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

November 27, 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-Nov-27 vol. A (PDF)

L043A - Thu 27 Nov 2025 / Jeu 27 nov 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 27 November 2025 Jeudi 27 novembre 2025

Orders of the Day

Buy Ontario Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à encourager à acheter ontarien

Members’ Statements

Forest industry

Birchcliff Bluffs United Church

Riding of Nepean

Holiday messages

Violence against women

Peel Regional Police

Hospital parking fees

TD Coliseum

Whitby firefighters

House sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Manufacturing jobs

Unemployment

Highway safety

Responsabilité gouvernementale / Government accountability

Road safety

Indigenous community safety

French-language health services

Anti-racism activities

Hospital funding

Beverage alcohol sales

Bail reform

Tenant protection

Business of the House

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Gender-based violence

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Vaughan Basketball Inc. Act, 2025, Bill Pr31, Ms. Fairclough

Ontario Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour l’adaptation et la résilience aux changements climatiques de l’Ontario

Protecting Renters from Unfair Above Guideline Rent Increases Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à protéger les locataires contre les augmentations injustes de loyer supérieures au taux légal

Petitions

Education funding

Homelessness

Tenant protection

Ontario Science Centre

Youth mental health

Doctor shortage

Tuition

Affordable housing

Gender-based violence

School safety

Workplace safety

Orders of the Day

Buy Ontario Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à encourager à acheter ontarien

Barrie — Oro-Medonte — Springwater Boundary Adjustment Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la modification des limites territoriales entre Barrie, Oro-Medonte et Springwater

The House met at 0900.

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

Prières.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): And now a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Orders of the Day

Buy Ontario Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à encourager à acheter ontarien

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 26, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 72,

An Act to enact the Buy Ontario Act (Public Sector Procurement), 2025, to repeal the Building Ontario Businesses Initiative Act, 2022, to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the installation of certain signs and to amend

section 10.1 of the Legislation Act, 2006 with respect to certain provisions of the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Projet de loi 72, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 2025 visant à encourager à acheter ontarien (approvisionnement du secteur public), à abroger la Loi de 2022 sur l’initiative favorisant l’essor des entreprises ontariennes, à modifier le Code de la route à l’égard de certains panneaux et à modifier l’article 10.1 de la Loi de 2006 sur la législation en ce qui concerne certaines dispositions de la Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums.

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

M me Lucille Collard: Good morning. It is my pleasure this morning to rise to speak about Bill 72, the Buy Ontario Act, a piece of legislation that despite its pleasant title represents one of the most sweeping expansions of executive power that we have seen from this government.

Speaker, as the opposition critic for the Attorney General, I am deeply concerned about the legal, constitutional and practical implications of this bill. I am concerned about what it means for transparency. I am concerned about what it means for accountability—and before I continue, I will indicate that I am sharing my time with the member for Ajax and the member for Don Valley West.

Yes, I am concerned, and I am especially concerned about what it means for the communities we serve, including communities like my riding of Ottawa–Vanier where public services are lifelines for so many residents.

The government wants Ontarians to believe that Bill 72 is nothing more than a way to encourage the purchasing of Ontario-made products, but the text of the legislation tells a very different story, when you look into it. Speaker, let’s begin with the core of the bill: Bill 72 grants the Management Board of Cabinet —that is, a committee of only six to nine cabinet ministers—the authority to issue directives to any public sector entity and to any entity the government decides to define as public sector in regulation.

Let’s pause on that. This Legislature is being asked to give the government the authority to change through regulation the very definition of which organizations are subject to its directives. There is no statutory limit, no boundaries, no democratic safeguards. In effect, Speaker, any organization in Ontario—from universities to municipalities, from school boards to non-profits, from suppliers to private partners—could fall under the scope of this act if the government chooses. That is not normal governance. That is not smart procurement strategy. That is, in fact, unchecked executive authority.

This is not a bill about procurement; this is a bill about power—and I would say another one of those.

