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

October 30, 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-30 vol. A (PDF)

L031A - Thu 30 Oct 2025 / Jeu 30 oct 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 30 October 2025 Jeudi 30 octobre 2025

Orders of the Day

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

Members’ Statements

Events in Mississauga East–Cooksville

Great Canadian Treasure Hunt

Tenant protection

Jamie Bramburger

Health care

Veterans

Joanne Gervais

Events in Mississauga–Lakeshore

Ferrero Canada

Introduction of Visitors

Order of business

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Nurses

Government accountability

Children’s health services

Forestry industry / Industrie forestière

Government accountability

Heritage conservation / Housing

Infrastructure funding

Sports and recreation funding

Transportation infrastructure

Correction of record

Business of the House

Deferred Votes

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

Veterans

Business of the House

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Five Senses Productions Inc. Act, 2025

Petitions

Education funding

University funding

International trade

Health care

Student nutrition programs

Interprovincial trade

Child and family services

Forestry industry

Government accountability

Interprovincial trade

Forestry industry

Ferry service

Pharmacare

Health care

Child care

Caregivers

Housing

Endangered species

Education funding

Land use planning

Education funding

Orders of the Day

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

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers / Prières.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Lecce moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40,

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

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It is an honour to be with you all today as we really profile good work that is happening in the province to secure our economic future.

I want to mention, first off, that I will be sharing my time with the hard-working Associate Minister of Energy-Intensive Industries, the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore, and the member from Scarborough Centre—the energy-and-mines dream team. We have a plan to secure energy for the future.

Madam Speaker, I think it is well socialized in this Legislature that we need to generate 75% more power. It is akin to adding four and a half cities of Toronto to the grid. I think the question for public policy leaders in the country is: How do we ensure baseload power? How do we manage the grid to ensure it is sustainable, it is reliable and, perhaps most importantly, that energy remains affordable?

I often commence these debates with a moment of reflection on where we came from. Members in this House will remember, just a decade ago, the perilous, ineffectual, dangerous, ideological energy approach of the former Liberal government. It was dangerous because it was driven based on an obsessive, ideological focus that led to prices increasing on everyday families. There is no virtue in driving middle class-families into energy poverty. That was the consequence of the former Liberal approach.

It wasn’t just that they made bad decisions that led to a 20-year-long intergenerational liability that we still pay today; it’s that they had the lack of foresight to think about the future. I want to believe that we are in this Legislature because we’re here for the next generation—for some of you, for your children; your grandchildren. That is, I think, our collective why.

And yet, when the choices and the cards are on the table, it was the former Liberals who opted to commence the process of decommissioning the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station—2,000 essential megawatts we cannot live without; one of the best continuous Candu nuclear reactors on Earth; over $11 billion of GDP gain; a massive infusion to the Canadian supply. And yet, in their judgment, it was driven by increasing cost, decreasing reliability. It is literally how not to do responsible energy policy.

I understand how important it is that we think about the future, and I’m proud that we have unveiled a plan to deliver some sense of certainty to the market, affordability to the families we serve, and send a signal to the world when we are trying to compete for investment that we are open for business.

I believe this bill, securing energy for generations, lays the foundation for that success. It accompanies—it, frankly, complements—Ontario’s integrated energy plan. This is a 25-year road map. This is unlike what governments and politicians of the past have done—because what the former Liberals did and perhaps what all governments historically do is they focus too much on the short-term electoral gains, two, three, four years out, instead of the long-term interests of families. And that short-sightedness may have led to better electoral outcomes for the Liberals, but every Ontario ratepayer paid the price.

There is a real case study to be made, that if we can think about 25-year horizons, we can deliver more affordable energy, we can provide more integrated planning and we can have a long-term approach that de-risks investments and maximizes the benefit for the ratepayer and for the economy of Canada.

I don’t want to focus too, too much on the past; I want us to think about the future. But it is important that we recognize where we’re coming from in order to secure a strong, prosperous, united Canada.

And part of our driving force of our economic prosperity is to secure power—a realization that we’re up against a common threat. We face a President in the United States who has made it his intended policy to destroy key sectors of Canada and Ontario’s economy—particularly auto, amongst others. It is an existential threat to the economy of Canada. We are overleveraged, overdependent on one economy.

It’s why I appreciate so much that our Premier, the Minister of Economic Development, and others have been working to diversify trade away from the US.

While we face this common threat of indiscriminate, illegal tariffs imposed by the US, it actually makes the case to every member of provincial Parliament today that we can control our own destiny by setting the foundations, putting into place a plan that delivers a strong industrial policy, that creates jobs, that delivers affordable power, and that gives hope to the next generation of young people who are with us today, watching from afar, who want to have that fire in the belly of generations of the past—and if you work hard, you could achieve.

I will tell you, I recognize the darkness in the economy globally. I recognize the difficulty on the horizon. I am aware of the challenges Canadians, manufacturers, businesses, everyday families are facing. But there is light on the horizon for this province and country. It is anchored in a strong, comprehensive energy play that puts people to work.

And this legislation, Bill 40, I believe, helps to codify that vision of energy for growth, but it also provides the guardrails to protect our system, to ensure the national interest prevails when we connect large loads to the grid.

Perhaps one of the most compelling elements of this bill is, how do we deal with the rise of data centres in the province? We’re estimating the equivalent of two or three Pickering nuclear generating facilities of demand, just based on data centres that are before the IESO, the Independent Electricity System Operator. We’re talking about 6,000 megawatts, potentially—power for six million homes, three nuclear reactors at Pickering.

Right now, the Electricity Act, as it is written, has a non-discrimination clause, meaning anyone, any business, any foreigner—foreign business—has the right to connect. And I think it begs the question as legislators: Do we believe anyone with any cause, and regardless of the national interest benefit, regardless of the jobs, regardless of if the data is sovereign to the country—that they have the right to connect? Megawatts, energy—that is perhaps the most important currency governments have today, not just in soft power leverage of the US; it is the driver of growth, or it is going to constrain growth.

So we believe a sensible, reasonable, common-sense provision is, “No, it is not your God-given right ”—to an American company or a Chinese company—to connect to the grid. We may say yes if it is in our interest, but we have to ensure that there are some clear criteria set out, which is why this legislation gives government the capacity to set out criteria that’s in the national interest.

Do we store the data in this province? Do we have any controls on the privacy of information? Do we ensure that those companies put skin in the game so that they produce power for their own needs? I do not want a system, and we do not, as a government, where, and I say this colloquially, Grandma—if we could use her as the face of the ratepayer. Grandma shouldn’t be subsidizing large multinational businesses.

That’s the thesis of the discussion today—that we need business and industry to play a critical role in delivering power for their own purposes. We need government to have some adjudication function to say yes or no when it’s in our interest. And we need a mechanism, a criterion, that we can use, going forward, when these many companies and many industries and many data centres want to connect to the grid.

We, of course, welcome the investment in the province. We welcome the confidence in Ontario when it comes to data centres. They see it—we’ve got the right weather; we’ve got abundant power; we’ve got clean power, which many of them insist upon. And we have, obviously, an amazing, skilled workforce, some of the best STEM graduates on earth—70,000 every year graduate from our post-secondary sector. So we’ve got a lot of the raw materials, the fundamentals. I can see why they want to come here, but we need to protect our interest.

So we put forth a provision, a critical element of this bill that safeguards our interests, our megawatts, our power for the benefit of our economy. We’re going to have to make choices, as governments and as Legislatures. There will be a moment where we’re going to get an offer: Do we want to dedicate 500 megawatts of power or 600, for the purpose of an illustration? That is two small modular reactors of power for one data centre. That data centre may create 75 jobs—good jobs, no less, but not the quantum, I think, for 600 megawatts of power.

And then Minister Fedeli comes to us and says, “We have a manufacturer. They want to move to Oshawa.” And I’ll tell you, Speaker—I think I got your attention here—that investment could represent hundreds of jobs—

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: Thousands.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We’ll go with “hundreds,”—to the associate minister—but it could be a large amount, the same amount of megawatts, but much higher GDP gain, jobs etc.

In a world of choices, we’re choosing the maximum investment value for the province—again, common sense. This is the triumph of safeguards for the province. That’s simply what this bill does. It protects us from the risks of the unknown, given the massive demand that is rising and the interest from the data centre space.

I also want to talk about the interests of Canada. I want to believe all of us care about this country; I know we do. I know we’re proud of our country. And I will tell you, the supply chain that underpins the energy buildout is strong. It is robust when it comes to Canadian business, but I think we can do more. I really believe we all agree with this principle: We can do more. We can increase the buying power, the purchasing power, of Canadian products, Canadian energy components, using the benefits of Canadian workers. I appreciate that may not be applied everywhere.

We talk about wind and solar overwhelmingly dominated by and manufactured by China. We speak within the reason of what is possible.

In this plan, for the first time in the history of Ontario, we are giving preference to Canadian businesses, Canadian workers, Canadian ingenuity to win the day. I believe that is a sensible, patriotic investment in our country, at a time when we’re under attack.

We often hear public servants say, “We’ve got to buy Canadian.” We agree. In order to deliver on this vision or this aspiration is to pass this bill—it is the enabler. In the absence of this legislation, no utility could buy Canadian if, through procurement, there is an alternative product from the US or China or elsewhere. Right now, they’re using competitive procurement. The lowest cost prevails, assuming quality is comparable.

What we are saying to utilities is—we’re seeing this not just as an electricity play or an energy play; this is an industrial policy play of the province and country.

So we have passed a bill giving authority, encouraging utilities to buy more of what’s made here at home, and I think that is sensible. We give them the capacity to create what’s called a variance account so that they can buy Canadian—even if in this moment of time it is incrementally higher than the Chinese alternative, we’re saying, “Stand up for Canada’s workers.”

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Right on.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I believe that matters, and the member from Essex shares this passion—alone, apparently, but he shares this passion. Where was everyone else on this one, folks?

Interjections.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Okay.

Madam Speaker, we are determined, as a government, to step it up in this respect.

I think we’ve heard from the supply chain in Canada, saying, “We do a lot of business in the country, but we can do more,” and that good-to-great principle is what is at the heart of the bill. We can do better when it comes to buying Canadian.

I want to tell you all, as a case study, Hydro One, a private company—we, of course, own a massive stake in it—a minority stake. But Hydro One as a case study—93% of their investment, their buy, of the $2.9 billion they expend, stays in this province and country. And 80% to 90% of every nuclear refurbishment we have undertaken at a Candu reactor in this province, of which there are 18 of the 19 in the country right here in Ontario—80% to 90% on average, and no less than that, is using the Ontario supply chain, to be specific—not even the Canadian; the Ontario.

So for Darlington or Pickering, as we consider the extension of that asset—or, of course, at Bruce—we’re talking about 80% to 90%. That is a fabulous stat. That’s amazing. We are using the local indigenous supply chain of this country to build our country strong. We do not need to depend on anyone else.

