports that we needed for some of our kids, and that, again, became harder and harder to do.

I don’t believe that this is the bill that’s going to solve that issue. That is the issue that matters a lot to parents, and it matters a lot to our kids. And I’m hopeful that maybe—maybe—through other mechanisms, we’ll start to address it. But this is a very serious unmet need that this bill will not address.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I have two questions for the member opposite. She mentioned in her speech—the first one was the renaming of schools. I’d ask her very, very precisely: We have a board that has spent in excess of close to $300,000 contemplating a change of a name for a school. That’s $300,000 that is not going into the classroom. Currently, the minister has no ability to redirect those funds back into the classroom. Would she agree that is an egregious waste of taxpayers’ money?

Secondly, we have another school board that the Auditor General highlighted as being a school board where decisions were being made by trustees that were not democratic, were not open, were not in the best interest of teachers, were not in the best interest of students, but the minister has no ability to make a change in that school board. Should the Minister of Education have the ability to make changes in a school board to put them back on track when they go off the rails? If not, how should we move those school boards back on track?

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Thank you, Minister, for those two questions and those two examples. I do believe that, at the end of the day, we need good local governance. I’ve worked in health care for years. I know what good boards can look like—skills-based boards—and how they can function and make sure that they’re using our funds accountably.

I think that the minister has some tools that would allow them to make sure that certain decisions could be made. I don’t think pulling out an entire system from our democracy is the right answer, though, especially in an environment where school boards are so underfunded. I also don’t believe that we should be designing legislation based on N-of-1s. I think that we should be looking at the systemic issues in our education system and tackling them head-on, which is, truly, the underfunding that exists in our province right now.

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

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Thank you to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore for your words. I want to take you to my own riding of Parkdale–High Park. We have a priority school recently renamed Dr. Rita Cox-Kina Minagok. It was

an act of reconciliation and restitution that meant a tremendous amount to the community members there. We also have Lucy McCormick, with children with special needs who thrive because of the unique supports.

So I’m deeply troubled by this government’s bill that would allow one minister from Queen’s Park to undermine the voices of local staff, local families and students. We’ve already seen that the supervisors appointed have Conservative ties, no experience in education, advocating for privatization in some cases.

To the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore: What do you think this means for the future of local democracy in our school boards, in our colleges, in our universities—

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

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Thank you for your question. I’d love to come to the neighbouring riding and see the schools that you mentioned.

I think that, again, at the end of the day, the choices that we need to be making in our local communities need to be informed by that local perspective and that needs to be preserved. This bill is not going to do that, and I think that that is deeply troubling.

But, again, I come back to, what are the issues that we should be focused on when we’re talking about the education of our kids? It’s, are they getting the education that they need and deserve? Are they getting that from teachers that are feeling supported? Are they getting access to the mental health—

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

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’m hard-pressed to find much in Bill 33 that actually supports our children and our students. Under the guise of improving oversight, transparency and the overall effectiveness of the system, there remain in this bill significant concerns about the balance of oversight and institutional autonomy. Right off the get-go, Bill 33 will remove the voice of students, parents and educators in this province. Local issues will go unnoticed, as decisions will be centred in Toronto.

A few weeks ago, one of Ontario’s largest and longest-running agricultural fairs was on display: the Norfolk County Fair and Horse Show. My favourite day is Young Canada Day, a day where high school students come out and they show their school spirit, competing in road races, tug-of-war, cheerleading and various other competitions. This is a day that has been part of the opening day of the Norfolk County Fair and Horse Show for several decades. Young Canada Day holds lasting memories for all of the area’s students, including me. The Grand Erie District School Board has attempted a few times to stop the tradition, and do you know who came to the rescue? Our school board trustees.

This bill is a smoke screen for the larger issue of chronic underfunding. During COVID, this government kept kids out of the classroom and online, which has created more complex needs within the classroom—$6.4 billion in underfunding because this government refuses to keep up with inflation. We see aging buildings; education inequities, especially in rural areas like mine; larger class sizes; and less support staff. Teachers and staff are facing burnout like never before, affecting retention and overall education quality.

On the post-secondary side, campuses have made it clear that Bill 33 is a step backwards for students. I’ve had students ask me why the government didn’t seek out their thoughts before drafting this legislation.

Let’s look at

section 21.1, which will establish an unprecedented measure that grants this government power to decide which ancillary fees are required and which are not. This change could severely cut essential services that students rely upon, like mental health supports, crisis response teams, food banks and transportation programs. These are the monies of the students and their families. These are not the government’s monies. Students do not view these as extra; they view them as lifelines.

Adam Chambers, a University of Ottawa student from my riding, is active on campus, and he wrote to me. He said, “As student representatives, we dedicate countless hours, months and years of our lives to listen and support our student peers to represent them the best we can. So, whether it be ancillary fees, merit-based applications, or funding reviews, we ask that the government look to us to provide integral student perspectives when decision-making and we welcome opportunities to consult with the ministry beforehand.” That makes sense, but it did not happen.

Schedule 2 is where we see an interesting expansion of overreach, as the minister is given powers to establish policy and guidelines respecting school board expense policies, including discretionary funding. The ministry can already investigate governance and financial concerns in school boards and can already establish, through regulation, reporting requirements on financial information. So I question: Why does this government need new legislation to address the handful of financial mismanagement?

I have a shared school board with the member from Brantford, the Grand Erie District School Board, who have been attempting to silence one of its trustees, Carol Anne Sloat. Carol Anne Sloat attempts to hold things to account. This trustee has been put through the wringer, and courts agree she has done nothing wrong, yet administration continues to seek revenge in an attempt to finally silence her. The point here is that the trustee is not the problem; it’s administration. The only thing Carol Anne Sloat is guilty of is advocating for the people she serves, the taxpayers.

Last week, during debate on Bill 9, I described how government deliberately creates or exaggerates a situation or a problem, so they can then implement a predetermined solution that taxpayers might not otherwise accept. Bill 33 can be seen through the same lens. The role of the school board trustee has been chipped away at purposefully, in order to give the illusion that they are worthless. Bill 33 is another chip, as it will take power away from democratically elected trustees and replace community decision-making with directives right here from Queen’s Park.

When I was a student, trustees were in the schools and we as students knew them. But today, these school board trustees are no longer allowed to call families back and no longer allowed to intervene in problems within the schools. They’re no longer allowed to act on behalf of the people they serve. We are taking away their advocacy efforts on behalf of students and on behalf of Ontario families.

Speaker, this is all a means to an end. As we know, the CBC, at the beginning of September, quoted the Minister of Education as saying that he is 100% looking at eliminating trustees. The minister is going after the low-hanging fruit here.

There’s so much to say and such little time. This is not education reform; rather, it’s a consolidation of power and a deep erosion of democracy, and we should all be extremely concerned.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for her presentation, where she outlined that this Bill 33 is a distraction to the cuts and the underfunding of education.

When one considers statutory benefit increases, such as CPP and EI, these are increases that the board can’t opt out of, but clearly, the government can, because they have not increased funding to the tune of millions of dollars for boards. They have left the restaurant before the bill arrives.

My question, though, to the member: How is installing a downtown Toronto bureaucrat going to help students in Haldimand–Norfolk, London or anywhere else?

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: Thank you to my colleague for the question. Appointing a bureaucrat in downtown Toronto is going to do little to help my students and families in Haldimand–Norfolk—it will do nothing.

I go back to my example of the Norfolk County Fair and the Grand Erie District School board continually trying to do away with Young Canada Day at the fair. It hasn’t been a bureaucrat in downtown Toronto, it hasn’t been a bureaucrat anywhere who has actually saved Young Canada Day in Norfolk county. It has been the local school board trustees from Norfolk county who have banded together and have gone to the board and said, “This is an important day for school spirit, an important day for education, and we will continue to fight for Norfolk County Fair and Young Canada Day.”

So the answer to the question is, a government-appointed bureaucrat to look after school boards is not a good idea. We need to retain the local decision-making powers.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I find it curious that the NDP and the independent member are both supporting—one is supporting a board where, so far, one official has been charged criminally, where a report was issued at the absolute, utterly disgraceful conduct from the director, from the trustees on down, at the board’s inability to put money back into the classroom—likely more charges to come. That member is supporting that.

The independent member is supporting a trustee on a board that changed the rules. To be clear, they changed the rules to allow themselves to go to Italy, a hundreds of thousands of dollars trip. That member is supporting that type of behaviour. Now, do you know the challenge that the minister has? The minister does not have the ability, right now, to go in and put that board back on track. I do not have the tools to do that.

Should the government of Ontario and the minister be allowed to step in when boards have fallen off the rails, when trustees have fallen off the rails? I think they do. If the members opposite don’t think they do, what powers should the government have to put the boards back on track?

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: To the minister opposite, I don’t support trustees going to Italy and wasting taxpayers’ money. But that’s a separate bill. We’re dealing with Bill 33 here. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? How many MPPs, how many other elected officials have been caught squandering taxpayer money? Do we fire them?

Mr. Chris Glover: Not yet.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: Not yet.