Speaker, what happens if an organization cannot comply with one of these directives? The bill spells it out clearly: The cabinet may withhold some or all of that organization’s provincial funding; funding can be withheld temporarily, indefinitely or permanently; and if funding is withheld until the end of the fiscal year, then it’s automatically forfeited.

The organization is explicitly instructed to “minimize harm to the public.” That means that they must cut staff, cut programs or cut services to cope with the withheld funds because the government won’t allow them to pass the consequences onto service users.

The government has not offered one additional dollar to offset the new costs of aligning procurement with these directives—not one—so the risk is entirely on the organizations that Ontarians rely on every day. This is not supporting Ontario businesses; this is coercion through funding threats.

Speaker, we cannot debate Bill 72 in isolation. We must look at it in the context of this government’s increasing disregard for oversight bodies. Let’s talk about the Ministry of the Solicitor General. We’ve seen repeated cases where the Solicitor General’s office has ignored orders from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. One such order required a decision on OPP detachment reports; another demanded the release of the Premier’s driver’s notes. These are not optional requests—these are legal orders from a commission. What did the IPC commission tell us? They told us they cannot enforce their own orders unless they go to court because the government refuses to comply voluntarily.

Think about that for a moment. A government that refuses to comply with oversight now wants a bill that lets them impose legally binding directives on anyone they choose with funding clawbacks attached. This is a dangerous pattern—a pattern of eroding transparency, a pattern of resisting accountability and a pattern of centralizing power in the hands of a small group of cabinet ministers. Bill 72 fits squarely into that pattern.

I want to address something that is deeply personal to me and to the community I represent. This government likes to say that Bill 72 is about supporting Ontario-made products and Ontario-based businesses, but the same government recently voted down my bill to help protect and promote Franco-Ontarian bookstores—essential small businesses that sustain our language, our culture and our identity.

My bill was simple. It responded to a genuine need. It would have offered meaningful support to independent Franco-Ontarian bookstores—businesses that are cultural hubs, not just retail outlets—yet this government refused that support.

So I must ask: How can the government claim it wants to buy Ontario when it refuses to support Franco-Ontarian businesses that have been pillars of this province for decades? How can it claim to help local businesses when it rejects legislation specifically designed to protect the stores and publishers that keep our French-language culture alive?

Speaker, this government rejected a targeted, meaningful initiative to support Ontario’s French-language businesses, but now wants sweeping, unbounded powers over procurement across this province. It seems that the very arguments for which the government claimed it couldn’t support my bill are no longer relevant when it comes to the government’s bill. The inconsistency is glaring.

I want to bring this back to the community I represent, Ottawa–Vanier. Ottawa–Vanier is a vibrant, diverse, community-driven riding, but it is also a riding with significant socio-economic pressures: nearly 40% of households are low income or near low income; more than 65% of rental households spend over 30% of their income on housing; we have some of the highest rates of housing precarity in eastern Ontario; our community relies heavily on public sector and non-profit services, with over 150 community agencies operating in this area. Every day, these organizations serve newcomers.

They serve seniors, families, francophone communities, survivors of violence, people without housing and people seeking mental health or addiction support. These organizations already operate on razor-thin budgets, struggling to retain staff because wages are simply not competitive.

What Bill 72 does is introduce a new layer of instability for these vital organizations. If they cannot comply with a procurement directive—one that might be ambiguous, costly or even impossible—they could lose their funding. That is not theoretical. That is a real-life risk that will affect real people in Ottawa–Vanier and the province.

This legislation jeopardizes shelters, food banks, school programs, community health centres, francophone social services, seniors’ aid programs, employment support services, youth drop-in centres and addiction treatment providers. These are not luxuries, Speaker. These are essential services that people depend on every single day, and Bill 72 puts their stability at risk.

One of the most concerning aspects of Bill 72 is its vague and open-ended language. The bill says that government directives should support Ontario businesses, but then explicitly states that directives are not limited to that purpose. This is incredibly important. The bill gives the government the power to issue directives for any purpose they deem appropriate. This is not legislation designed to encourage local procurement; this is legislation that allows the government to compel organizations—any organizations—to comply with any directive that they choose. It is policy through coercion, not collaboration.