The uranium in those mines is coming from Saskatchewan. Of course, the alternative would be Russian uranium. I’m proud of what we mine in this country. I’m proud that we process that uranium in Cameco in Port Hope for the benefit of Canada’s clean energy economy—non-emitting nuclear power. It’s displacing 80 million tonnes of GHGs every single year. That is literally like removing 15 million cars from the road. If you believe in decarbonization, there is no road to a cleaner future than through nuclear power. And 80% plus of the supply chain is using the Canadian and Ontarian businesses.

I want people to know how proud we are that, from OPG to Bruce Power to the entire supply chain, they are buying Canadian.

For the associate minister, for the parliamentary assistants, for the Premier, for all of us—we want to play a challenge function, because in this moment, even the increment of 2% or 5% or 6%—moving the yardstick up of more procurement in the country is in the interest of Canada.

I want to talk about supply chains because, when some legislators will romanticize procurement of, for example—and I want to be clear, we have no opposition to any resource; we are agnostic, truly. But when some speak about romanticizing, if profiling, for example, wind or solar—no aversion. This government that launched the largest public procurement of renewables will do well because, unlike the former Liberals, who procured energy 10 times above market without storage, we are building the largest solar storage fleet in the country, the third-largest on the continent—3,000 megawatts of storage. So, yes, we could harness renewable power for good, but they didn’t do that.

My point, going back to the case study on supply chains: When we talk about, “Why build nuclear when you could build a wind farm or a solar farm?”—we could have that debate. I would welcome that debate. But let’s not forget—in a world where geopolitics matters, where supply chains, the origin of products matter, where we are expected as legislators to be a little bit more sophisticated when we articulate positions without understanding the unintended consequences—80% of the windmill manufacturing happens in China; 90% of solar, China.

And this is specific to a realization that if you care about the environment and human rights and you care about fundamental Canadian values—how can anyone profile that supply chain, from the greatest geopolitical risk to the country, a nation that is violating fundamental human rights every day? They build a coal plant a week.

So I want us to be mindful of, when we profile procurement from autocratic regimes like China or Russia or anyone else, we really are supporting, maybe unintentionally—we’ve got to wake up, to recognize that the unintended consequence of that public policy declaration is financing those very nations.

It is possible and it is true that we can domesticate more in this province. I’m proud that we’re working with the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to bring manufacturing investment into the province so that we can build more in this province, or even in the continent.

I know of one at-scale battery company—it’s one Quebec-based company that does batteries, and we use them; we do procurement. It’s competitively procured, but we use that company. We have used that company. There’s one—one. It’s deeply troubling. But the battery supply chain is overwhelmingly monopolized by the Chinese regime.

Yesterday, just to connect the dots between energy and mines—because of course, minerals is what underpins the clean energy build-out we have in this province—this government announced the use of “one project, one process,” the first designation of this authority, to Frontier Lithium’s PAK project. This is so consequential. It is the first mine with a refinery, with downstream manufacturing conversion. It is the first of its kind at this scale in the country. It is the highest-quality lithium on the continent. That was a historic step forward for the self-reliance of Canada.

As you will know, overwhelmingly, processing of lithium is dominant in China. Australia plays a big role too, but China is just the overwhelming hegemon in so much of the critical mineral rare-earth processing. And I believe, we believe, this Premier believes we can do it here at home.

So we announced “one project, one process,” a designation that gave authority to build this mine—50% reduction—in addition to building the processing of the refinery near Thunder Bay. They’re estimating 1,000 permanent jobs, 2,000 construction jobs, $11 billion of economic value to the country. This is a job strategy for Canada. And it all intersects back to the purpose of Bill 40: Buy Canadian, back Canadian workers, stand up for our country when we’re under attack, set the conditions, send the signals that we’re going to do whatever it takes to back Canadian workers and families. So we brought forth provisions that, I believe, really lay the foundations for success.

Part of this bill, also, is the recognition that, as we buy Canadian, we’ve got to think about long-term needs to meet demand. I’m very confident that the plan we put in place, this 25-year road map, helps us secure the power we need—an integrated, long-term approach to thinking; a challenge function to government to end the silos that exist among us, to break them down and to have a more integrated approach to energy planning.

So this plan—the IEP, the integrated energy plan of Ontario—accompanying this legislation, I believe will be the catalyst for growth. It will supercharge the economy. It will say that we are unambiguously and unapologetically supporting Canadian business, supply chain and workers. That’s the message Canadians need to hear today, on the backdrop of challenges in the economy.

Madam Speaker, one of the big successes I believe we’ve had to date is that when we do these large-scale projects, we have, so far, been able to deliver them on time and on budget. And I want to speak about the rare competitive advantage that we have in Ontario.

I will tell you, when you speak to colleagues in France, in the United Kingdom, in the US, or in many parts of the world, they are not building large-scale energy, particularly nuclear, on time or on budget; in fact, the opposite is true—sometimes we’re talking about a decade overdue.

This is our strength. Ontario’s nuclear advantage is our strength. It is homegrown technology, using homegrown uranium, and using Canadian workers to lead the way.

I am proud that we have taken the position, vigorously, that nuclear power, hydroelectric power, baseload power, fundamentally reliable power is the way by which we grow our economy and safeguard jobs for the next generation.

I’m here to make the case that Bill 40 is a common-sense piece of legislation. It sets the foundation for protecting the grid, to maximize economic value and to keep energy as affordable as possible, given the offensive energy rates that we inherited under the former Liberal government. It really should send a signal to the market and to the population that we are open for business, we are pro-enterprise, we support investment, but we’re always going to protect the interests of Canada and the ratepayers and taxpayers who foot the bill. That is, at its core, good public policy.

There is a reason why so many stakeholders have come out to endorse this plan.

The Electricity Distributors Association of Ontario have come out saying it is essential to drive electricity demand.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce have said that they welcome embedding economic growth into the mandate. I’ll speak more about this in a moment, as I conclude.

The president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said that this bill is important—principal—to protect and grow our grid with domestic materials, technology and labour.

The mayor of Waterloo, the president of the Ontario Centre of Innovation, the CEO of the Kitchener Waterloo chamber of commerce, the CEO of the Ontario Energy Association, the CEO of Communitech, the Economic Developers Council of Ontario, the University of Waterloo’s president, the regional chair of Waterloo, the executive director of Medical Innovation Xchange—the list goes on.

This is so obviously in the interest of Ontario, and it begs the question for legislators: Will you join this government in supporting this bill and help to move it forward so we can get on with buying Canadian in the supply chain at the quantum I think we all expect?

Here’s my final point. This bill, for the first time, imposes or adds to the Ontario Energy Board Act and the Ontario Electricity System Operator Act, the statutes that govern the IESO and OEB—for the first time, they will add economic development as a mandate of those agencies. I think this is very important to conclude with, because I think it should inspire members who may be watching.

The intended objective of our electricity system operators and regulators is not just the safeguarding of energy and pricing; it is to enable, to drive economic growth, because we recognize, fundamentally, that energy policy and security is economic policy and industrial policy. They are one now. They perhaps used to be bifurcated in the past; they could coexist and support each other. Now it is really one. These determinations are made on the basis of supporting growth and jobs.

And I believe the addition of economic growth, explicitly in the mandate of the IESO and the OEB, is a powerful tool to say to investors, to businesses, to manufacturers that are looking to connect and invest in this province, that they will be treated with speed and support. They will be given every incentive to invest these capital dollars that, of course, flow to the path of least resistance. We have got to give investors a reason to put their money in this province.

Lower energy rates; certainty in the market; a plan to generate over 15,000 net new megawatts of clean nuclear power; a plan to build transmission, the largest generational investment in my lifetime, with 1,500 kilometres approved just in the IEP—this is how we are setting the foundations for growth and for success. I wanted to conclude with this because it may seem like the least compelling point of this bill; I would submit that it is the most powerful intervention we can put on the table today.

Ensure the energy agencies that oversee and have oversight over our build-out—that they are explicitly mandated with the requirements to approve or analyze through the lens of attracting investment and building this economy. That is sensible. That is prudent. Frankly, that is a responsible way that we can attract investment to the province.

For that reason, I believe this bill deserves the support of all members across the aisle and across the way. Canadians are depending on us. Notwithstanding the difficulty or the debates we will have, the disagreements we will have on certain policies—on this issue of protecting Canada’s grid, protecting the sovereignty of our data, standing up for the Canadian supply chain—demanding investment in the communities we represent is a good thing for the province. It is a good thing for Canada.

And on that basis, I urge all members to do the right thing: to vote for this bill and to help us work together on a Team Canada approach to standing up for the very workers who are insisting that Canada, that flag, that made-in-Canada symbol is stamped on the products we procure every day.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Legislature. I do look forward to the debate and the discussion and the support of all members.

I want to thank the parliamentary assistants and the associate minister, who played a critical role in the development of this legislation and will continue to play a role in the consultations as we build out the regulation. This is a team effort, and it’s an honour to serve.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the Associate Minister of Energy-Intensive Industries.

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the good people of Niagara West for the opportunity to rise in the House this morning. I look forward to participating in debate on this legislation.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Energy and Mines in what he has laid out this morning, as well as the work that has gone into this legislation, Bill 40, the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act. I also want to recognize the parliamentary assistants, PA Smith and PA Cuzzetto, for their incredible leadership as they participate in debate this morning as well.

It really is a team approach, and one that exemplifies the Premier’s leadership, as well, to ensure that folks are going out across the province, hearing ideas from stakeholders, from communities, from workers, from businesses, and bringing those ideas and incorporating them into legislation that is reflective of the needs of the province and responding to those needs. I’m thankful for the opportunity to help participate in that.

Speaker, protecting Ontario by securing affordable power for generations, energy for generations—and that "generations" piece is something I want to spend a couple of moments on as we get into the nitty-gritty of this legislation and why it’s such an important bill before the House this morning and why we’re debating it.

I want to tell a little story. A couple of weeks ago, Speaker, I had the privilege of going to Sudbury. Sudbury is a remarkable part of our province’s legacy. It is a place with rich history. It is a place that has a long legacy of mining excellence. It is a place of critical mineral processing but also of traditional mining processing.

As I went to Sudbury and we drove up through the Canadian Shield and the rocks got bigger and the trees got a little bit shorter, it was a privilege to think about the history of those who have journeyed across this province for opportunity, who journeyed across this province for financial improvement but ultimately also for improvement in their family situation, improvement in their economic situation, building a better province, building a stronger future.

When I arrived in Sudbury, we had the privilege of first sitting down with Chief Larry Roque from the local First Nation, and we spoke about economic opportunity that is going to be enabled in the north as a result of the legislation that has been brought before this House around ensuring access to financing for Indigenous participation and equity ownership in new projects that are coming forward, whether it’s transmission lines or participation in the LT2 procurement project.