Trustees are democratically elected. I do not support those trustees who went to Italy. I do not support the trustee who did not pay his monies back. But this is a different issue. And you want to use that issue as a smokescreen on the $6.4 billion in underfunding? Then go right ahead. Parents see the truth. Families see the truth. Teachers see the truth. But to say that I support trustees going to Italy is absolutely wrong and not factual whatsoever. But this is Bill 33.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further questions? The Minister of Education—quickly.

Hon. Paul Calandra: That’s interesting, because in the instance that the member is talking about, this is a board that is running at a $3.4-million surplus. But these board trustees—to put it clear to everybody—weren’t allowed to do something, they got together in camera secretly, and then they changed the rules to allow themselves to go on an all-expenses-paid trip to Italy.

The minister right now does not have the power to step into a board that has done that and put them back on track. What tools should the minister have in legislation to allow him to put the board back on track?

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: As I begin my comments today, I would like to share my time with the MPP from Windsor West.

I rise today to speak firmly against Bill 33. With my background as an educator, I saw so many kids who were placed, all in the name of inclusion, into classrooms without support. But continuing the legacy of the Liberals before them, we see the Conservatives have cut and underfunded education. They’ve strangled it and then have the audacity to ask it why it can’t breathe.

In reality, Bill 33 does nothing to address the real challenges facing students and families in London, Ontario. This bill does not reduce class sizes, it does not put more caring adults in the classrooms, and it does not ensure children with special needs get the supports that they require. Instead, it adds yet another layer of bureaucracy: an unelected downtown Toronto bureaucrat who will not return phone calls, who will not return emails and who will not bring the voices of students and parents forward. It centralizes control and it is something that is an affront to parents and students and our democratic process.

At a town hall I hosted in my riding in London a few weeks ago, a parent shared a story that I want to share with this chamber, and it highlights why this bill is so concerning. His son, who has special needs, must travel over an hour each way just to attend school. Families like his also already face extraordinary challenges, and now, with Bill 33, they fear their voices will be fully taken away. Instead of providing support for children with special needs, this government is adding stress, removing accountability and limiting the ability of communities to advocate for their children.

Trustees in London, like those across Ontario, are elected to represent local families. They are not highly paid politicians. They earn less than minimum wage, often spending countless unpaid hours returning parent calls and volunteering to ensure every child has a chance to succeed. Yet Bill 33 threatens to sideline these elected representatives, replacing local oversight with centralized control from Queen’s Park.

This is not modernization. It is top-down micromanagement. This bill gives the Minister of Education unprecedented power to take over school boards at any time, for any reason, with no limits or oversight. That’s not governance. That’s authoritarianism. It’s a model that silences local communities and undermines public accountability. And while the government always likes to use the word “accountability,” it ignores the real issues: underfunding, unsafe classrooms, violence in schools, overcrowded schools and a lack of supports for students with special needs and mental health needs.

Let’s talk about funding. London schools, like all boards across Ontario, are under chronic financial strain. There is a $6.35-billion funding gap created by this government. Per-pupil funding has not kept pace with inflation. Statutory benefits, like CPP and EI, are not funded. That’s $13 million for the Thames Valley District School Board. These are statutory increases that boards cannot opt out of. But this government, like when the cheque arrives in a restaurant, has already gotten in their car and have left. They’ve skipped out on the bill, expecting someone else to pick it up.

Bill 33 does nothing to solve the funding crisis that we have in our schools. It masks underfunding with control, interference and political spin. Students in London and in Ontario deserve stable, predictable funding, not another layer of bureaucracy.

The government’s flawed approach to safety in schools is also problematic. Bill 33 emphasizes policing over care. Students struggling with mental health challenges or special needs risk criminalization rather than support. What students need are caring adults, mental health services and meaningful access to resources and classrooms, not punitive measures that set them up to fail. We know that schools are safer when care comes first. The NDP’s emergency plan to end school violence would actually address these issues.

Stakeholders across the province have spoken out loudly. ETFO calls this “authoritarianism cloaked in ... accountability.”

OSSTF says the government is trying to distract from “chronic underfunding.”

OECTA highlights the centralization of power and weakening of public institutions.

AEFO calls for real investment in French-language schools while OPSBA reminds us that trustees have worked under financial strain for years, particularly in special education and student transportation.

CUPE warns that

schedule 1 changes undermine local control of children’s aid society budgets.

Post-secondary groups like OCUFA and OUSA are concerned about bureaucratic burdens and underfunding that hurt students directly.

The Canadian Federation of Students has called this “a distraction to the underfunding of post-secondary education” and I could not agree more.

Bill 33 is an attack on post-secondary education. This is just the Student Choice Initiative wrapped up all over again. It’s an attack on students. By allowing students who are already financially strapped to opt out of ancillary fees, it’s providing them with a false choice. How do you ask someone who is already paying far too much for their education in Ontario—possibly saving a little bit more?

But this government’s record on post-secondary education—I mean, we are the lowest funder of post-secondary education in Canada. We are the bottom of the barrel. Last I checked, we would have to increase our expenditures by 43.5% in post-secondary education, and that’s not to be first, Speaker; that’s to be second-last.

This false choice with allowing students to opt out of ancillary fees would remove things that support students such as food banks, such as mental health supports, such as sexual violence supports. What this does is, this bill actually creates red tape for colleges and universities, something that this government pretends to be opposed to, but yet when it suits them, they love creating their own red tape, or blue tape.

Bill 33 does nothing to make Ontario schools better. It doesn’t address class sizes; it doesn’t improve learning conditions; it doesn’t support children with special needs. The minister has gone ahead and said that he’s listening and that if the funding formula is a problem, they will address it. Well, on this side of the House, we have been speaking out loudly for years about the problem with the funding formula.

The problem with the funding formula is that it treats all students in a cookie-cutter fashion, as if all of them will receive the same amount of money, and then the government provides school boards with a purse of money for special education. There are two problems with that: There’s no guarantee that it will be spent on the student who needs it, and even if it is, there’s no guarantee that it’s going to be spent in a developmentally appropriate way and that will benefit that student.

Instead, what we have been calling for and we will continue to call for is a funding model based on students’ needs. That way, the funding follows that student and is based on educational assessments, it’s based on professionals. It ensures that that funding will follow that student. But also, the problem with the amount of money that this government and past governments have spent on special education is that it’s nowhere near enough. School boards are forced to dip into additional monies and cut different programs in order to simply fund special education.

Speaker, our schools, our students and our families deserve better. They deserve predicable funding, supports for vulnerable students, safe learning environments and elected trustees who can respond to local needs. London’s families deserve to have their choices heard, not silenced by downtown Toronto bureaucrats.

Instead of helping students succeed, this government is doubling down on control. They’re silencing voices and putting politics ahead of kids’ education. With this government, there is always an action that is cloaking a hidden action. That hidden action, many have said with Bill 33, is the seizure of land that school boards own. For what purposes? Well, we need really only look toward the current RCMP investigation of this government into the greenbelt, and how that was being parcelled off and sold off to wealthy Conservative donors, turning millionaires into billionaires.

I oppose Bill 33 as an educator and as the MPP for London North Centre. It’s the wrong approach for students. It’s the wrong approach for the province. We need real investments in education, not political control.

With that, I turn my time over to the MPP from Windsor West.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I appreciate the remarks from my colleague from London and the focus on education. I’m going to use the little time that I have to talk about something else that is impacted by this bill. I’m going to talk about child welfare and child protection services and what is happening with the children’s aid societies this province.

Almost half of the CASs are running deficits because of chronic underfunding by the provincial government. We are seeing—and we’ve raised it; I have in this House, my colleagues have raised this, parents have raised this directly with the government and the government members—the fact that parents are surrendering their children to CAS, thinking that those children with complex needs are going to get the supports and services they need because they’re not getting it in community, because this government is wilfully underfunding all of those community supports for kids that have special needs.

They’re wilfully chipping away at public services, and so these parents get to the point—and I’m talking about it happening in the health care system when they try to access health care, mental health supports when they’re trying to access therapy. The OAP, the autism program—the wait-list is astronomical in this province.

Meanwhile, the minister stands up and applauds himself when you have tens of thousands of families on that wait-list, and they’re getting to the point where they feel like they need to turn their kids over to the CAS. There are children all around this province—some as young as one, two, three years old—that are currently housed in office spaces and in hotel rooms. They’re being trafficked. They’re coming in contact, some of these kids, with drug dealers.

Just last year, Jade—not her real name, but they use Jade to protect her identity—15 years old, a year ago this month, died. She was being housed in a hotel because there was nowhere else for her to go.

There is nothing in this bill to address that. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. It’s this government finger-pointing, trying to blame somebody else for their wilful negligence of the health care system, the education system, the Ontario Autism Program, mental health supports and the justice system. This government has the audacity to bring forward a bill like this to point fingers at somebody else.

When asked to do a review, an investigation into Jade’s death, this government refused—outright refused to look at the system that they’ve created that has led to the death of Jade and so many other children and youth in this province.

We’re seeing more and more families coming forward and facing that impossible decision of where they can turn to to actually get help. This government is doing nothing. There is nothing in this bill to support those families.