Speaker, I want to take a moment to explain something that might sound technical, but is actually very simple and very important to note. Bill 72 says that any action taken under one of their government directives is exempt from the Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

Now, people watching at home—if anybody is—might wonder, “What does that mean, and why should I care?” Let me put it in plain language: The Discriminatory Business Practices Act is a law that prevents businesses and organizations from making unfair, harmful decisions. It exists to protect fairness in the marketplace. But Bill 72 creates a loophole, and a big one at that. It says that if the government issues a directive, whatever that directive requires can no longer be challenged under this law.

That means the government is giving itself the power to tell an organization, “You must buy from these people, but not from those people. You must choose this supplier, not that one,” even if that would normally be considered discriminatory, even if it would normally be illegal.

Instead of crafting a clear, narrow rule that simply supports Ontario businesses, the government is carving out a blanket exemption—a shield—so that if their directives break the usual rules, no one can hold them accountable for it.

Speaker, if a policy is good, if it’s well designed, if it’s legally sound, it does not need immunity. Good laws stand on their own. Good laws do not require the government to say, “If someone challenges this, we will simply remove the protections that get in our way.”

As critic for the Attorney General, I find this deeply concerning because what this exemption tells us is not simply what the government can do, it tells us clearly what the government expects to do. It suggests the government anticipates issuing directives that might otherwise expose organizations to legal consequences. Instead of fixing the policy so that it complies with our laws, they’re changing the laws so that they don’t have to comply.

Speaker, this is not transparency, this is not accountability and it’s certainly not good governance. A responsible buy Ontario strategy could be created without stripping away legal protections. Other provinces do it, the federal government does it and Ontario has done it in the past. None of them required a blanket exemption like this. This is not a targeted tool; this is a blank cheque. And Ontarians—families, seniors, small businesses—have seen what happens when this government gives itself unlimited discretion behind closed doors. We cannot let that happen here.

At its core, this exemption tells us everything we need to know. If the government believed its directives were fair, reasonable and lawful, it would not need to exempt itself from the law. That is why this clause, quietly tucked in the bill, is one of the most troubling aspects of Bill 72.

Speaker, procurement reform is not a bad idea. Supporting Ontario businesses is not a bad idea. And strengthening local supply chains is not a bad idea either, of course. We all want protection. We all want to support our businesses in Ontario. But these goals must be pursued through processes that are transparent, democratic, evidence-based and respectful of our institutions. This bill achieves none of that.

A real procurement strategy would include: some clear

definitions—which we don’t have; stakeholders’ consultations—have they even bothered; analysis of cost impact—which I haven’t seen any evidence of; protections for small organizations—none of that in the bill either; supports for non-profits and cultural institutions—important aspects of our society; safeguards for francophone organizations and businesses—which again are not being taken care of; and measurable goals and accountability.

Instead, what Bill 72 offers is vague language, unbounded executive authority, coercive funding penalties and no meaningful protections for the public.

I think Ontario deserves better. If the government is giving itself all that power to put all the details in regulation, I certainly hope that they will take into account those important terms to protect—really protect—Ontario and not just to favour some organizations that they will choose.

Speaker, this bill is not what the government is pretending that it is. It’s not a simple buy local initiative. It’s not a modest procurement reform. It’s not a tool to strengthen Ontario’s economy. It is a massive consolidation of power, enabling cabinet to impose binding directives on organizations across the province with severe financial consequences for non-compliance.

It threatens the stability of public services. It burdens non-profits, schools and municipalities. It lacks transparency, accountability and democratic oversight. It undermines the fundamental principles we expect of good governance. And it is entirely inconsistent with the government’s refusal, just weeks ago, to support local Franco-Ontarian businesses through my bill to protect independent bookstores.

Speaker, Ontarians deserve legislation that supports communities, not legislation that threatens them.

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

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: Good morning, everyone. I think it’s always a good day in Ontario if we’re talking about how we create and support Ontario businesses. I’m rising in support of some of the principles behind this Buy Ontario Act.