Chief Larry Roque spoke very highly about the opportunities that are coming forward, and about the willingness and the eagerness for participation with Indigenous communities that is exemplified in Minister Lecce’s leadership and also our government’s approach to participating in conversations with First Nations. And we spoke about the mining claims that come into northern Ontario and what needs to happen as those mining claims are received.

The next day, when I had the privilege of visiting Glencore and Vale, we spoke about the history of that place.

One of the things that is so remarkable about Sudbury is the generational aspect to the industries that exist there. We’re talking about a piece of legislation that builds out secure, affordable energy for generations. And you can see the transition in energy usage that has happened, specifically, in a place like Sudbury.

I want to walk a little bit through that with you this morning, just to lay out why it’s so important to secure affordable energy for generations.

When we look at the past, it’s no predictor of what the future will bring, but it is, of course, a really important lesson to us all, to learn from the mistakes of the past and to improve, going forward.

One of the places I had the privilege of visiting just briefly—I’ve been to Sudbury before, but I hadn’t checked it out before. We had a little bit of time, and I went, of course, to the Sudbury nickel—the Big Nickel. We all know it. We all love it. And I hope that if you haven’t had a chance to visit it, you do.

One of the things that struck me when we were looking at some of the photos of the history of nickel processing in Sudbury—because Sudbury has actually been called the largest mining camp in the world. It’s essentially a town that was based around this one industry—around mining and nickel, specifically. I know that the member for Sudbury would be able to speak about that more. One of the things that struck me that I hadn’t been aware of was that some of the earliest processing, over a century ago, in Sudbury was open-pit mines and open-pit processing. What is that?

Well, essentially, they would take the slag that they would get from the nickel pits and they would spread it on the ground, in a big pit. They would cover it up with both large amounts of logs below the slag and then on top of it as well—the ore; my apologies. The slag is the by-product; I was referring to it incorrectly. That ore would then be burnt until they could extract the nickel that would settle, and the rest of it would, in fact, be disseminated into the air. We would see all of that air pollution go across not just Sudbury but the surrounding areas.

That open-pit mine—there were photos there of those open-pit burns that they would do, where all of the by-product, all of the toxins that were being burnt would simply go into the air and would then, of course, end up in the local atmosphere. That impacted the local environment to the extent that in some ways it looked like a moonscape. It was described as the Sudbury moonscape.

They actually, I was told, sent folks who were training to go to the moon, back in the 1960s, to practise in the area around Sudbury because the landscape was so impacted by that acidity, so impacted by the toxins and by the burns that had happened there that the trees had pretty much disappeared. It was like you were on another planet—all the exposed, barren Canadian Shield. They’ve done an incredible job to reclaim that. Sudbury is a beautiful city, and I want to acknowledge that. But it is a part of their history.

Over a hundred years ago, energy was, essentially, throwing nickel onto a pile, burning it, smoke going everywhere, inhalation. You can imagine the impact that had on human health as well. So that’s what energy looked like in Sudbury 110 years ago.

When I visited Glencore and Vale, some of the largest employers in that area and also some of the largest mining companies in the world, who have a rich legacy in that area—both of them operating for over a century in the Sudbury area—they talked about the evolution of energy use. One of the amazing things that I wasn’t aware of, previous to visiting, was that Vale actually has some 16 energy generation stations that they have throughout the basin, heading towards Sudbury.

They actually have water rights that—they’ve worked in collaboration with folks in the area to ensure that they’re building out hydroelectric dams. They have about 16 hydroelectric dams carrying a massive amount of water—that they also then serve as the managers of the flood plain and that whole area. They’re able to ensure that the water isn’t flooding into different areas. They’re able to generate some 200 megawatts of clean electricity.

So now you go from open-pit burning of fuels, where everything is just going out into the air, to processing that’s using hydroelectric water dams that they built out over time—and that was especially in the 1920s and 1930s and into the 1940s and 1950s as well, that they built out these hydroelectric dams.

As they continued to grow, they needed more power. So they eventually connected to the provincial grid, and now they also purchase large amounts of power from the provincial grid. They have transmission capacity, obviously, to that part of the province. So they now have a mix of their own generation—behind-the-wire or behind-the-meter generation that they have secured—private hydroelectric facilities, as well as purchasing clean, reliable, affordable power from the provincial grid.

Speaker, one of the amazing things in their legacy is that they are committed to continuous improvement. They’re committed to continually improving their environmental records. They’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cleaning the air and the by-products of their waste.

I had a chance to go through, of course, the same site that many of you may have seen—the historic Sudbury stack that’s now coming down. It was built in the 1970s, and, of course, back then, there was a different approach to air pollution than there is today. Thankfully, today there is a really serious approach to air pollution.

Now, through the use of acid, they’re able to collect all of the by-products that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere. They’re able to collect that—very, very low environmental impact.

They’re continually improving. More and more, they’re electrifying. They’re looking at removing some of the inputs that would be more carbon-intensive; they’re reducing their carbon impact. But what is necessary to ensure that they’re able to do that, to stay competitive with a global industry that—that that is not just unique to North America, but competing with nickel imports from Indonesia? They’re competing with nickel imports from countries where their human rights records, their environmental records, their labour records are very, very different than Canada’s and Ontario’s.

What matters in that kind of a global marketplace is input costs. Well, of course, we want to ensure that we are competitive and that we are able to keep costs low enough so that these companies are able to invest, retain and support, again, the tens of thousands of workers in a town like Sudbury, but also the tens of thousands of people who are involved in the indirect supply chains for those sites—for the smelters, for the mills, for the mines—and then, ultimately, also the by-products that come out of those sites and are processed here in the south as well.

And one of the key components for that is affordable energy—it’s having clean energy; it’s having reliable energy; it’s ensuring that the energy that we produce here in this province is there for a sustainable amount of time, that it’s there and that it’s, in fact, energy not just for past generations, but for future generations as well.

That’s what this legislation is about—securing affordable, reliable energy for future generations. It’s a generational approach to energy. And that matters, because for so long we had in this province an approach that was siloed, that was fragmented, that said, “Do you know what? We’re going to plan on a four-year cycle. We have an election coming up”—in the case when the Liberals were there, “We have an election coming up, and we are going to make our energy decisions quickly. We’re going to make those energy decisions based off of partisan self-interest.” I’m sure we’ve all heard of the gas plant scandal.

There’s a reason it was a scandal. They were willing to spend billions of ratepayer dollars, for the sake of potentially saving a seat or two on the Liberal front benches in those days. We have a different approach.

Minister Lecce has laid out a vision of a 25-year integrated energy plan that says this is about energy not just for the next two, three, four years—not just about our electoral cycle. We know that we are simply guardians of these chairs. One day, I will give up the seat for Niagara West and, Lord willing, the next person who comes in will also view this chair with the respect that it deserves, because it’s about—not the position, but the people we have the privilege of serving.

In the integrated energy plan, we lay out a vision, a North Star, a guiding principle for 25 years. And over those 25 years, we take an approach that says that we know we’re going to need a massive amount of new electricity. We know we’re going to have an estimated 75% increase in our electricity usage in the province of Ontario over the next 25 years. If we play the short game, if we plan for a two-, three-, four-year cycle, those are going to be short-sighted decisions that ultimately cost ratepayers, that ultimately cost families.

And when we’re talking about families and industry and ratepayers, what we’re really talking about is the social and moral impacts of those decisions as well, because that impacts the decisions people make.

When people moved to Sudbury to participate in the mining opportunities that existed there, because there wasn’t low-carbon, affordable, reliable, secure energy at that time, 100 years ago in Sudbury, they had impacts. They had impacts on their health. There were impacts in the local community as a result of those open-pit burns.

And as governments made substantial investments in hydroelectric plants, in nuclear plants, in more and more secure and affordable forms of energy, those social impacts were released, those environmental impacts and health impacts were released, and families were able to thrive and to grow and to be able to do so in a way that ensured they were going to have a great quality of life. That’s, ultimately, what this legislation seeks as well.

Speaker, I can’t emphasize enough how important this legislation is for our province’s future. With the need for energy increasing exponentially and our economy and population growing, it’s important that we act today, as an imperative, to ensure our continued prosperity and growth.

The integrated Energy for Generations plan integrates planning for all the resources available to us—including electricity, natural gas, hydrogen, biofuels and emerging technologies—which provides a comprehensive strategy for meeting the province’s projected increase in demand over the next 25 years.

What does this look like? It aligns the electricity sector with our priorities of economic growth and having a secure energy system, while also supporting the development of critical infrastructure, including transmission lines, battery storage and nuclear expansion.

Together, the integrated energy plan and Bill 40 represent a unified, forward-looking approach that supports energy affordability, job creation, investment in our economy and industrial competitiveness. These are not things that we can take for granted. We can’t forget how important it is that we take these immediate steps to protect our sovereignty and reduce our reliance on imports, which is integral to both this legislation and to our integrated energy plan.

Last night, I was in Ottawa—I flew in yesterday afternoon and flew back last night—because I was meeting and speaking with the National Electricity Roundtable. It was hundreds of industry leaders in the electricity system, from across Canada. We spoke about a number of the challenges but also the opportunities that exist here in Canada and a couple of key themes that were coming up. They’re there for a couple of days. I had to, of course, get back here for the speech this morning and also for question period.

We asked them, “What are the themes? What are people talking about?” These were representatives from everywhere from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland. I spoke with folks from Fortis, from BC Hydro, and everyone in between. They said one of the key themes that has come up is the recognition that the province of Ontario, by bringing forward an integrated energy plan that provides certainty to the private sector about where you’re going over the next 25 years, is unlocking capital investment in a way that other provinces are truly envious of, because—let’s not kid ourselves—we’re not the only ones in this space.

Arguably, the demands on our grid are going to be a bit greater because of industrialization that we have here in the province, because of population growth that does outstrip many of the other provinces. But other provinces are having growth, as well. We know electrification is coming to these other provinces. We know that they’re also having the impacts of data centres and AI, for example. They said that when they’re looking at their provincial plans, they don’t see that level of integration.

They said that as a result of the failure to integrate in some of those provinces, the investors are coming to places like Ontario and saying, “Where can we allocate capital? Where can we invest billions of dollars into transmission, billions of dollars into generation, billions of dollars into the local system? Because we know that there’s certainty.”

When you have certainty, when you have a clear vision for decades to come, the private sector steps forward and says, “We’re going to work now that the government of the day has laid out this vision and it’s broadly supported.”

I think it’s fair to say, at least from what I’ve heard in this place, that although not every single component of the integrated energy plan is completely unanimous in this Legislature, there’s overwhelming support from all sides. I say this with pride: I don’t think that if there was a change in government tomorrow the New Democrats or the Liberals would drastically overhaul the integrated energy plan. There might be tweaks, there might be changes, there might be some modifications, and fair enough. But overwhelmingly, that 25-year vision is one that has been received with a lot of support, including from members of the opposition.