I’m going to talk about a constituent of mine who reached out just the other day. Again, she’s gone to the media. She’s gone to the government members. She’s raised this numerous times. This parent is on the brink of collapse herself, because her child with complex needs can’t get the supports and services that this family desperately needs in order to keep their child at home and for their child to thrive. And so she’s contacted my office again, asking if I can help get her child adopted, so that maybe, because that child has gone through the system—one way through the system—her child will get the supports that he needs before he harms himself or someone else.

That is the state of this province. That is the state that this government has brought us to. And yet there is absolutely nothing in this bill to address that. How many children have to die?

And Jade was not the first big news story, folks. We can talk about the child who was found dead in a dumpster. The government didn’t do anything about that. We can talk about the child—I remember standing here talking about a child who was literally starved to death, and this government didn’t do an investigation. And if they had done an investigation, what they would have seen is their negligence, their lack of funding—proper, sustainable funding—for child protection, for the education system, for the health care system, for the programs that these kids with complex needs need.

What they would have seen if they had done an investigation back then—and this was years ago, and it continues to happen. It is only getting worse. But if they actually did an investigation, a real investigation into the root causes of the problems, that report would come back pointing the finger at them.

And they don’t want to take responsibility. It is very clear throughout this bill. They want to point fingers. We talk about the education sector; they want to point fingers at trustees for the government’s failures. Here, they want to point fingers at those that work in child protection and say: “It’s your fault. It’s not our fault.”

What they need to do is look in the mirror. We are talking about children’s lives here. How many children have to die before this government stops pointing fingers at everybody else and looks inward and says, “Okay, you know what? We do have work we have to do here. There are changes that we have to make”? There are systemic changes that have to happen and the biggest systemic change is funding.

These families that are pushed to the brink, if they could access those supports in community, wouldn’t be turning to CAS. No parent wakes up in the morning and says, “Today would be a great day to hand my child over to the CAS. I don’t want them anymore. I don’t want the hassle.” No parent says that.

In order for a parent to get to that point, the anguish that comes with the thought of handing over your child and your rights to your child, because you think that that is the only way that your child is going to get the health care they need, that they’re going to get the education supports that they need in schools—the number of these kids that are being excluded from participating in education, from being in school is increasing every day.

The violence in schools is increasing every day, and that is because this government is purposefully underfunding and undermining the public education system. And then these kids don’t get the supports they need in school, so they can’t participate in school. Then they’re isolated; they can’t make friends. They’re not in school; they’re not getting the education they need. Their behaviours start to escalate. Parents can’t get the other supports they need out in the community. They can’t get the therapy or the mental health supports for the kids.

It just becomes a crisis. The crisis gets bigger and bigger and worse, and these parents get to the point where they feel like there is absolutely—interestingly enough, an Ombudsman report was called Nowhere to Turn a long time ago, under the Liberal government. This Conservative government hasn’t changed a darn thing since then, except for making the problem worse.

Bill 33 is not about child protection and making it stronger. It’s not about ensuring that it’s actually supporting the people who need the support. It’s not about fixing the problem. It’s not about stopping the deaths of children in this province. It’s about this government abdicating responsibility for the decisions that they’re making and trying to put the blame on somebody else. That is absolutely shameful.

So, again, I will pose the question, as my time wraps up: How many families pushed to the brink is enough for you? How many children have to die before that’s enough for you, before you actually take action and reflect on what you’ve been doing and change course and make it better?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I have a question for the member for London North Centre. He referenced Thames Valley. I want to just explain and see if he agrees.

The Thames Valley report highlighted the fact that not only were the trustees complicit, but that the director of education on down were doing things that were completely wrong and offside. This is a board that had some troubling signs. A couple of years ago, they were in a surplus position, but we could see things going off the rails when massive surpluses started to whittle away because bonuses were given to directors of education and superintendents, and when they went away on trips at expensive hotels. So the surplus went into a deficit.

The ministry and the minister have no ability to intervene, even when they see this happening, until the board falls into a deficit. So we have to allow things to get really bad, even though we know something is coming.

Does the member agree that the ministry and the minister should have the ability to put things back on track when they see things going off the rails, or does he believe the current system—where a board is completely in financial disarray—is the best way to protect students, families and teachers?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the minister for the question.

Unfortunately, the minister is not being entirely accurate when it comes to the audit that happened of the school board. In fact, the ministry’s own audit did not uncover that trip. That trip involved 18 senior administration officials. Trustees did not vote on it. In fact, in June, trustees passed a motion prior to being taken under supervision: “All professional development opportunities, travel and catered events must be reviewed to ensure cost-effectiveness aligns with (the school board’

s) strategic plan.” The motion also noted that expenses must be saved where possible by considering location, transportation and catering efficiencies as required.

This government has shut down families of students with special needs by blocking their opportunity to view special education advisory committee meetings. They’ve also, under the supervisor, sent kids with special needs home because they don’t—

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

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank both of my colleagues for their comments this morning.

This Conservative government is the most corrupt, incompetent and fiscally irresponsible government in the history of this province. They keep undermining our democratic ability to fight back against their corruption and their incompetence, so—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I will caution the member to phrase his questions more parliamentary.

Mr. Chris Glover: Okay.

Bill 33 allows them to intervene and undermine democratically elected student unions on campuses, and it also sets the course to eliminate democratically elected school trustees.

To the member from London North Centre: Do you think that the government is trying to get rid of our—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I think it’s important that we all recognize in this chamber that one of the first acts from this government was to meddle with Toronto city hall elections. In the province of Ontario we see a government that is currently under threat because they’re under RCMP investigation right now. They’re knocking at the door, and people are going to have to come out with their hands up. Just like the Liberals before them, people will be going to jail. Right now in the province of Ontario, we see many, many attacks on our democratic processes and the very nature of the rule of law.

This government has also told hospitals, which have record debt levels, that they need to balance their budgets and find efficiencies. They’re doing the same with school boards. They want to undermine the greatest democratizing forces of our society, which are (1) the vote, (2) public education and (3) public health care.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: Thank you for your presentation today. We’ve heard the Minister of Education criticize—and I think correctly criticize—the decisions of a board in that they changed the rules to meet what they wanted to do and abuse that public money, but we also know that just two weeks ago, the Premier was quoted at the Empire Club as saying, “Don’t break the rules; change the rules.”

A brief description from Google AI of the Premier—I’ll just read it for you. It says, “This is a long-standing theme of the Premier’s political tenure, characterized by his government’s use of legislation and constitutional powers to circumvent judicial decisions, override municipal councils and otherwise fast-track things.”

I’m wondering if you think that perhaps these trustees and administrators were learning lessons from the government about how to break and change rules and abuse their power?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Orléans for the question. With this government, if they don’t like the rules, they will move the goalposts. They are really quite concerned about the centralization of power, and that would be through a downtown, unelected Toronto bureaucrat to replace trustees.

Really, the problem here is that the government has issues with what senior administration has done in some areas, and yet they’re not going after senior administration. Instead, they’re going after trustees because they know trustees are a democratically elected voice for students. They advocate for special education, which they would like to cut because one of the first few actions they also did was to totally destroy the Ontario Autism Program and replace the wait-list with another wait-list.

Really, we see so many attacks on education—it is almost beyond belief, what they’ve done to education in this province.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s curious he says we’re not going after administration because on the board that he keeps talking about, the director of education was fired; there’s been a criminal charge on one of the individuals mentioned in the report. The director of legal services has resigned, so there is accountability happening.

But then let’s take the trustees off the table on this particular board. The fact that they did nothing—let’s take that off the table. In this board, they went from a surplus a couple of years ago to a deficit. We could see it coming because they were giving themselves bonuses. They were giving themselves bonuses and creating positions, the bureaucracy in that board that did not need to exist. The ministry could see this happening, but because they were in surplus, we had no ability to intervene and say, “This is not right. You have to change the way things are happening.”

So does the member think that we should allow boards to go into deficit before we intervene to put more money back into the classroom to support students, parents and teachers?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It’s really quite interesting that this government would talk about the need for supervision, and yet the deficit that is with Thames Valley has ballooned while under supervision: It went from $17 million all the way up to $32 million. It’s also curious that this minister would talk about the director of legal services because that director of legal services ran for these Conservatives.

It’s really quite interesting that they tried to use these facts in a way that benefits them, but, my goodness, they don’t like dealing with numbers; they don’t like dealing with the truth. It’s really quite concerning that this government wants to underfund and destroy public education, probably because they want to find a way to profitize and privatize the very bedrock of our democratic foundation, which is public education.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: I want to thank the member from Windsor West for bringing up the issue of the child welfare system as it relates to kids in care.

The Auditor General has previously identified significant issues with the child welfare system under this government, including poor adherence to protection standards, cases being closed prematurely and investigations not being completed in a timely manner. The government has done nothing to ensure the safety of vulnerable children. The member from Windsor West talked about medically fragile, vulnerable children whose parents are not receiving the support to ensure that they can be properly cared for, and therefore are considering giving up their children.