What that tells those who are looking to invest—whether they’re Canadian pension plans, whether they’re large utilities, whether they’re simply retail investors, whether they are folks who work in this industry from a labour perspective, from a workforce planning perspective or from a systems planning perspective—is that there is some consensus in Ontario around what needs to happen going forward and that there is broad-based support for that 25-year vision. That grants confidence and, ultimately, more competition, which of course helps keep costs down for consumers.

That’s incredibly important, because it also demonstrates that this is a province where innovation can happen. Innovation doesn’t happen, generally speaking, in the absence of a reliable framework that you’re able to operate within. When you know where things are going, you’re able to plan accordingly; you’re able to innovate and plan for what’s coming down the pipe. Of course, there are going to be unexpected things. None of us saw the COVID-19 pandemic—we didn’t know that was going to happen.

Of course, there’s a situation that we currently are in, with the trade conflict with the United States, and I don’t think that was something that, a couple of years ago, all of us sitting here in this House were going to say—“Yes. Absolutely, that’s going to happen.” But broadly speaking, when you have that vision, you can plan accordingly. You can lay out your capital plans. You can also think about how we can adapt to this market as things move towards net zero—for example, through the build-out of our nuclear energy fleet in the province of Ontario.

What does that look like in terms of opportunities for things like hydrogen production?

Speaker, you look at the opportunities that we’re bringing forward through the hydrogen interruptible rate pilot and, of course—one of my favourite programs—the Hydrogen Innovation Fund, where we’re looking to the private sector to bring forward innovative ideas around hydrogen adaptation, hydrogen end-use scenarios in heavy industry.

Decarbonize—bring us opportunities to decarbonize, where we can use a carrot and not a stick to force industries that are, in many cases, competing on a global basis, that are not just energy-intensive, but also trade-exposed and often carbon-intensive. We’re going to them and saying, “Bring forward your ideas. Bring forward a plan for how you can change from a more carbon-intensive thing, like coke or some other really heavy-carbon-emission types of fuels, into, perhaps, hydrogen as an alternative.” We’re going to help deal with some of those costs.

We’re going to help offset that because we know that’s good not just for our environment, but also to protect the jobs that are in those industries and, ultimately, to protect our competitiveness on the world stage.

That happens when you have a clear vision of what’s coming down the pipe. When you know where things are going to be in the next 10, 20, 30 years, you’re able to plan accordingly, and you’re able to outlay millions of dollars, in cases, for these kinds of programs because you know that when you’re investing, you’re going to not just see a return on that investment in the short term, but you know that it’s falling into a broader integrated approach and that that alignment is there.

Speaker, I do want to mention that in March we announced a new $30-million round of funding for the Hydrogen Innovation Fund, doubling it from the previous $15 million that had been in that fund and broadening the eligibility substantially into two streams now—one stream dedicated to electricity- and grid-stabilization efforts, and the other focusing on end-use applications such as transportation and heavy industry.

I want to encourage members who are here: If you have folks who are in the hydrogen space—this is an area where we’ve seen the government of the United States, frankly, just completely drop the ball. They’ve given up any attempts to show leadership in this sector. It’s providing a real moment for Ontario. On the global stage, people are saying, “Well, Ontario is a place that is still demonstrating leadership here. We’re seeing investments. We’re seeing startups. We’re seeing innovation in this space.” I encourage you to share details of that fund with any constituents—the Hydrogen Innovation Fund.

Go check it out and make sure you’re sharing it with folks in your community. That’s a little aside, Speaker.

I do want to say, another piece that has been really, I think, crucial in this legislation—in the last couple of minutes, I want to talk about data centres. It’s something we’ve all, I’m sure, heard about. We’ve all seen the conversations about, how much water does it use; how much power does it use? I can tell you. In the role the Premier has appointed me to—energy-intensive industries—I have weekly meetings with interested parties from data centres across the world. Folks, it’s as small as five megawatts and as large as—we had 3,000-megawatt interest. That is unbelievably large.

I mean, 3,000 megawatts is more than our entire SMR fleet combined—and you multiply that by two and a half times. It’s an incredible amount of power. So we need to prioritize where that power goes.

One of the fascinating things I’ve had the experience of now, in this role, is when people come forward with a massive data centre plan. They say, “It’s nothing; we just need the power.” Well, it’s not just the power. The speaker correctly notes that there are water requirements. There are also broadband requirements for latency. There’s access to markets. But “just the power” is like saying, “Well, it’s just a nuclear power plant—whatever.” No, no, you’re talking about building out massive amounts of energy generation, transmission and, of course, missed opportunity or lost opportunity.

We are in favour of data centres, but we have to recognize that not all data centres are equal. There’s a huge difference between a crypto-mining, bitcoin machine that sits there and chugs along and sucks up all sorts of juice—that’s a very, very different scenario than if you have a very responsive and nimble data centre.

Let’s take an area like Kitchener-Waterloo, where there’s a large amount of small start-ups—now becoming larger start-ups, thankfully, and hiring more people. They need data requirements. They have cloud requirements. Those are two very different beasts, and you have to treat them differently.

We also know that it’s very different to connect a small data centre that’s needed to support a type of industry in a growing area. Let’s take Kanata in Ottawa, for example. That’s very different than if you went to St. Thomas, Ontario, and you said, “Oh, sorry, all the power that you need for the Volkswagen plant is now going to go directly into this.”

This legislation addresses that, and I’m so thankful for it.

I want to turn it over to the parliamentary assistant, who has shown such leadership on this legislation and others.

I thank you for the opportunity to participate in debate this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. David Smith: I’m honoured to be here today to speak on Bill 40, and I’d like to thank the minister and associate minister for their participation.

As the member for Scarborough Centre, it is my pleasure to serve as parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

I rise today to speak on the importance of Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is absolutely critical for our province and our country. At a time when we are still reeling from the shock of recent tariff actions imposed by the US, we must take steps to protect our workers, our industry and our economy. Our once most-trusted ally and trading partner is now working single-handedly to undermine our industries, our workers and our people. We won’t stand by idly while this is taking place, because if our duty as a government is to protect Ontario and its people, then standing by is not an option.

That is why we are taking action, standing up to tariffs and other foreign interference, and strengthening our self-reliance as a province and a nation. That includes creating a more self-reliant and secure energy framework, which is exactly what our proposed legislation addresses.

The changes in this legislation will build on recent steps taken to strengthen Ontario’s energy security by limiting adversarial foreign participation, and enable more buy-Canadian policies that prioritize domestic investment, supply chains and jobs here at home.

Madam Speaker, this legislation is the latest in a number of actions we have taken to increase our self-reliance both as a province and a country.

Earlier this year, we passed the Protect Ontario Through Free Trade Within Canada Act, 2025, and the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025. Both of these acts take a Canada-first stance by removing interprovincial trade barriers, cutting red tape and streamlining approvals for mining, infrastructure and energy projects.

Our government has every intention to build and expand our homegrown energy initiatives. For example, the Darlington small modular reactor, a first among all G7 countries, is poised to be a significant driver of economic growth and employment in Ontario. A study done by the Canadian conference board estimates that the construction and operation of the four small modular reactor plants for the Darlington site will increase Ontario’s GDP by $38.5 billion and sustain, on average, approximately 3,700 jobs per year over 65 years.

We know that approximately 80% of the project spending on the first small modular reactor is going to Ontario companies. In fact, more than 80 companies have already signed an agreement with Ontario Power Generation to deliver this first-of-a-kind project. This aligns with our Canada-first approach because it prioritizes local businesses and industries. It comes down to a question of what’s best for Ontario.

What we are going to do is to try hard to do as much as we can with homegrown resources. Bill 40 will help us to do that by building on changes introduced by the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025.

Minister Lecce recently wrote to all Ontario electric utilities, asking for updates on their efforts to avoid purchasing goods and services from United States suppliers and any cost impacts they are facing.

The Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, if passed, would also allow rate-regulated entities to track potentially higher procurement costs as a result of restrictions from purchasing foreign entities through Ontario Energy Board variance accounts. The Ontario Energy Board, which has a mandate to protect the interests of consumers by setting just and reasonable rates, will review these costs and only approve those that are reasonable.

Madam Speaker, Ontario is standing up to President Trump and his unfair, unjustified attacks on our province and our country. We are taking action to ensure that Ontario can stand alone and thrive without US goods and services or any kind of intervention into our economy.

Bill 40, the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, will work together with our integrated energy plan, Energy for Generations, and our recently enacted Protect Ontario Through Free Trade Within Canada Act, and the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, to protect Ontario’s interests, increase our self-reliance and create a sustainable energy future for all Ontarians.

I call on my colleagues in the House to stand up for Ontario and support this important piece of legislation. I would like to thank you, Madam Speaker. And I hope all colleagues in the House support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions? I recognize the member from Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: ᒥᑵᐨ, Speaker. ᒪᐊᐧᐨ ᐊᐦᑯ ᓂᒧᓀᐣᑕᐣ ᐅᒪ ᑲᓂᐸᐃᐧᔭᐣ ᐱᑎᑲᒥᐠ ᑲᑲᑫᐧᑌᔭᓂᐣ ᑫᑯᓇᐣ ᑐᑲᐣ ᐃᔑᓭᐃᐧᓇᐣ. I’m always honoured to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Kiiwetinoong.

I was listening intently regarding Bill 40,

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

I heard the Minister of Energy and Mines talk about the PAK lithium project site and how the work that they’re doing is going to improve the energy sector.

Yesterday, Chief Brandon Rae of North Spirit Lake First Nation, located just next door to the mine site—they weren’t involved in that process, that engagement that was supposed to happen on the announcement. One of the things that he asked of this Ontario government is to pause the “one project, one process.”

I’m asking the government: Will this government pause that process? Meegwetch.

Mr. David Smith: I would like to thank the member from across the aisle who raised the question.

Only yesterday, we met with First Nations at an announcement we had, and I can assure you that our “one project, one process”—we’ve had a number of supports that are helping us. We are working together with all these individuals to ensure that we are getting the job done. I can tell you that the support that I heard yesterday was overwhelming, and I continue to believe that working together with the Indigenous group is certainly shining a positive light on what we are focusing on.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Both the parliamentary assistant for energy and mines and I heard the energy and mines minister himself talk about the fact that a large amount of the supply chain is in Ontario. The minister said that 80% to 90% of the supply chain for Ontario Hydro was in Ontario, and the parliamentary assistant talked about the Canada-first strategy and the Darlington SMRs.

Do they plan to do anything about the fact that 100% of the enriched uranium will be coming from foreign countries and 50% of the natural gas that we burn in Ontario comes from Donald Trump land? Does the minister plan to do anything about that?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

The member speaks about natural gas imports from the US. I would expect the member to support the upcoming motion before the Legislature that will call line 5 an essential infrastructure piece, because that infrastructure goes through the state of Michigan and US states, which undermines the security of supply.

Therefore—I mean this honestly—if the concern is natural gas from the US, then that means the provincial Liberals must support domestic refinement and extraction of natural gas. I would welcome your evolution on this part, because you’re right; we shouldn’t be importing it from America. We should be able to use Canadian natural gas.

You mentioned enriched uranium. Is the member suggesting that Canada should withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty? Because that’s the effect of your bizarre question.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): A polite reminder to all members to address their remarks through the Chair.

I recognize the Associate Solicitor General.

Hon. Zee Hamid: With the rise of AI and cloud computing, data centres have become increasingly important. The associate minister talked about good data centres and bad data centres.

I’m wondering if the associate minister can talk about changes our government is making to our data centre strategy.

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to thank the Associate Solicitor General for his question. He’s absolutely right.

We talked a little bit about that differentiation you have to make between certain kinds of data centres that might suck a lot of energy and not add a lot of value and those that do, in fact, add value, are foundational to our growing digital economy and tech economy, and, of course, supporting jobs in those sectors—in the life sciences sector, as an example.

This legislation finally gives us some authority to prioritize requests. Previous to this legislation, there was no prioritization of requests here in Ontario. Anyone was able to simply come forward. It didn’t matter how big or small—they could be thousands of megawatts and say, “We want to connect here.” As soon as they signed that—I apologize for snapping, Speaker—they were able, in fact, to get connected instantly. This now gives the authority to the minister to be able to ensure that there’s some prioritization, that economic considerations are there as well, and that we’re able to prioritize the good ones that we talked about earlier.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question to the minister [ inaudible ] critical to our future, a secure future. However, I don’t see anything in this bill that really will alleviate the concerns of young people who are looking for a true commitment to a renewable energy grid.

In fact, what I do see is a government that continues to subsidize the electric system to the tune of $6 billion a year—over 20 years, it’s predicted to be $118 billion of taxpayer subsidies.

This bill gives the government additional flexibility to determine how much of the costs payable to generators are to be recovered from taxpayers as opposed to ratepayers.

My question to you is, do you feel comfortable ignoring what young people are looking for, which is a truly renewable energy grid, and spending taxpayer dollars that essentially put their futures at peril?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Ontario’s integrated energy plan will deliver 99% of the grid net zero by using hydro and nuclear power. Young people are actually concerned, so we achieve net zero without imposing higher tax on people, which is the difference between our approach and the members opposite. But I actually think what young people are seized by—yes, they want a clean future. They want it to be affordable.

When the basis of the question is, “Why not pursue renewables?” it almost suggests that we haven’t learned a lesson from the former Liberals—the Green Energy Act—where they obsessively, ideologically sole-sourced one resource 10 times above market. And today, 20 years later, you mention the fact that tax dollars are being used to subsidize the rate base. I accept it’s an estimate that’s not sustainable nor ideal.

But is the member opposite or the official opposition party wishing to limit the Ontario energy rebate, thus resulting in the highest energy rates on the continent, like they were under the former Liberals? Of course not. So let’s be—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Question?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Bill 40 creates a new

section in the Electricity Act, 28.1, which allows the government to make regulations about connecting to the grid. But one of the problems with the bill is that it doesn’t say anything about what principles should be guiding this regulation-making. So there’s nothing being presented to the representatives of the voters of Ontario for us to debate, and the government will be able to set regulations on a whim.

In response to what I think are the overly and highly partisan opening shots of the minister in this debate, I’d like to ask the minister: Do I need to phone Kory Teneycke to make a helpful suggestion to regulations around connecting to the electricity grid?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Madam Speaker, the focus of the government is to deliver affordable energy after the energy rates increased by 400%.

You may call it a “partisan shot.” It is a matter of historic record—a shameful record—that Ontario families still continue to pay the price. I’m sorry—to the member opposite—that you are offended by your historic record, where families paid $1,000 or more. You became the outlier of the most expensive energy on the continent. That is not a metric of success that anyone could defend.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Through the Chair.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Our government has taken a different approach, using competitive procurements. The Auditor General actually recommended competition in our procurement. It has driven down prices. The same contracts they signed had been re-contracted 30% below rate. So we’re doing something right. We’re saving ratepayers money, and we’re thinking about the future.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): It is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Events in Mississauga East–Cooksville

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: It’s great to be back in the Legislature, reconnecting with colleagues and getting back to work on behalf of the people of Mississauga East–Cooksville.

It was a very productive summer in my riding, with close to 260 meetings and community events, from neighbourhood gatherings and local business visits to safety round tables and cultural celebrations, all focused on putting my constituents’ priorities first.

Public safety, in particular, remains top of mind for so many residents. On October 8, my office hosted a community town hall on banking scams and fraud with the Canadian Bankers Association at the John Paul II Polish Cultural Centre. We had a fantastic turnout, great questions, strong engagement and a clear message from the community: People want more conversations like this.

A big thank you to the Canadian Bankers Association for coming out, answering every question and preparing residents to guard themselves against these increasingly sophisticated scams. And this work continues.

Our next community safety town hall meeting with Peel Regional Police will be held on November 4 at St. Mary’s Ukrainian Catholic church. This session will feature Peel police sharing insights, practical tips and strategies to help protect families and neighbourhoods. It’s a valuable opportunity for residents to hear directly from those who work on the front lines of community safety every day.

Speaker, keeping our communities safe takes teamwork, education and prevention, and I am committed to continuing this work every day.

Great Canadian Treasure Hunt

Mr. John Vanthof: I realize everyone is focused on a big contest right now and we’re all supporting the Jays—go, Jays, go! But there’s another contest going on that you need to know about: the great Canadian gold treasure hunt.

The Northen Miner, both print and online edition, has organized a treasure hunt, and over a million dollars of gold has been hidden somewhere in Canada. All the clues are available on the Northern Miner in a poem. There’s a million-dollar grand prize, if you find it, and 12 monthly prizes. And one of them has just been discovered right next to my house—not “right next to,” but in the next town to my house in Cobalt. But don’t think it’s going to be easy. I’m going to read you one stanza from the poem and you’ll see how hard it’s going to be.

A giant coin reflects the sun

But circles lead where none begun

Its gleam is but a siren’s light

No miner’s truth is held in sight

So it’s not going to be easy, but there’s over a million dollars out there.

I would very much like to thank the sponsors for this contest, particularly Agnico Eagle gold mines. The gold is coming from Detour Lake gold mine, the largest gold mine in Canada. The other sponsors are Alamos Gold, IAMGOLD, Kinross Gold, McEwen mining, and several others.

Check out the Northern Miner, and please participate.

Tenant protection

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Every week, I receive emails from tenants in my riding who are facing challenges with their rental units. Some are single mothers new to Canada, facing personal hardship; some have good-paying jobs and just can’t get the landlord to fix the heat; and some are facing eviction over rent that’s a few days late. And why? Because we have a government that can’t get more housing built to ease the cost of housing, that removed rent control, and that doesn’t seem to care about tenants and their rights.

My office received over 500 emails in just a few days when tenants heard about Bill 60, which makes things even harder for tenants.

This week I re-tabled my bill, Bill 64, the Housing Equity and Rental Transparency Act, 2025. If passed, it would help make sure tenants in high-rise buildings have access to reliable elevators, that their apartment is in good repair, and that they have the right to get rent rebated when they don’t get the services they need.

It’s time for us to prioritize the rights of tenants and make sure that they have safe, affordable housing. And we need a government who will stand up to make that happen.

Jamie Bramburger

MPP Billy Denault: This past Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending the Jamie Bramburger Fall Classic at the Pembroke Memorial Centre—an event honouring Jamie’s enduring legacy and remarkable contributions to the Ottawa Valley. The game featured the Pembroke Lumber Kings alumni facing off against Algonquin College faculty and staff, with former Ottawa Senator Marc Methot and former Boston Bruin P.J. Stock serving as team captains, representing two organizations to which Jamie dedicated so much of his time and passion.

Proceeds from the event will support the Grind Pembroke and the Jamie Bramburger Memorial Fund, helping students in need and some of our community’s most vulnerable.

Jamie passed suddenly on March 11 of this year. A lifelong hockey enthusiast, he was the familiar voice of the Pembroke Lumber Kings as their play-by-play announcer. As long-time manager of community and student affairs and former interim dean at Algonquin College’s Pembroke campus, Jamie guided the college through many periods of growth and challenge.

Beyond his professional roles, Jamie was a genuine community builder, always striving to make life better for others. He leaves behind a legacy of passion, camaraderie and community spirit—one that continues to shine on the ice, in the classroom, and throughout the Ottawa Valley. It is a legacy that we can all look up to and one that we should all strive to emulate.

Health care

M me France Gélinas: In early October, I received an angry email from Lisa, whose mother, Charlotte, lives in Capreol. She asked, “How can it possibly be acceptable that seniors in Capreol are waiting nearly six months for basic health care?”

Her mother had routine blood work done in May, but after the clinic cancelled her appointment, the next date offered was November 6, six months later.

The Minister of Health will remember the multiple funding proposals I brought forward from the Capreol Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic. They needed money for one more nurse practitioner so that they can handle the load, but the government refused. The Capreol Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic did the best they could with the money they had, but they ended up having to let go of a nurse practitioner.

Think about this, Speaker: The nurse practitioner-led clinic is the only health service available to the people of Capreol, a northern rural community. They have to let staff go because the government refused to increase their small budget.

I can’t help but feel that Ontario’s health care failings are by design. This government wants it to fail so that people say, “It doesn’t meet my needs; I want something different,” and the “something different” will be private, for-profit health care. The people of Capreol deserve better.

The current government’ focus on profit over care is just shameful.

Veterans

MPP George Darouze: As we approach Remembrance Day, I rise today to recognize a deeply meaningful event recently held in my riding of Carleton: my first annual veterans’ brunch hosted to honour the service and sacrifice of our local veterans. This gathering brought together veterans, their families and members of our community to reflect on the extraordinary contributions of those who have served in uniform. It was a moment to share stories, build connections and, most importantly, express our heartfelt gratitude for the freedoms we enjoy because of their courage and their commitment.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge two remarkable individuals, Michael Ostafichuk from the Stittsville Legion and Janet Coles of the Osgoode Legion, who were both honoured with the Ontario Veterans Award for Community Service Excellence. Their tireless efforts to support veterans in Carleton are truly commendable, and I offer them my sincere congratulations on this well-deserved recognition.

As we prepare to mark Remembrance Day, let us remember that honouring our veterans goes beyond ceremonies. It’s reflected in how we care for them, how we support them, and how we ensure their stories live on for generations to come.

That’s why my colleague MPP Dave Smith’s motion requesting that Veterans Affairs Canada assume responsibility for mistakes on the Presence in Absence memorial is so important. I hope that my colleagues will support this motion.

Joanne Gervais

Je veux remercier Joanne Gervais pour son respect et son éducation et surtout pour son leadership envers la communauté francophone de Sudbury. Ses contributions au développement de la communauté se feront sentir pendant des générations. Elle nous manquera dans ce rôle, mais je lui souhaite une merveilleuse retraite. Elle est très méritée.