Why does the government think these parents don’t love their children as much as we love our children? I’m asking the member from Windsor West to really identify what’s at the heart of this government’s ignorance and lack of leadership on child welfare.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I would say that it is the government’s unwillingness to take accountability for the decisions they are making; for the chronic underfunding of all of our social services, frankly, whether that’s child protection, education, health—you name it.

I think it’s interesting that the Minister of Education was focusing on one school board and one particular issue and talked about how they need to take over responsibility now: “The government needs to be involved.” When we look at this government, we’re talking about children dying in care because this government is chronically underfunding the system, so it is understaffed and under-resourced.

When we’re talking about what’s happening in the education system and the health care system; the number of lawsuits that this government has had against them and the millions upon millions of dollars they wasted; the fact that they’ve increased the size of their government, instead of spending money where it’s due; maybe the federal government should introduce a bill to come take over the provincial government and put them under supervision.

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

Interjection.

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

Further debate? I recognize the member from Ajax.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Order, please. The members will come to order. The Minister of Education will come to order.

I recognize the member from Ajax.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: Thank you, Speaker. I see that the Minister of Education is a little worked up before question period. I think it’s a little training ground for later.

Let’s talk about publicly funded education in the province. When I look at this bill, I see it as a distraction from what the root causes are that we are experiencing in our public education sector, which is really the broader underfunding of the system. This bill has got a bit of a fancy name that doesn’t do that much in addressing the real problems that are affecting students and educators within the classroom. It almost feels as though this government is trying to create another crisis to undermine public education.

We’ve seen this movie before, my colleagues. You don’t fix schools by just silencing school boards and centralizing power within the minister’s office. That is going to be a recipe for disaster. We’ve got 72 school boards in this province. That’s a lot of school boards, and I know the minister is quite busy already. So to put fingers within all 72 of them individually, frankly, I don’t think is a feasible way of dealing with this. If we hear everything that’s happening, that’s something that I guess could very well happen because of the chronic issues that we’re facing in public education.

I think it’s really important that government works in collaboration with school boards, that it works in collaboration with directors of education, that it works in collaboration with the Ontario Principals’ Council, that it works in collaboration with parents and with students as well, because when you have collaboration, when you’re able to have these discussions and come out with what is the best pathway forward, you are going to get better results in public education. That’s informed by local opinions. That’s informed by local voices.

Special education: 71 out of 72 school boards in this province are spending more on special education than what’s funded by the government. Again, 71 out of the 72 school boards in this province are spending more on special education than what’s being provided for funding. Every single school board, with the exception of one, is overspending their allocation on special education because the problem is that bad in this province. There is about an $800-million to $1-billion gap in terms of what boards spend and what that funding is provided for.

That’s a lot of money, but that’s going to benefit students in the classroom. That’s going to benefit the students with special needs in the classroom to ensure that they get the support that they need so that they can achieve their true potential and everyone else in the classroom also then has that same ability to achieve what their potential is.

During one of the questions earlier, I mentioned knocking on doors, and I had a parent upset because there’s a couple of kids in the classroom that continue to cause disruptions. There isn’t that EA support in the classroom, and his kids are struggling. He went to say, “If this doesn’t change, I’m going to put my kids in private education.” And this isn’t somebody that makes a lot of money, but how concerned that that parent is and how far that that parent is willing to go to ensure that his kid gets a better education.

Every school in this province should be a good school. Every kid should have that opportunity. So we can plaster it with the name of the bill, we can plaster it with all the other rhetoric or distractions or stuff that’s happening, but at the end of the day, saving a couple of hundred thousand dollars on a school renaming—and I do agree with the minister when he talked about school renamings. No school board should be spending that much. That’s ridiculous. But it comes down, again, to students in the classroom and ensuring that they’re supported.

Let’s talk about reserve funds of school boards in this province, because many school boards are starting to get in the territory where their reserves are so low that the ministry could very easily come in and take over those school boards. But let’s look at why that’s the case in the first place. The case in the first place is, number one, the chronic underfunding, but number two, let’s go back to COVID.

School boards were given authorization—and in some ways rightfully so in the absence of provincial leadership in funding schools—to spend some of their reserves on PPE, on COVID supports, helping students in the classroom and the system adjust with what was really a very global pandemic that impacted and touched all of us in all of our lives.

Now, though, we’re in a situation where we’ve got good school boards that have done pretty much almost all the right things—they’re in a position where they could be taken over by the minister. That’s something that can happen right now. And they’re doing all the right things. They’re spending money well. They’re trying to save. And now those school boards are making tough decisions on, “How much money do we have to cut in the classroom?” That’s not right. They’re making decisions on technology cuts and, again, supports for students with special needs. That’s not a good thing. Support for students really is going out the window.

What I’d love to see from this government—how do we deal with some of these challenges—is, again, kids with autism: Let’s deliver more of that support within the school board. The Ontario Autism Coalition was talking about that the other day. We’ve got to see more collaboration, as I was talking about earlier, more discussion, more working together to really solve the challenges.

With violence in schools—we hear our education partners, education unions, talk about this quite a bit, and I think rightfully so because it’s their members that are the ones dealing with these challenges in the classroom day in and day out without the support that they need from this provincial government.

IEPs aren’t being followed; individual education plans are not being followed. Again, it comes back to, “What’s the root cause?” The system is, right now, set up to fail. That’s not a good thing.

There are so many contradictions, I feel, with this government. On the one hand, a recent election proposal saying, “Well, we’ve got to go back to tradition”—okay, well, some of our tradition in this province is our publicly funded education system, going back to 1867. And I don’t know what’s going to be coming next. It might work; it might not work. I don’t know. It’s going to depend on those conversations that take place.

So let’s make the system work better. I agree with the minister when he says the system needs to work better, but I think it’s how in which we do that is the difference. If you want to support students, support the support staff instead of taking them to court. That lingers quite a bit for folks in our education sector around Bill 124; it left a really bad taste in the mouth of workers who are working really hard and supporting our teachers, supporting educators, supporting students and families in the classroom.

I’ve got probably a minute until we go—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I hate to interrupt, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Riding of Markham–Unionville

Mr. Billy Pang: This past summer recess was an active and fulfilling one in Markham–Unionville. I participated in nearly 100 activities and meetings, from community events and ministry briefings to discussions with local residents and festive celebrations. It was a wonderful opportunity to reconnect with the residents of Markham–Unionville.

In May and June, I had the pleasure of recognizing the amazing moms and amazing dads of Markham–Unionville, honouring parents whose unwavering and unconditional love strengthens families across Markham–Unionville.

Soon after, I proudly presented the Outstanding Senior Volunteer Awards and distributed Canada Day pins to recognize our seniors and residents whose service and patriotism continue to inspire us all.

Before the end of the school term in June, I also hosted our first Shining Star Award presentation event, celebrating students who have excelled academically or in extracurricular activities and have made meaningful contributions through volunteerism.

I continued our annual landscaping recognition program, recognizing the time and effort of our residents who take care of their lawns.

Speaker, the true strength of Ontario lies in the strength of its people, and I’m honoured to serve them—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Thank you.

Members’ statements?

Health care

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Visiting Queen’s Park today are Jillian Watt and Jen Beckley, chairs for CUPE Local 7800. They represent more than 4,700 hard-working health care workers at Hamilton Health Sciences. They’re joined by hundreds of members from the Ontario Health Coalition across the province, and their message is simple: The Ford government is privatizing our public hospitals, and it will cost us all.

This government is accelerating the privatization of our public health care system. The Premier just announced 57 new private clinics that will take more than 100,000 diagnostic tests out of our local public hospitals, along with funding and staffing. This government is shifting hundreds of millions of dollars in public funding over to private clinics while our local public hospitals continue to struggle with overwhelming demand and chronic underfunding.

Remember when the Premier announced that no patient would ever have to pay with their credit card, only their OHIP card? We now know that the privatized cataract surgery clinics are routinely overbilling seniors for their procedures. We heard from an 80-year-old woman who had to make a payment of almost $11,000 for her surgery. Just imagine the tens of thousands of dollars they are going to charge patients now that this privatization scheme will expand to orthopedic surgeries, hips and knees, as well as other diagnostics.

It’s clear tat this government knows seniors are facing financial hardships due to overbilling, but this Premier is clearly willing to let seniors pay the price.

Wordswell Association for Community Learning

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Speaker, today I rise to recognize an extraordinary non-profit in my community of Don Valley North, the Wordswell Association for Community Learning. They’re led by a dedicated team of individuals, including its inspiring director, Neda Farahmandpour, who joins us today, along with student Jonaya Estinvil.

For over 15 years, Wordswell has grown from a small group of young dreamers into a respected community force transforming how you learn, lead and serve. Through programs that blend academic tutoring, mentorship and service learning, more than 700 students have built confidence, strengthened their intellect and discovered their power to uplift their communities.

What sets Wordswell apart is its belief that learning and service belong together, that true education strengthens both the mind and the heart. By helping young people build skills, character and compassion, Wordswell turns learning into leadership and purpose into progress.

Speaker, when youth rise, communities flourish. That’s the Wordswell way, where knowledge finds its voice and youth find their power. I’m proud to recognize Wordswell’s vital contribution to our community in Don Valley North and I encourage continued support for organizations that invest in the next generation.