Events in Mississauga–Lakeshore

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I had an incredible summer attending over 600 events in Mississauga–Lakeshore and across the province.

A special highlight for me was speaking at the groundbreaking for the new Mississauga hospital. Thanks to the province’s investment of $14 billion, our new hospital will be the largest and most advanced hospital in Canada.

Later, I was honoured to serve as the emcee at the groundbreaking for a new Luso supportive housing facility in Hamilton, which will be home for up to 45 adults living with disabilities. Because of my private member’s bill Pr42, which we passed last year, this home will be exempt from most municipal taxes.

My team and I also hosted two events in Lakeview, at the Small Arms Inspection Building: the first, Italian Heritage Night in June, and the second, our Community Leader Awards and Thanksgiving Dinner. Combined, we had an incredible turnout of over 1,200 people. It was a special honour to present the King Charles Coronation Medals to recognize outstanding community leaders from across Mississauga–Lakeshore, including Don Cherry, for his support of our first responders and military.

Finally, as we look forward to tomorrow night, I want to wish everyone a happy and safe Halloween. And go, Jays, go!

Ferrero Canada

Mr. Will Bouma: Last Thursday, I had the pleasure to attend the first global product launch outside of Europe in Ferrero corporate history. Members of Ferrero’s North American senior leadership team, ambassadors from Luxembourg, Italy, as well as local elected dignitaries attended—and, most importantly, Ferrero line workers and skilled tradespeople who actually produce the Ferrero Rocher chocolate squares, the new product that was launched in Ferrero’s state-of-the-art plant in Brantford.

In April of this year, Premier Doug Ford and Minister Vic Fedeli helped announce Ferrero’s $455-million expansion and investment in Brantford, which will create 500 new, well-paying jobs for the people of Brantford who will make the quality treats that we have come to expect from Ferrero.

Nutella, Tic Tac, and Ferrero Rocher are some of the most beloved and recognized brands in the world.

This new product launch is a huge vote of confidence in Ontario’s farmers, in Ontario’s manufacturers and in Ontario suppliers, and it lays the final building blocks that will make Brantford Canada’s confectionery capital of the world.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: I’d like to welcome to the House today some very special people: my wife, Silvana, who I’m really happy to see here today; my daughters, Frances and Mercedes; my son-in-law Rohan; and a very special person, my first grandchild, Luca, born July 11 this year.

There’s no better feeling in the world than holding your precious grandchild. Of all the things that my hands have held, the best so far is little Luca. The first day of his life was the best day of mine, and his first breath took mine away.

Welcome Luca and family to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Stephen Crawford: In the members’ gallery today, I would like to recognize and welcome to the Legislature members of my constituency. We have Dan Cooper, Roberto Ficzere, Michelle Andreacchi, Gloria Liu, Saghar Darabnia, Justin Moniz, who’s a co-op student. Also present today in the gallery are Jeremy Wittet and Lori Miller of Port Dover. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Wayne Gates: I want to introduce my daughter. It’s the first time she has been to Queen’s Park in the eleven and a half years I’ve been elected.

Chantel Marotta, welcome to Queen’s Park, dear.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to welcome the students and educators from Richland Academy, and a special shout-out to my amazing niece, Vivienne Lecce. Congratulations, and welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): There’s a lot of family here today.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je veux souhaiter la bienvenue au maire de Mattice-Val Côté, Marc Dupuis. Bienvenue en Chambre, Marc.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I would like to welcome Ed Arvelin, the chair of the mental health and addictions division of OPSEU; Carol Mundley and the team from CAMH; and all the other health care workers who are here today at Queen’s Park. Welcome to your House.

Ms. Marit Stiles: This morning, I’d like to welcome OPSEU members who are joined here by president JP Hornick, as well as, I want to say, a number of health and housing advocates who have been here with us this morning. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome a couple of special guests from the Guelph Community Health Centre: Kate Vsetula, director of community programs and development; and Mark Rodford, vice-chair. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Aris Babikian: Today in the House we have Rev. Archpriest Father Zareh Zargarian alongside Mr. Sargis Stepanyan and his wife, Armenouhi. Major Sargis is a triple amputee, Artsakh war hero, arm-wrestling champion, and a real inspiration.

In 2014, Major Sargis acted quickly to save wounded soldiers. A mine exploded, leaving him severely injured and costing him both legs and his right arm.

Through sports, he rebuilt his life, discovering the talent for arm wrestling—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Introduction of visitors.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It is my pleasure to introduce members from the leadership team at SickKids hospital who are here in the gallery today: Dr. Ronni Cohn, president and CEO, and Mr. Jeff Mainland, executive vice-president.

Thank you for joining us at Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I would like to welcome members of the Flemingdon Health Centre who do great work in connecting community members from Don Valley West to the health services they need: CEO Jen Quinlan, Peggy Gerritsen, Hamna Mughal, and Samyuktha Pandalangat. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: This morning, we have a great visitor from the riding of Durham. From my Bowmanville constituency office, my excellent executive assistant Mr. Doug Ellis is here.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today, I’d like to welcome the group from Canada Powered by Women to Queen’s Park. Thank you for being here.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to welcome the members of the Alliance for Healthier Communities who are with us this morning and invite everybody to join them for lunch in room 230.

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

I just want to remind members, according to our standing order 34, up to five minutes shall be allotted during both the morning and afternoon routine for members to recognize guests. Members may introduce visitors by stating only their name, title, organization and/or riding. No member shall seek to introduce a visitor at any time by way of a point of order.

We have a few minutes left on the clock. I recognize the member for Hamilton Centre.

MPP Robin Lennox: I’d just like to welcome the members of OPSEU/SEFPO mental health and addictions. Thank you for all that you do.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I’d like to welcome Kimberley Floyd, CEO of WellFort Community Health Services, from Brampton Centre, in the House today.

Mr. Will Bouma: Welcome to the gallery today the family of page Oliver Prang: David and Melissa Prang; Linda, Cole and Tyler McIntosh; Brian Waggoner; Frank Resendes and Sara Marcella; and Daniel Novakovic.

Order of business

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The members will be aware that appearing on today’s Orders and Notices paper are two notices of opposition days for debate next week. Under standing order 45(d), I’m required to select one of these notices for consideration.

When this issue has come up in the past, previous Speakers have often chosen the notice which was submitted first. However, given that the notices from the official opposition and the third party were submitted so close to each other that they were received at essentially the same time, this approach will not work in the present situation. I must instead consider the relative opportunities for each party to submit notice.

As I explained to the House in my statement on Monday, October 20, three opposition days are allotted to the official opposition and one to the third party during this fall meeting period. At this time, neither party has yet moved an opposition day motion. Since the official opposition has the greater entitlement and given that opportunities still remain for both parties to give notice, I have decided that the motion standing in the name of the leader of the official opposition will be the one to be debated next week.

The notice of motion from the third party will therefore be removed from the order paper and is eligible to be tabled again.

I thank the members for their attention.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Yesterday, I went to committee to get some answers from the Minister of Labour about the pay-to-play scheme that he has been running with the Skills Development Fund. I’ve got to tell you, I was very disappointed, Speaker. It was more of the same.

The minister just keeps claiming that his hand-picked winners were the only ones that met the government’s priorities. The problem is that we know, based on the Auditor General’s report, that some high-ranking applications were rejected while lower-ranking ones were bumped up to the top. The minister will not say what additional criteria he and his staff considered that the professional ministry staff did not.

So my question is to the Premier; I’m going to ask him again: Can the Premier explain, how did these low-ranked applications suddenly get bumped up to the top of the pile?

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

Hon. David Piccini: As I said yesterday, and as I say now, this Premier, this government is fighting for workers in this province. We’re standing up to President Trump. We’re working with our automotive sector, with our steel sector to make sure we’re responsive to those needs.

This Minister of Energy rose today to speak about our integrated plan—a plan that’s going to build new nuclear facilities; a plan that’s going to build small modular reactors; and a plan that’s going to require a talent pipeline. We’re investing in programs like the Introduction to Millwrighting program at Darlington that’s training a next generation.

This is our time to seize a moment in Ontario to be energy-sufficient, to build the infrastructure we need for future generations. We have a fund that’s powering that talent pipeline, and we’re proud of every investment we’ve made.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, there we go again. No answers. This is why I’m directing my questions to the Premier. Let’s get some answers. It should be pretty clear.

It seems like the only criteria that these high-ranking applications failed on was not making enough donations to the Conservative Party.

Last week, we saw photos of the minister enjoying rinkside seats with SDF recipients. The minister said, “Oh, there’s nothing to see here”—that he paid for his own tickets, like everybody else. But yesterday, CTV reported that those seats belong to executives. That box belongs to those executives who received funding from this government.

So the minister really needs to come clean and show us the proof. Who paid for those tickets?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I’m glad she’s talking about things that happened a year before I even became minister.

But while I’m Minister of Labour now, I’m focused on supporting workers, making the investments we need to stand up for industries that they ignored and/or that they vote against every time it’s here.

When we bring mining to the floor to unlock the incredible potential of the Ring of Fire—the historic announcement we made this week—that member had an opportunity to ask about those investments. But she doesn’t care about it, because they don’t care about miners in the north. They don’t care about unlocking that incredible potential.

When it comes to building the infrastructure to get our families out of gridlock, when I’ve stood beside our incredible labour partners, they fight against those very investments. Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass—at every chance they’ve had to stand up for the projects that are going to put men and women to work, they vote against it every time.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I would have remembered if I paid for those tickets. No answer, once again; it should have been an easy one.

This week, Trillium reported that Base31 received millions from this fund. Base31 is a company that’s working with Fieldgate and Deco Homes. You’ll remember those developers because they were the ones that were going to make a windfall in profit from the greenbelt scheme. It’s remarkable. They don’t even bother changing the cast of characters in these schemes.

At least now, after dozens of embarrassing headlines, will the Premier finally fire his minister?

Hon. David Piccini: Maybe the member would care to actually pick up the phone and call Mark Kirkpatrick, the president of Loyalist College, who’s leading the incredible training at Base31 in a region, in a county, that’s driving tourism, investment and growth; a region that wants to build residential construction. They want to know that we have a talent pipeline to support the underemployed or the unemployed. That’s what we’re doing—training talent pipelines into the construction sector. And that’s what the incredible team at Loyalist are doing.

They said that we don’t support colleges. When that’s proven that it’s false, she’s now talking about a college project. Speaker, you can’t make this stuff up.

We’re making the investments to support a talent pipeline, and I wish you’d take the opportunity to actually come out to see the investments that are changing lives.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’m going to go back to the Premier. I hope I get some answers.

Yesterday, in the committee, I asked about how many people got training from these bumped-up applications that suddenly got approved. I want you to hear the minister’s response on this. I was asking about how many people got training from these bumped-up applications, and the minister’s response was, “People are free to support who they want.”

The minister’s message was pretty clear: This is a pay-to-play scheme, and the minister isn’t even apologizing for it. In fact, he is admitting that he remains open for business.