King Charles III Coronation Medal

Mr. John Jordan: Over the last several months, I was honoured to present King Charles III Coronation Medals to seven dedicated and compassionate people in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. These medals are a testament to their exceptional contributions and dedication to their communities.

Medals were presented to:

—Kory Earle, for his work and advocacy in supporting the rights of persons with disabilities;

—Jeff Mills, for his 16 years of service with Carebridge Community Support, as well as countless initiatives to support seniors and youth;

—Travis Mellema, Chief of the Lanark County Paramedic Service, for his dedication and commitment to improving and optimizing the levels of care for residents;

—Carol Anne McNeil, for delivering the best in care to families for over 40 years at Lanark community programs and ConnectWell;

—Dr. Peter Bell, for over 50 years of service in patient care, including his advocacy for the integration of the family health team model in Sharbot Lake—Dr. Bell recently retired after 54 years of service;

—Donna Davidson, for her work in developmental services and her support for children and their families through Lanark community programs; and

—on behalf of Minister Sylvia Jones, to Dr. Shaira Wignarajah, for her volunteer work at Baycrest Home for the Aged.

These recipients have had an immeasurable impact on many people in their communities, and I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to each of them on this well-earned recognition.

Food insecurity

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I rise today to bring awareness to the alarming statistic of food insecurity across Niagara. Food is not a luxury; it’s a basic right. Yet, in my riding of St. Catharines, that right is under threat.

Joanne Heritz, a professor of political science at Brock University, recently authored a policy brief entitled Increasing Hunger in Niagara: The Need for Action. In the past two years, food bank visits in St. Catharines have increased by nearly 150%. But it’s not only food banks seeing the strain. Congregated meal programs, places like St. George’s Anglican Church and Out of the Cold program, now serve tens of thousands of hot meals each year. These programs, once seen as an emergency support for those dire situations, have become daily lifelines for those on fixed incomes.

As of April, the St. Catherines Out of the Cold program now offers meals on a year-round basis, simply to meet local demands. They provided over 26,000 meals in 2024 and 2025. This is a 10% increase from the prior year.

An aging population, incomes that don’t keep up with the cost of living and housing costs taking up most of people’s monthly incomes: Those are the driving factors, and this government needs to address these issues right at the core.

Windsor Shelter Health Associates

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I’m honoured to rise in the House today to recognize Dr. Jennifer Bondy and Windsor Shelter Health Associates for their exceptional leadership in delivering compassionate, comprehensive care to our community’s most vulnerable residents.

Under Dr. Bondy’s vision and guidance, her team has pioneered an innovative model that brings essential health services, including mental health and addiction support, primary care and specialist treatment, directly to individuals in shelters and supportive housing.

This includes care provided at the Salvation Army men’s shelter, the H4 hub, and the Welcome Centre for Women and Families, together with other housing with support locations across Windsor.

By meeting people where they are, this model enhances access to care, reduces emergency room visits and ensures that residents receive the right care at the right time and in the right place. It is a proactive approach that addresses health challenges before they become crises, and that is why I was proud to announce $3,881,138 in support from the province of Ontario for 2025-26.

To Dr. Bondy, her team and all partners, thank you for your innovation, dedication and unwavering commitment to improving the health and well-being of the people of Windsor.

Tenant protection

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, this government is attacking tenants in Ontario. Last week, the Minister of Housing introduced Bill 60, containing direct attacks on tenant rights. At the same time, the minister announced the review of automatic renewal of tenancy, which would open doors to mass evictions across Ontario.

Seniors who are long-term tenants on fixed incomes knew exactly what that meant: that they would be losing their homes. Single moms doing their best to provide shelter and food for their children could see disaster ahead. Tenants everywhere were unfairly plunged into a state of fear and desperation. That was a nasty thing for the minister to do.

After an uproar across the province, the government was forced to back off on these consultations on ending long-term tenancy “for now.” Tenants are not going to roll over. They’re not going to allow this government to make them homeless. They will fight back. The government must stop attacking tenants and it must stop now.

Top Shelf Canada

Mr. Robert Bailey: Over the last two days, a delegation of local business leaders from Sarnia–Lambton, led by the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce, have been visiting Queen’s Park to share with members of this Legislature our region’s economic priorities, innovations and opportunities for growth.

One of those business leaders is Joshua Lines, founder and CEO of Top Shelf Canada, the producer of Canada’s premium hot sauce, Front Street Heat—I know that a number of you had the opportunity to sample it. In response to the economic uncertainty of last year, Joshua and his team at Top Shelf Canada are busy creating an all-Canadian supply chain and food production that will allow Canadian producers the ability to take homegrown ingredients from the ground to the bottle and give Canadian consumers alternatives to corporate American grocery imports.

Joshua and his team are working tirelessly to produce and stock more of our Canadian grocery shelves with Canadian products for every taste. Joshua’s new product, Thanks, is a Canadian replacement for Frank’s in the US and is primed to become a staple in Canadian kitchens in the months ahead.

Joshua is also donating 100% of the profits from the launch of Thanks to the Canadian Mental Health Association and youth mental health initiatives in Canada.

I couldn’t be more excited to get my hands on a bottle of this Canadian hot sauce to support this outstanding initiative. Thank you to Joshua for his outstanding work and for your visit to Queen’s Park.

Riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault: It is a pleasure to rise in the House again today on behalf of the residents of my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. After a productive summer spent meeting with my constituents across this beautiful riding, I am happy to be back in the Legislature to continue working for them.

Over the last couple of months, I’ve had the incredible opportunity to travel across my riding, from Strathroy to Wallaceburg, to visit local businesses, farms and community events. What I heard was clear. People are optimistic about the future, proud of the work that we are doing and eager to see continued investment in our rural communities, infrastructure and local economy.

I want to thank those that welcomed me into their homes, businesses and community halls over the summer. Your commitment to making Ontario a better place is what drives me every day. I’m looking forward to continuing to work hard for my constituents and bringing their voices to Queen’s Park.

Bernard Grandmaître

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

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: Madame la Présidente, avec votre consentement, j’aimerais obtenir le consentement unanime pour observer un moment de silence à la mémoire de Bernard Grandmaître.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to have a moment of silence for the passing of Bernard Grandmaître. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a delegation of members from the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Bills and Private Members’ Motions from the Parliament of Ghana. The delegation is led by the Honourable Bernard Ahiafor, the 1st Deputy Speaker of Parliament. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests to the Legislature.

Also joining us today are members of the Ontario Kinesiology Association, including a member from my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook, Paula Sinclair. Welcome.

Hon. Zee Hamid: I would like to welcome from CAA—they are also doing the reception this evening at 5—Matthew Turack, Shoshana Fruitman, Anita Mueller, Marrianne Bridge, Brenda Rideout and Rehana Doobay. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to welcome to the House Dr. Daniel Sibley and the Ontario Kinesiology Association.

Colleagues, I was able to donate half of my liver to an anonymous recipient in the summer of 2024. I have fully recovered—and a good chunk of that was the “pre-habilitation” system I was on under the care of Dr. Daniel Sibley, my kinesiologist.

The kinesiologists are having a lunch reception in room 228 today. I would urge you all to stop and hear from them about the life-changing work they are doing for the people of Ontario.

Ms. Marit Stiles: We have quite a few visitors in the Legislature today. I would like to extend a warm welcome to UFCW members, including executive board members who are here with us today; as well as the Ontario Mining Association; CUPE Ontario’s president, Fred Hahn; and the hundreds of members of the Ontario Health Coalition who have been packing the gallery this morning with the Ontario Federation of Labour’s president, Laura Walton.

I look forward to seeing all of you throughout the day. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Steve Clark: I’ve got a number of constituents from the great riding of Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Joining us is Evelyn Weger from North Grenville, here representing the Ontario Association of Social Workers. We’ve got Jeff Butler from 1000 Islands and Johnstown Duty Free, here for the duty-free border MPP meeting, and Dr. Lance McIntosh from the Ontario Dental Association.

And I have a special welcome, on behalf of our page captain from Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Lorraine Holmstrom from Académie catholique Ange-Gabriel in Brockville. I want to welcome her parents, Cam Holmstrom and Allison Boone.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me Lucille Collard: From the Ontario Dental Association, we have Dr. Brian Eckert from my riding of Ottawa–Vanier, Dr. Jonathan Mayer, and Dr. Janet Leith; and from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, we have Gayle Peddle, Mark Holle and Jeff Connell.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP George Darouze: I’m pleased to welcome a dedicated community leader from Ottawa today at Queen’s Park. Danielle McGee joins us here in her role as senior adviser for government and stakeholder relations at Ottawa Community Housing. Danielle is a long-time colleague of mine, having served in the mayor’s office at Ottawa city hall from 2010 to 2022.

Welcome, Danielle, to Queen’s Park.

MPP Catherine McKenney: I’d like to welcome Erin Whitmore from the Ontario Association of Social Workers to Queen’s Park today. As the former executive director of the Ending Violence Association of Canada, Erin shaped and led the organization’s advocacy efforts to address sexual violence in Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to welcome the Ontario Mining Association. They represent the sector of the most ethically sourced resources on earth.