Does the Premier still think that this minister should be the one administering this fund?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I was very clear: 700,00 Ontarians have received training.

That member could choose to support—she could choose to stand with LIUNA and support Oaks Revitalization, helping folks get a second chance at life, changing lives.

She could stand with Carpenters’ Local 27, supporting incredible programs like Building Up. Mark was here last week.

She could stand with millwrights in regions like Darlington, but that would actually require them to have a plan on energy and support nuclear. We know they’re against nuclear. We know they’re against SMRs.

She could stand with operating engineers, but she’s against the very towers and things that they want to build.

At every opportunity, we’re standing with organized labour; we’re standing with non-profits; we’re standing with remarkable women like Natasha Ferguson who are here. And at every chance, we’re supporting meaningful training that’s changing lives.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, let me tell the Minister of Labour something: Workers want fairness. Workers stand together. And pitting workers against each other based on how deep their pockets are is not how unions do business.

The issue here is not about who is getting the money; it’s about why. This is not about the fund, and it’s not about the recipients; it’s about the politicians.

Evidence shows very clearly that donations to the Conservatives or hiring their friends as lobbyists is the only way to get this government’s attention. It makes you wonder how this government is making decisions about anything that’s involving the people’s tax dollars.

Does the Premier think that this is how we should be administering public dollars, or is he finally going to fire his minister?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, the only one pitting organized labour against organized labour is that leader.

We’ve done the work to show up, to sit down with unions, as I’ve said, that previously protested members on this side. We’ve done the work to sit down with them, to find common understanding, to advance progressive pieces of legislation in this place that are advancing healthy and safe workplaces; putting training first, that’s breaking down barriers; supporting new training centres for organized labour. And she doesn’t support any of that.

We’re going to work hard with those very groups that once supported them—but then they lost their way—and are now supporting Premier Doug Ford because we have a plan to build and a plan that’s going to support their workers, earning a better job with a bigger paycheque.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’ve got to tell you, this is indefensible; this is embarrassing—it’s embarrassing for every single MPP on the government side.

Every fund that you administer is going to now have a cloud over it.

I am heading to Brampton today, again, where 3,000 workers are losing their jobs because Stellantis is packing up and shipping down to Illinois. While this Premier is so busy defending his minister’s shameful administration of this pay-to-play scheme, 3,000 workers are losing their jobs, 3,000 families are thrown into uncertainty.

I want to know when this Premier is going to stop defending his minister and start defending Ontario workers.

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I look forward to seeing the member in Brampton, where her party has no seats. They have no seats because they stood against Highway 413. They have no seats in Brampton because they stood against the Bradford Bypass. They have no seats in Brampton because they don’t support the mayor and council with record investments we’ve made in hospitals, record investments we’ve made in public transit. They voted against every issue that mattered to the people of Brampton.

Colleagues, are we embarrassed about what we’ve done for Brampton, about the training? Absolutely not.

We’re going to support the people of Brampton. That’s why every seat in Brampton in this place is occupied by a Progressive Conservative member.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

I had the opportunity to spend some real quality time with the Minister of Labour yesterday afternoon in estimates. I had the opportunity to ask him about what happened with Keel Digital Solutions and his friend Michael Rudderham, which we all know was clearly a conflict of interest and which is very clearly covered in the Members’ Integrity Act. I just simply asked the minister—I said, could he guarantee that what happened with Keel Digital Solutions and Michael Rudderham, his close friend, would not happen with the other $700 million that’s left in the fund? He couldn’t or wouldn’t or didn’t answer.

So maybe the Premier—Speaker, through you—could ask the minister to give us that guarantee.

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

Hon. David Piccini: The guarantee we make to the people of this province is that we will put their interests first. We will invest in hospitals. We will invest in the men and women who build those hospitals. We’ll invest in the men and women who build our steel sector, ensuring we have their back. We’re going to make sure we have projects that actually put steel first. We’re procuring our own steel here in Ontario.

When the health science sector was beleaguered pre-pandemic by the previous government, we had no PPE made in Ontario. This Premier, this government stood up to actually make things in this province again.

We recognized the need for rapid training in Ontario, in tariff-affected sectors, to support men and women in our economy accessing better training for better jobs. I’ve brought them here to this place. The members have had opportunities to sit down—they chose not to. They chose not to sit down and actually learn about the incredible projects—when I’ve invited them to those in their own ridings, they’ve said no.

We’re going to keep making those investments. That’s why these workers are supporting our party—

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

Mr. John Fraser: The only guarantee that’s happening here is that if you hire the right lobbyist, you’ll get a grant. That’s the guarantee.

Let’s look at the facts. We know that Keel Digital Solutions received $7.5 million from the Skills Development Fund. We know they were represented by Michael Rudderham, the minister’s close friend. And we know that the minister openly admitted to intervening on behalf of this low-scoring proposal; he said so on the radio. It’s clear; he’s on the record there. The minister didn’t declare a conflict; he should have. That’s wrong. It applies to all of us here.

So I’ll ask again: Can the Premier guarantee that, with the remaining $700 million in the fund, this will not happen again?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, that’s incorrect. What I said is that this government will stand up for priority projects that advance the interests we were elected to fulfill.

We support first responders; we invest in them. When we are given the opportunity to make sure we get tough on bad actors, to lock up violent criminals, to support the first responders who are on the front lines, we step up to do that.

They support a revolving door of justice that keeps criminals on the street.

When we bring forward priorities to actually build an energy sector that’s going to ensure we are an energy superpower and support the projects to get it done, they vote against them. They don’t support them.

When it comes to ensuring we unlock the incredible potential that is northern Ontario, again, they vote against these very measures that are putting men and women to work.

That’s why organized labour has abandoned those parties—because we have their best interests at heart, and we’re putting the projects that are ensuring their members get to work.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The minister is not standing up for anybody; he’s hiding behind them. He’s hiding behind firefighters. He’s hiding behind tradespeople. He’s hiding behind women. He’s hiding behind people with disabilities. Every day, he stands up here and he does this. He’s dragging them down into the mud with him. He uses them as a shield. So they should take offence at him saying what he’s saying here every single day.

We know the story of FGF Brands. They had a video with the Premier; you can go and watch it on YouTube. It’s really entertaining. After that video, the company went out and they hired the man behind the curtain, Kory Teneycke, and Rubicon.

Interjection: The shadow Premier.

Mr. John Fraser: Right. And then the million-dollar grant came, and then $32,000 ended up in the PC Party’s bank account. It’s all kind of fishy.

Back to the Premier: Can he guarantee, if he can’t guarantee for the ministers, a faux pas—or a conflict of interest, I should say; it’s not a faux pas—can he guarantee that the thing that just happened with FGF foods is not going to happen again?

Hon. David Piccini: We’re celebrating and standing with those workers.

If that member took half his energy to actually show up, as members on this side of the House do, to shop steward meetings, actually show up on the grounds of manufacturing plants to talk to workers about how we can support them on their training journey; if he took half the energy to support the manufacturing sector that they decimated, in making the critical investments to support increased automation, but to actually have the training programs to go with it, to support those workers so that we can drive forward a better manufacturing sector—they’re not interested in that.

We’re going to keep working with and alongside those workers every step of the way.

I’m proud to be part of a caucus where we show up, we roll up our sleeves and we earn the supports of those labour unions.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I know where the Premier got his idea for the 1-800-Doug line. I’m hearing that there’s a 1-800-Kory line; I haven’t confirmed it yet. I think it’s actually on the bottom of the Skills Development Fund application, but because we can’t see it, I cannot confirm.

So I just want to know: Who is out there saying, “Better call Kory, and here’s his number”?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, we’ve got very serious issues facing our economy. And as I look out here, I see a colleague and a team here who are working hard to make new energy investments, who are working hard to make sure we have purpose-built rental units, and working hard to keep our streets safe, and making record transit investments.

We stood together—the Minister of Transportation and I—proposing “slow down, move over” legislation that puts and protects organized labour. We earned the support of those workers whose job sites we visited, who recognize that when you make investments in infrastructure, when you make investments in highways, roads and bridges, they actually get to work to collect a bigger paycheque, with that better job.

We want to make sure, in Ontario, we’re a country that’s building again, a country that’s able, and a province that’s able to stand on its own two feet.

That’s what we’re fighting for. And we’re never going to give up on those workers and never give up on those—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: FGF Brands knew they’d better call Kory; so did Heddle Shipyards. They knew they’d better call Kory. And now what we know of is that Kory Teneycke and Rubicon have 16 clients—all of them got money from the Skills Development Fund. So that’s a lot of “better call Korys.” It has also been a lot of money into the PC Party’s bank account.

The thing is, there are 700,000 people out of work in this province, struggling to pay the bills.

So my question to the Premier is, how is it that this government is more interested in making already rich people even richer when hundreds of thousands of children’s families have to visit food banks every week in this province?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, the member doesn’t finish his research. As I’ve said in this House before, if he had finished it, he’d realize that his former candidates who ran for that party have been supported by the SDF—his vice-president of fundraising; people who donate to his party. They’re the only ones talking about that because, as I said, none of that matters.

What matters is the outcomes and what you’re doing to train, whether you’re supporting the automation in the manufacturing sector that they decimated, helping those workers better train so that we can keep that industry here; whether it’s working with the steel sector, ensuring buy-Ontario provisions, that we’re actually using that on our record infrastructure projects that we’ve invested in that they haven’t supported; whether it’s building the new energy plants, again, that they don’t support—the bizarre questions I heard earlier this morning about natural gas.

This Premier is standing up for industry. This Premier is standing up to support men and women—

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

Mr. John Fraser: Well, we could heat this building for a year with what’s coming out of this minister.

The government is not the Premier or the minister’s personal piggy bank, and it’s not the PC Party’s piggy bank either. Lobbyists like Kory Teneycke, Amin Massoudi—all the usual suspects—shouldn’t be allowed to set up a toll booth in front of the Skills Development Fund.

Again, 700,000 people are out of work in this province. Hundreds of thousands of children’s families are visiting food banks every week. People can’t get the health care they need. Their kids can’t get the help in school they need. Things are tough out there. And all the while, the Premier is making insiders, his friends, lobbyists, rich people even richer than they already are.

When is the Premier going to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that people are hurting out there?

Hon. David Piccini: He can make all the quips and jokes he wants, but the serious matter is that when I stood before farmers desperate for natural gas support, they got nothing from the previous government. In fact, they railroaded over farmers’ fields to put their expensive hydro schemes that benefited no one, when people were choosing between heating or eating. That’s their record.

Then, this Premier came in. We’re actually refurbishing new nuclear plants that they wanted to shut down. We’re building new nuclear plants that they wanted to shut down. We’re supporting the farmers. We’re making these investments. That’s the serious business. We take the time to look them in the eye, to understand what they need—to look our workers in the eye, who know that when we make investments in infrastructure, when we make investments in hospitals, in bridges, in the things to build a stronger Ontario, they are better off and we live in a more prosperous province. Now we have a fund that supports their training. And we’re never going to stop.