We have the Meet the Miners reception tonight at 5 p.m., at MaRS. You are all welcome. Let’s support Ontario’s miners.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I want to introduce members of the CAA that are here today: Matthew Turack, Shoshana Fruitman, Lauren Hunter and Anita Mueller. They’ll be having a reception at 5 p.m.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Madam Speaker, I want to welcome Dr. Lisa Bentley and Dr. Nafisa Ahmad, also from the Ontario Dental Association, to the Legislature today. I look forward to our meeting later and learning about all the important work that you do. Welcome.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’d like to welcome to the house today Dr. Charles Frank and Dr. Art Worth, who are also with the Ontario Dental Association—and a special welcome to friends and Haldimand–Norfolk constituents Lyle Benson, Ron Keating, Gail Heald-Taylor and Anita Meinen, who are here today with the Ontario Health Coalition. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: As part of the Queen’s Park awareness day for the Ontario Association of Social Workers, I want to welcome Shane Joseph, a dedicated social worker from my riding of Durham.

MPP Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome Sue Hotte and Heather Kelly from the health coalition. Also, I’d like to welcome Laura Walton, president of the OFL, and the 100 members from the health coalition here that are fighting for health care across the province of Ontario.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I would like to welcome Dr. Kyle Murray, dean of the Lazaridis school of business, with his wife, Colleen, and Linda Salewsky from the Ontario Health Coalition’s day of action.

And let me be really clear: Today is a very special day. My good friend and colleague from London West, it’s her birthday. Congratulations.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): To all of the visitors who were not introduced, it’s my fault. We stick to a very hard line of five minutes. I’m sure your representatives wanted to introduce you, but we have run out of time.

Ombudsman Ontario anniversary / Anniversaire d’Ombudsman Ontario

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

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Ombudsman’s office with five minutes allotted to the government, five minutes allotted to the official opposition, five minutes allotted to the third party and two minutes allotted to the independent members as a group.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Agreed? Agreed.

Debate? I recognize the member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Thank you, Speaker. It’s my pleasure to offer a few remarks today on the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Office of the Ombudsman for Ontario.

The Office of the Ombudsman was created in 1975 by legislation called the Ombudsman Act. I’d like to take you all back to the year 1975 with a few facts about that year. In 1975, the population of Ontario was approximately 8.5 million people. The Premier of Ontario was the Honourable William Grenville Davis. There were no Toronto Blue Jays. There were no Toronto Raptors. There was no SARS and no COVID-19. The minimum wage was $2.65 per hour. A domestic postage stamp was eight cents, and people bought them because there was no email. There was no internet. There was no ChatGPT. And the band The Guess Who broke up in 1975.

But when one door closes, another opens. After leaving The Guess Who, Randy Bachman helped form the band Bachman-Turner Overdrive, which had the hit song, Takin’ Care of Business. And “taking care of business” is the job of the office of the Ombudsman every day.

The Ombudsman helps resolve problems with government and public sector organizations. You can contact the Ombudsman if, for example, you have a problem with the Ontario government or the public service; if you have a problem with a municipality or a university or a school board; if you believe you were treated unfairly or treated with disrespect; if you are facing what a reasonable person might consider long delays; if it seems that you are being denied answers to reasonable questions; or if you just want information about services that you feel you’re entitled to.

The Office of the Ombudsman deals with approximately 30,000 cases each year and will serve you in both official languages. Thank you to all the men and women who have served at the Office of the Ombudsman and special thanks to the individuals who have served as the Ombudsman: Arthur Maloney, from 1975 to 1978; Donald Morand, from 1979 to 1984; Daniel Hill, from 1984 to 1989; Roberta Jamieson, from 1989 to 1999; Clare Lewis, from 2000 to 2005; André Marin from 2005 to 2015; and Paul Dubé, 2016 to the present day. Thank you.

Congratulations to the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario on 50 successful years of service to the people of Ontario. Here’s to another 50 years of:

Takin’ care of business, every day

Takin’ care of business, every way ...

Takin’ care of business, it’s all mine

Takin’ care of business and working overtime.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Well done.

Further debate?

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I’m proud to rise in this chamber on behalf of the official opposition to extend congratulations on the 50th anniversary of the Ontario Ombudsman’s office and to thank them for the invaluable public service that they provide to the people of Ontario. It’s hard to imagine what Ontarians did more than 50 years ago when they were treated unfairly by the government or a particular government practice that required looking into. Ontarians tried every avenue to point out a break in the system, oftentimes turning up empty-handed.

Until the Office of the Ombudsman was created 50 years ago, that simple office of last resort, Ontarians had to live and suffer with the injustice. We are so lucky, Speaker, that we now have an ombuds institution in this Legislature.

Ontario’s first Ombudsman, the first of seven Ombudsmen, was Arthur Maloney, who was sworn in on October 30, 1975. He was followed by subsequent Ombudsmen, each one passing the torch to the very next: Donald Morand, Daniel Hill, Roberta Jamieson, Clare Lewis, André Marin and Paul Dubé, our current and present Ombudsman today.

Today, the Ombudsman of Ontario, including the French language commissioner, Carl Bouchard, has oversight of over 1,000 provincial and broader public service organizations. This oversight includes handling complaints and investigating administrative fairness issues related to these bodies. Having a public accountability office to openly investigate and to criticize the government is invaluable to the preservation of good governance, protecting individual rights and reinforcing public trust in our democratic institutions, something that we need now more than ever before. In our current political environment, we need the Ombudsman’s office to reinforce that trust.

The Canadian Council of Parliamentary Ombudsman, a collective of ombudsmen from across the country, released a document that highlighted the seven effective principles of being an ombudsman. All those seven principles are important. Ontario’s Ombudsman, Paul Dubé, pulled out one as the most critical: the security of tenure. Security of tenure is not just for tenants, who had to scream their heads off this weekend to save their month-to-month leases, but also for ombudsmen as well. Ombudsmen, as Mr.

Dubé has said, “should be safe knowing they can do their job without fear or favour,” as it is important for them to “not have to look over their shoulders or worry about being removed from office because they put out a report that might counter the narrative of a government or contain some inconvenient truths. What politicians have told me over the years is that we love you when we’re in opposition, but you’re a pain in the butt when we’re in government.” As it should be, Speaker.

The fact that it was Ontario’s Ombudsman who raised security of tenure being the most critical is worrying to me. This government needs to be able to listen to the Ombudsman and to really take his words into the heart.

In recent years, the Ombudsman has been kept very busy by holding the government accountable. We know this very well in the official opposition as we have frequently pointed out the possible areas of investigation, including the Minister of Labour’s uneven and unfair preferential handout of the Skills Development Funds to PC donors and lobbyists over more qualified applicants. This is what is a break in the system.

The work that the Ombudsman does literally saves lives. I want to commend them on their work on behalf of children, in particular. They have shed light on the practice of Ontario’s child welfare agencies. Housing children in hotels, motels and even offices is not helpful. Actually, we’ve seen significant harm, including those impacting newborns, for those who have metabolic diseases. All of these have shone a light on the injustice and a broken system.

Even with the Ombudsman’s report—a landmark report, I would say now—regarding the Landlord and Tenant Board, Administrative Justice Delayed, Fairness Denied—it has been critical to my own work as the shadow Attorney General in exposing the failures in the LTB, recognizing that both landlords and tenants are stuck in a queue when the justice system doesn’t work.

The Toronto Star highlighted injustices that we see in Maplehurst and the correctional facilities. And because of that, the Ombudsman, at his own discretion, picked up and started to take a look at what was happening in corrections, recognizing that he has seen a 55% increase in complaints. He then called for meaningful and systemic reform to recognize the basic rights of inmates as a moral imperative.

All of this extends, as I reach my conclusion, Speaker—is that although these truths are inconvenient, this House must recognize how important the independent accountability offices are. And it is with that—

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

Ms. Lee Fairclough: It is my pleasure to commemorate Ombudsman Ontario’s 50th anniversary on behalf of the Liberal caucus, marking half a century of protecting Ontario’s rights and promoting fair, accountable public services.

When this office was first created in 1975, the vision was that it would stand for the rights of all Ontarians. The title “Ombudsman” is a Swedish term dating back more than 200 years, and it means “citizens’ representative” and is considered gender neutral.

In March 1975, Ontario became Canada’s seventh province to announce the creation of an independent, impartial Ombudsman institution to protect the people’s right to fair treatment by public bodies. The Ombudsman Act was passed in May that year, and on October 30, 1975, Arthur Maloney was sworn in as the first Ombudsman. And the first woman Ombudsman was Roberta Jamieson, who served from 1989 to 1999.

Since then, they have handled more than a million cases and conducted hundreds of investigations, which have resulted in more than 1,300 recommendations. Several of the Ombudsman recommendations to improve public service have been enforced, which has benefited millions of Ontarians.

Having worked in health care for over 25 years, I witnessed first-hand the role the Ombudsman played in elevating health care, addressing concerns about health care coverage and the Ontario government bodies responsible for health and long-term care. I saw how the office gave a voice to patients, families and front-line workers after they’d exhausted all their local options to raise those issues, ensuring that systemic issues were addressed and individual concerns were addressed with fairness and transparency.

Over the course of its history, seven remarkable individuals have served as Ombudsman, and I would like to specifically thank Paul Dubé, our present Ombudsman since 2016. Thank you for your passion and dedication to promoting justice.

The office’s investigations have led to meaningful and tangible changes, including expanding screening of newborn babies for metabolic diseases; more transparency and accountability in municipal and school board governance; administrative improvements at tribunals, and reforms of Ontario’s correction systems; and broader civilian oversight of police.

From its earliest days in 1975, the Office of the Ombudsman made it clear that its role is to stand for all the people of Ontario as a protector of their rights. In his 1975-76 annual report, the first Ombudsman, Arthur Maloney, used the image of a griffin, a mythical animal that is half eagle and half lion, as his office’s symbol, noting that the griffin had been used by numerous cultures for centuries to signify a protector of human rights. The griffin has long represented the protection of human rights.

In the original logo, the griffin was depicted among trilliums, Ontario’s emblem, representing the province’s diverse population. “And thus” Arthur wrote, “the Ombudsman represents protection for the social rights and cultural integrity of all.”

Thank you to Ombudsman Ontario; to the current Ombudsman, Paul Dubé; to the French commissioner, Carl Bouchard, and to all the members of the team for your work listening to the public every day, and for 50 years of service, fairness and advocacy.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It is an honour to rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the office of Ombudsman Ontario—50 years of vital work to protect the rights of people in this province to fair treatment by the public bodies that serve them.

I want to offer heartfelt thanks to everyone who has worked in the ombuds office, past and present. Thank you for handling more than one million individual cases, conducting hundreds of investigations, and making more than 1,300 recommendations to improve public services for people across this province.

Most importantly, thank you for providing an essential place for people to go to be heard, to have their complaints addressed, their concerns investigated, advice given, and recommendations for actions taken.

To Paul Dubé, who has been the Ombudsman for the past nine years, the entire time I have been an MPP: I apologize if I’ve overworked your team by referring so many people to your office. But I can tell you how important it is to be able to direct your constituents and people across this province to the ombuds office, knowing that their concerns and complaints will be heard and responded to.

I strongly believe that public services play a vital role in improving the lives of people in this province. And when people don’t receive the quality of service they deserve, we as elected officials need to know so that we can demand better and take actions to improve the services that people rely on. That’s why I’m so deeply grateful to the team at the ombuds office for playing such a vital role in helping us to do that.

Applause.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is to the Premier. I want to share a bit of a pattern. When the former labour minister was in charge of the Skills Development Fund, donations to his riding association just skyrocketed. Donations then collapsed when he left that office. And then, almost immediately, the donations shifted over to the riding association of the new minister.

So how does the Premier explain this pattern of political donations rising and falling depending on who controls the Skills Development Fund?

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

Hon. David Piccini: This government has shown a pattern of continual investment in key things that matter to Ontarians. Let’s talk about our infrastructure investments in the fall economic statement. In the budget, we continue to make record investments. We continue to make record investments in hospitals, in schools, in an energy industry that will be self-reliant. We’ve said to the people that we’ll protect workers in doing it. That’s why workers are supporting this government in making these critical investments, because it’s giving them a paycheque and putting them to work along the lines.

Whether it’s construction, whether it’s PSWs, whether it’s nurses who have received support through the Skills Development Fund or supporting, now in hospitals, doctors as well, this fund is supporting with rapid training to meet the needs of our current and growing economy. Now more than ever, we need to continue making these investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier, because there’s a very troubling number of grants that went to donors to the Conservative Party of Ontario. I’m going to give you another example: FGF brands. They were initially unsuccessful in their applications, actually, for SDF grants, and then, suddenly, it’s like they got the message. They hired the Premier’s, the PC Party’s campaign manager’s firm—their application was suddenly approved, and they got over $1 million, Speaker.

What happened next? What happened next is very interesting. There was a surge of donations to the Conservative Party from the founder of that company and his family. So did the Premier or the minister or anyone in their offices give an applicant any reason to believe that making a donation could improve their chances of receiving that government funding?

Hon. David Piccini: One of the priorities of the Skills Development Fund program has been to help break down barriers for women to find gainful employment. Today, we’re joined by Natasha Ferguson from A Women’s Work. She joined me with folks from FGF Brands just last week for an incredible round table where we talked about breaking down barriers. FGF Brands does a remarkable job for women, in particular pregnant women, and we’re proud to support that program.

I would also note that two members of the board also donate to the NDP and the Liberal Party, but that’s not what this is about, Speaker. This is about an organization helping pregnant women, helping break down barriers for an economy that’s been rattled by an all-out assault from President Trump south of the border.

We’ve got to back workers. We’ve got to make sure we have pathways to support rapid training that helps navigate the troubling economic waters as a result of a president intent on destroying some of our key sectors in the Ontario economy.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: It should have been pretty easy, Speaker, right? It should have been pretty easy. The one thing missing from that answer was a no. I mean, you’re not even pretending anymore. You will not deny it.

Just, by the way, think for a moment of all of the women’s organizations that could have benefited from funding that didn’t get it because they didn’t hire a campaign manager.

We are talking about millions of taxpayer dollars flowing to well-connected insiders who have donated to the minister and the Conservative Party of Ontario. That sounds like preferential treatment to me, Speaker. It sounded like preferential treatment to the auditor. And I tell you, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, by God, it’s a duck, right?

Enough is enough. When is this Premier going to fire his minister?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, the member’s not going to talk about the specifics of the fund she referenced because she doesn’t care. She doesn’t care about the women that FGF Brands is actually supporting. She doesn’t care about the pregnant women that this fund is actually supporting. They’ve met their targets, their robust KPIs. In fact, they’ve helped more women—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order. Order.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, a target of 508 women supported: They actually supported 705 women.

We’re going to continue supporting Ontarians with rapid training. We see it when we see President Trump who, on the whim of feelings of things he sees on TV, will then be reactive to our economy. He is completely unstable, launching an all-out assault on our steel sector, launching an assault on our automotive sector. We’ve said to those workers, “We’ll support rapid training that ensures you have the skill sets needed to support a resilient economy.” We’ll keep doing that.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let’s put this in context. In Brampton, Stellantis is packing up and shipping out. They’re taking their Jeep EVs to Illinois, along with 3,000 jobs. Imagine: 3,000 families now living without hope—3,000 workers, 3,000 families. Twelve hundred workers laid off at GM in Ingersoll—their families are losing a stable income.

In Hamilton, I heard from Mike, who was out of work after 31 years in the steel sector at Hamilton wire because they’ve closed their doors after 70 years.

This is a jobs disaster of this government’s making. To the Premier: How much do workers in Brampton and Ingersoll and people like Mike have to fork out to get this government to pay any attention to them?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We are indeed working very closely with both General Motors and Stellantis, along with all of our partners from labour. Both companies have sat with us, with the Premier, and told us that they are indeed exploring new opportunities in both Ingersoll and in Brampton. Speaker, they both understand that their operations in those communities are integral to their entire auto supply.

We fully expect them to live up to the commitment that they have made to the province. All of the contracts that we have with them have very strong guardrails in place to protect the taxpayer.

That’s why we also have our protect Ontario fund. The Minister of Finance has provided $30 billion of firepower to help these Ontario companies. We look forward to your encouragement to those Ontario companies to continue working with us as we fight for those very jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll tell you, Speaker, those very workers said to me, to my face, that they feel like this government is focused on their retraining and not saving those jobs. They told me that to my face last week.

People are worried about their jobs. They’re worried about losing their homes. They’re worried about the state of our health care system, the state of our kids’ education. And this Premier, what is he obsessed with? He is obsessed with campaign donations. That’s what he is obsessed with.

For seven days in a row in this chamber, I have asked this Premier for his jobs plan. It is becoming increasingly clear that the only plan he has is to take advantage of this jobs disaster to let his donors and his friends cash in.

So I want to ask the Premier again: Will the Premier continue to support this Minister of Labour and his pay-to-play schemes?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we’ve all heard in this Legislature many, many times something the NDP just don’t want to acknowledge. Through the changes that we’ve made in Ontario, a million new people have new jobs in Ontario.

In fact, again, another one of the facts they don’t like to hear is that before the Trump tariffs, those three months were a real indicator of the power that’s happening in Ontario: 87,000 new jobs were created in the three months before those tariffs were put into place.

We’ve seen what’s been happening, and that’s why we have $30 billion of firepower—$50 million into the Ontario Together Trade Fund, a program this opposition does not support. All of these programs have not been supported by the NDP.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, every day I get up here and I ask questions to the Premier and somebody else answers them. It’s the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Economic Development. Who is actually running this government? He stands there and they defend hand-picking winners and losers based on making sure that their friends get paid off.

The Premier’s continued support of this labour minister is casting a shadow not only over the entire Skills Development Fund, but over every single MPP in their government. That is the truth: all the government MPPs.