Nurses

MPP Robin Lennox: Nurses are the backbone of our health system, and community nurses, in particular, have been critically underpaid for years. The Ontario Nurses’ Association is currently representing 44 primary care workers from the North York Family Health Team who are on strike because they are not getting the compensation they deserve. These 44 workers provide comprehensive care to 95,000 people, and they want to be back at work, but they need fair pay.

Will the minister finally commit to closing the wage gap and ensuring that our community nurses and our dedicated health workers are fairly compensated?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m sure the member opposite appreciates and understands that it’s actually not the Ministry of Health that negotiates with these individual clinics or agencies like community health clinics.

What I can tell you is, our government is 100% committed and supporting our nurses by expanding the number of nurse education positions that are available across Ontario. Since 2018, 100,000 new nurses have been registered and licensed to work in the province of Ontario. That is a government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, that is committed to ensuring that as our population grows, as our population ages, we are absolutely there to not only train and support existing nurses but to do the work necessary to make sure that we have a sufficient workload to protect the people of Ontario.

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

MPP Robin Lennox: The minister well knows that they have underfunded community care for years. Now they have directed hospitals to cut their budgets to the lowest they’ve been in years, which we know will lead to further layoffs and service cuts. The FAO has predicted that we may lose up to 7,200 hospital nurses by 2027 as a result—and if the minister hasn’t been, anyone who has been to a hospital recently can tell you that we don’t have a surplus of nurses as it is. Each and every nurse is desperately trying to fill the gaps that this government has left, caring for more patients than is considered safe and burning out because of it.

Will the Minister of Health do the right thing: fund our hospitals adequately so that nurses across Ontario not only keep their jobs but finally get the mandatory nurse-to-patient ratios proven to save lives?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Will the member opposite—as we continue to invest, as we give, for the last three years running, an additional almost $1 billion to hospitals on their base budgets, will they stop voting against it in the budgets? As we expand nurse positions across our post-secondary institutions, making sure that there are more opportunities for young people to train in nursing and other critical health care workforces, will the member opposite and her party stop voting against those investments?

We are acting with our investments and showing very clearly that we are committed to ensure that across the province of Ontario—a $2.1-billion investment in primary care expansion. And yet—respectfully—the member and the NDP continue to vote against those investments.

What is the problem? Do you not support our health care workforce—

Interjections.

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

I recognize the member for Kanata–Carleton.

Government accountability

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: I believe—I really do—that every member of this place knows what’s involved when we get involved in politics. We all work hard for our constituents. We do the very best we can to represent their interests and try to respect each other as we discuss various topics and issues.

For the past several days, we’ve asked the Premier and the Minister of Labour about money that was handed out to donors, insiders and friends through the Skills Development Fund. When we questioned the minister about whether he would accept that his actions were, at the very least, a conflict of interest, he accused us of not caring about paramedics, firefighters and construction workers.

Yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Labour about whether he thought it was appropriate to give millions—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Response?

Hon. Steve Clark: I appreciate the member’s

preamble. I know she didn’t get the question out.

On our government’s behalf, the Skills Development Fund is literally changing lives. In every corner of the province, workers are being trained.

I have to tell you, in my own riding of Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, we’ve had some tremendous projects, some non-profits. Really, it has been life-changing for many of these young men and women.

Obviously, we respect—Speaker, through you to the member—the Auditor General’s recommendations.

I want you to know—to the member for Kanata–Carleton—that every round that SDF has come forward, we’ve made those types of improvements to the process that the Auditor General is speaking about. We’ll continue to respect her recommendations, to implement her recommendations.

But make no mistake, we’ll continue to ensure that skills training is top of mind—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member: Question?

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: I thank the honourable member for his response.

The truth of the matter is, the Minister of Labour admitted that he manipulated the scoring system for the Skills Development Fund, which rewarded friends and donors. In fact, after awarding a friend millions of dollars from the fund, he then jet-setted to Paris to attend his wedding. Does that sound normal? He attended hockey games on season’s tickets owned by a family of donors. Does that sound right? He has not shown the regard for ethics and transparency and fairness that we need here.

Speaker, my mother always said that whatever behaviour you reward is the behaviour you are going to get.

When is the Premier going to stop rewarding and defending bad behaviour?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member: The people who have benefited most are those 700,000 Ontarians who now have a skilled trade, and now many of them are employed—many of them employed in the first 60 days after the SDF fund.

Again, the minister respects the Auditor General. But at the same time, the member needs to note that 72% of the approved projects under SDF were ranked either medium to high. I know the member knows her percentages. Speaker, 72% is pretty high. It’s a lot higher than the 57% that her leader got—and ultimately had to resign. But there’s always room for improvement.

As I said, it’s very important that we respect the Auditor General. On this side of the House, we’re going to be implementing her recommendations. But at the same time—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Children’s health services

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: My question is for the Minister of Health.

Families across Ontario know how important SickKids hospital is. It’s a place where world-class doctors, nurses and staff care for some of the sickest children in our province. Every day, they give hope to parents and help kids get back to being kids.

But as demand for health care continues to grow, we know our hospitals need ongoing support to help expand services and reduce wait times. Every child deserves to get the care they need, close to home and when they need it most.

Speaker, can the minister please share how we are supporting SickKids hospital and other pediatric centres to give children across Ontario a stronger, healthier future?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It’s an absolute pleasure, always, to talk about Ontario’s world-class pediatric hospitals.

Our $330-million annual investment in pediatric care is investing in 100 initiatives across Ontario, and we are already seeing those results.

We’ve implemented an immunization catch-up program through the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

We are hiring more pediatric surgical staff to increase the number of surgeries at McMaster Children’s Hospital.

SickKids has also reduced its surgical wait-list below December 2022 levels and treated an extra 1,300 children in the emergency department in 2024.

We aren’t stopping there. We are pleased to approve the build of a new patient care tower on the SickKids campus, part of Project Horizon.

We are getting it done for the people of Ontario, and particularly for our pediatric patients.

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

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: Thank you to the minister for her answer.

For generations, families across Ontario have turned to SickKids hospital in their moments of greatest need. I hear from many of my constituents in my riding on the excellence in care they offer children and their families. From life-saving surgeries to world-leading research, SickKids has been there for children and parents when they need it most. Their doctors, nurses and staff go above and beyond every single day, giving children a chance to heal, to grow and to dream again. They care not only for the patient, but also for the entire family, offering comfort, compassion and hope.

It’s not surprising that SickKids has earned international recognition for its excellence and leadership in pediatric care, reflecting the dedication of everyone who works there.

Speaker, can the minister please share how our government is continuing to support SickKids and its staff as they continue their extraordinary work for Ontario families?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: There’s no doubt that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence is a fierce advocate for SickKids—but of course across all of Ontario.

Every Ontarian can take pride in having world-class pediatric hospitals in Ontario. This includes renowned facilities like McMaster Children’s Hospital, CHEO in Ottawa, and, of course, the children’s hospital at London Health Sciences Centre.

But I am truly honoured to offer particular recognition and congratulations to Toronto’s SickKids hospital today. SickKids was recently named the number one children’s hospital in the world by Newsweek’s global rankings. This is an incredible achievement, beating out more than 250 children’s hospitals worldwide.

Joining us today from SickKids are members of the outstanding leadership team: Dr. Ronald Cohn and—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Forestry industry / Industrie forestière

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Last Saturday, I rallied with community members who recently lost their jobs at the Ear Falls sawmill. I promised the people of Ear Falls that I would continue standing up for them, whether it’s to call for tariff relief, to get these tariffs removed, and to bring back the 160 jobs that were lost.

Speaker, what tangible actions has this government taken to reopen the mill and bring the jobs back to Ear Falls?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Associate Minister of Forestry and Forest Products.

Hon. Kevin Holland: We were disappointed to receive the news of Interfor’s decision to curtail operations at the Ear Falls sawmill. The Premier’s team and I reached out immediately to local officials, including Mayor Kahoot, to offer support to the workers and the community.

Ontario’s forest sector continues to face challenges from weak lumber markets and unfair US softwood lumber duties, now exceeding 45%. These tariffs are creating serious pressures on mills and communities all across the north.

Ontario has invested over $150 million through programs such as the forest sector innovation program, forest biomass program, and the Northern Energy Advantage Program to modernize mills, lower costs and strengthen competitiveness.

The federal government promised $9.2 billion to support Canada’s forestry. We will work with them to ensure Ontario gets their share.

Our government will keep fighting unfair trade practices, supporting northern jobs and defending the long-term future of Ontario—

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ce qu’on vient d’entendre, ce n’est pas un plan; c’est un mode de réaction. On a besoin d’un mode innovation.

Ce gouvernement attend toujours que l’usine soit en crise avant d’agir. L’Ontario a besoin d’une stratégie forestière à long terme qui modernise les opérations, assure des ententes d’électricité stables et des investissements dans l’innovation.

Le gouvernement écoutera-t-il ceux qui connaissent mieux cette industrie et présentera-t-il un vrai plan pour protéger les emplois et prévenir les fermetures dans l’industrie forestière?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mike Harris: I do appreciate the question, because we do want to have a focus on the forestry industry. I think it’s extremely important that we understand that this industry is facing duties and tariffs over a 45% rate right now. I’m going to say it’s incumbent on the federal government to land a deal with the United States so that we’re able to see this money be reinvested into this sector. We have billions of dollars across Canada that are tied up in these duties with court cases, and we need to get it settled. So let’s get the federal government to the table, and let’s get them spending that $1.2 billion that they promised. We want to see it spent here in Ontario.

Government accountability

MPP Stephanie Smyth: It’s just about two weeks now. We just want an answer to a simple question. Last week, I asked the Minister of Labour to release the ranking criteria used to decide which Skills Development Fund applications were ranked low, medium or high. We’re not asking for the criteria to apply; we’re asking for the criteria used to rank. That’s the part that the minister keeps avoiding. It’s starting to look like this government has created its own kind of circular economy, where the money goes around and around between donors and government grants. Give a few thousand to the PC Party, get a few million back.

Speaker, they just cancelled the big PC fundraiser, but don’t worry. Black Friday is just about a month out, and these donors are already getting a donor discount. If only ordinary Ontarians could get that kind of a deal.

My question was to the Minister of Labour, now not here, so I’ll ask the Premier—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I’ll remind the members, we do not mention when a member is in the Legislature or not.

You can continue your five seconds.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Will the minister please release the ranking criteria so Ontarians can see who’s really cashing out on this circular economy?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the government House Leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: The minister clearly responded to you last week. The SDF program, the scoring criteria—it has been publicly available since the program’s inception. The program’s evaluation guide, including the full scoring rubric and weighting, is all published on the Ontario government website.

In my previous answer to your colleague, I indicated that 72% of all of the projects were either in the medium or high category. Again, we’ve been very clear since the Auditor General’s report as a government