I want to ask, to the Premier: Who is really running this government?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The NDP definitely do not like to hear the news that we have: 20,000 manufacturing jobs were created in Ontario just in July, August, and September. These are facts they don’t want to acknowledge: 8,800 jobs were created in Ontario in September. Speaker, 37,000 jobs were created in the first months of the year—in manufacturing alone—before Donald Trump’s tariffs.

We’ve seen these tariffs come in. Premier Ford has reacted. Our Minister of Finance has put $30 billion—we have programs that we are issuing to companies to help their survival. All of you voted against these programs that we have in place: $40 million in our tariff-impacted community fund and $50 million in the Ontario Together Trade Fund. You voted against all of these supports, every single one of them.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. It’s another day and it’s another story of the rotten onion that the Skills Development Fund is. This morning, it’s FGF Brands, a baker here in Toronto. They received over $1 million from the Ontario taxpayer. Now, they appeared in a video with the Premier. You can find it on his YouTube channel if you’re not doing something later on tonight—you might be watching the game, though. Shortly after they appeared in that video with the Premier, they hired the man behind the curtain, Kory Teneycke, and then, subsequently, the owner and his family donated $32,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party.

So my question to the Premier is, did the Premier tell the founder of FGF Brands to call Kory Teneycke?

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

Hon. David Piccini: No, that’s preposterous, and their past president donated to his party, but it doesn’t matter. Who cares, Speaker? The point is, we’re supporting women in training.

It’s an interesting strategy that that member has, to denigrate hospitality workers. I then got a call, that day, from members of that union who saw his despicable performance, to denigrate labour unions and construction. But it’s not surprising, Speaker, because they abandoned his party. Because he doesn’t support a plan we tabled to build infrastructure, to build hospitals, to build schools that they shut down in rural Ontario. He doesn’t support nuclear, and the men and women who are getting trained, like the millwrights.

I recently attended their graduation, and they all said to me—Indigenous youth in my community—they knew that the Liberals would have shut down Pickering, would have shuttered our nuclear. They knew Darlington was next on the block with that member.

But thankfully, Ontarians voted for a third majority government for this Premier, who’s going to ensure we’re energy sufficient, who will make sure we’re an energy—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Mr. John Fraser: Somebody told Heddle Shipyards to call Kory, too, because his fingerprints are all over it. The CEO, the CFO, the director of business development—just wait—and the VP of operations all donated thousands and thousands to either the former or current Minister of Labour, as well as the PC Party, after hiring—guess who?—Kory Teneycke.

So, Premier, if you’re not telling companies to call Kory, just who in your office is?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’m happy to talk about Heddle Shipyards. The Ministry of Transportation, we have worked with them closely. We’ve also ensured that after years of the previous Liberal government driving out thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs, we are working with them to build a world-class shipbuilding sector right here in the province of Ontario.

That wasn’t happening when 15 years of Liberal government in the past drove out all of these jobs. That’s why we’ve committed to building this industry in Hamilton, building this industry all across the province. That’s exactly what we are going to do, Madam Speaker: work with the individuals at those yards—good-paying jobs that they are trying to keep right here in the province of Ontario, rather than seeing those jobs offshore, whether it be in Asia or Mexico and other places across the world. We’re committed to the shipbuilding sector, no matter what the Liberals say.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, I just want you to know, on behalf of all of us over here, that we’ve crossed the Rubicon when it comes to skills development and we’re not going back. We’re not going back.

Everyone knows who’s running this government. We all know who’s running this government. It’s the man behind the curtain: the Premier’s shadow Premier, Kory Teneycke. Ministers across from me know exactly what I’m talking about, no one more so than the Minister of Finance. Nothing gets done without Kory’s approval. We know that. His fingerprints are all over everything this government does, all over the budget.

So can the Premier confirm that the Skills Development Fund—that sleazy slush fund—is Kory Teneycke’s idea?

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

Hon. David Piccini: You know, Speaker, literally the only thing the Liberals are good at are these little rhymes that he comes up with and things like that. Because when it comes to taking an actual plan to the people, a plan that’s enshrined in our budget—a budget that invests in core infrastructure, a budget that invests in shipbuilding, a budget that invests in energy, a budget that invests in hospitals, a budget that puts together a package of things that can actually let Ontario stand on its own two feet in today’s economy—more so now than ever do we need a Premier with a plan to protect Ontario, a plan to protect our workers.

Ontarians trust the Conservative government when it comes to navigating tough economic times. They can laugh all they want. That’s why you’re on the rump in the third party and continue to lose election after election.

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

Hon. David Piccini: Because when they were given an opportunity to support these measures, they voted against it. They voted against the workers we’re training. They want to put those workers out of work when they shutter our energy sector, Speaker.

We’ve got a plan. We’re going to keep those workers working and we’ll be more self-reliant as a result.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: Back to the Premier: I know the Premier’s had an opportunity to think whether or not that $75-million ad was really a good idea. I know he said it was the greatest ad ever in North America—which has a familiar ring to it, but I’m not going to go there right now. Then he said he’s got hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising—free advertising. But what the Premier doesn’t understand is, Ontarians will pay for it. Ontarians are going to pay with their jobs for his bad choice.

Does the Premier still really believe that this ad was in any way a good idea?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, here we go. You know, 11 billion views, getting a message out, fighting for Ontarians, fighting for Ontario jobs: Why is that so difficult for the opposition and the independent party to understand, that fighting for Ontario is the noble thing to do?

Do you know what the Premier did this morning with Minister Rickford? They are nation building. They are working with Webequie First Nation, a First Nation working together with the provincial government, municipal government and federal government to open up the Ring of Fire and bring prosperity to the north. That party didn’t do any of that while they had the time to do it.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Here’s the result: Talks ended; tariffs applied. It cost people jobs. That’s all I’ve got to say. It’s clear.

I know the ad appeals to the Premier’s desire to be a big player in the United States. That’s why he’s all over Fox News and ABC. He just loves it. You can see it. I’m sure his friends in Florida are going, “Hey, look, there’s Doug.” I know it appeals to his desire to be Captain Canada and, one day, Prime Minister, right?

Good advertising captures attention. Great strategy anticipates consequences. We know these ads were done by an agency called Creative Currency. They do a lot of advertising with the government, and actually with the PC Party, too.

Speaker, through you, just what is the connection between the Premier and his office to Creative Currency?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, Canada and the US, as you’ve heard from Premier Ford, are friends. They’re neighbours and they’re allies. He has always said we’re so much stronger when we work together.

Let’s listen to a couple of people across the country who agree with him. Wab Kinew, leader of the Manitoba party: “It’s clear that these ads are working. If you throw a rock at a lake and you don’t hear a splash, you’ve probably missed. So, to my good friend Doug Ford—keep the ads on TV. They’re effective, and this country is behind you.”

Lana Payne from Unifor: “Premier Ford, whose province has been hit hard by the trade war, understands that we can’t negotiate from our knees. We need to fight back. We can’t remain silent.... That is exactly the outcome Trump is counting on.” Thank you, Lana Payne.

We will never back down. We’ll always support our industries and our jobs that are under threat.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): A reminder that we refer to members in the Legislature by titles, not by names, and through the Speaker.

Back to the leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: I guess the question really should be: What are the connections between Creative Currency and Kory Teneycke, our shadow Premier?

Ontarians are already paying for this colossal mistake. They’re going to pay for it with their jobs. That’s a lot.

But you know what? These agencies often take a commission or something for placing the ads, so they get a bit of money for the whole spend of the ad, not just the creative.

I guess my question is—well, I’d like to know what the commission is, but they’re probably standard; it’s usually a lot of money. And this $75 million for two ads—I’m just kind of wondering: Where’s all the money going?

I think it’s a really fair question. If some Ontarians are going to pay with their jobs, they should at least see some of that $75 million back. So my question to the Premier is, how are they going to get the $75 million back?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we were elected to stand up for every business and every job in Ontario, and that’s why we are fighting this once-in-a-generation threat from south of the border. This ad campaign is not a $75-million campaign; it’s a fraction of that. But thanks to the great work, it has achieved over 11 billion eyeballs. That’s billion with a B.

That’s why people like Marty Warren, head of the United Steelworkers in Canada, said, “‘I support Doug Ford’s ads. Canadians have had enough with the Trump circus. The (new) 10% tariff’”—if it happens—“‘on Canadian imports just exposes Trump’s glass chin,’ said USW’s Marty Warren.

“‘If our political leaders can stick together for all Canadians, be patient, we have the ability to land this trade war in a good place’” thanks to the ads placed by Premier Doug Ford.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: Merci. Ma question pour la ministre de la Santé. Does the Minister of Health want to know what all the good people in the visitors’ gallery have in common? Well, let me tell you: They have all been charged for OHIP-funded services by a private, for-profit clinic, something that is illegal under the Canada Health Act. In June, 50 of the good people in here sent a package to the minister asking her to investigate the illegal billing. Why did the minister never reach out to any of those good people, never respond and never investigate?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As the member opposite knows and I hope individuals in the gallery know, we have a process to ensure, through the Patient Ombudsman, that investigations happen separate and apart from political interference. I would en