I think Ontarians want their tax dollars spent in ways that support Ontario workers, Ontario businesses and Ontario innovation. I think that’s really important. We need to consider the broader landscape, absolutely. We need to consider the international landscape, the US. We also need to consider as well that we want to be able to export into the world. But at the end of the day, I truly do believe that people in this province want their tax dollars to support Ontario growth, Ontario innovation, to solve Ontario challenges and problems. And procurement is absolutely one of those areas. I do think that this bill can help us get there.

My colleague from Ottawa–Vanier went over some of the very serious concerns and the greater, I would say, centralization of power and ability for this government to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants. I think those are really important and serious concerns. I think they’re in some ways rushed.

But if we do do this properly, Speaker, we can tie this to an approach that builds businesses, that creates jobs and opportunities all throughout Ontario. But it can’t just be, “Oh, buy Ontario,” and that’s it. There’s another piece to this that, frankly, I think is missing.

Yesterday’s Financial Accountability Office report painted a bit of a stark economic picture for Ontario that is very different than the messaging that we hear from the Premier and the government side. Ontario’s economic activity, measured by real GDP, declined by 0.6% in the second quarter of this year. The quarterly decline in economic activity was actually the largest since the 2008-09 recession—excluding the COVID-19 pandemic; we’ll be fair to the government there because the pandemic wreaked havoc on everyone.

In quarter 3 of 2025, employment in Ontario declined by 1,900 jobs, and that’s following a significant 38,000-person drop in the previous quarter. So this is the first back-to-back quarterly job loss since about mid-2009, excluding the pandemic.

So I agree, it’s important that we are buying Ontario. It’s important that we’re supporting Ontario workers, and Ontario workers in the skilled trades as well. One way to buy Ontario is to be able to kick-start home building so our skilled trades workers can continue to work. Well, that’s a different way of buying Ontario, with government getting out of the way and taking the HST off of all new home purchases for, not just first-time homebuyers, but anybody buying a principal residence—let’s say up to $1 million, and then you can do a sliding scale to $1.5 million.

But my focus today is going to talk about more of this bill and the government’s approach, so that it can become a real opportunity to grow innovative Ontario firms, especially smaller companies. We know we’ve got some really great tech centres in Waterloo, Toronto and Ottawa, with students creating new ideas in—really, in some ways, every college and university.

And we see that that support for our colleges and universities, frankly, is not there to the level in which we’re able to create even more jobs and opportunities and entrepreneurship through new business and encouraging students to innovate; to think beyond just going to get a job and how they are going to solve problems in the field in which they’re studying and where they’re working and who they’re speaking to.

We look at the incredible potential of growth and innovation in northern Ontario. It really is a place where I think there’s a lot of potential. So our province, in my view, Speaker, has a lot of the ingredients that we need to be able to lead in the new economy, but we’re not really leading, I think, right now—at least not right now.

Earlier this week, the government had a choice with a vote on a private member’s bill to create a made-in-Ontario AI talent innovation strategy that I think would pair in some ways quite nicely with this bill. It was a strategy to build and develop Ontario’s AI economy to retain our talent and drive innovation. Frankly, the government chose not to. We know that AI is already transforming how people in our province work, learn and live, and yet the development of that and coordinating all those aspects really is missing.

We’re seeing other jurisdictions building strategies, expanding supercomputing capacity, investing in research and working aggressively to attract talent, and in many ways Ontario is standing still.

Other people understand that we need to do more. So buy Ontario is not just about purchasing steel for power towers, for example, in the electricity distribution system. Buy Ontario is not just about procuring a vehicle for use by government or a school board or municipality or anywhere in the broader public sector. Buy Ontario is a lot more than just those kind of physical goods that you can touch or feel—or, I guess, in some ways, climb. It’s about technology as well. It’s about software. And that, I think, here, is where this government is missing the mark.

When we debated the AI bill, I found it very interesting when the government side said that government just needs to get out of the way and AI technology development will just accelerate on its own—and it’s true, we are seeing growth in companies, absolutely; frankly, without much support or help from this government, like it has been able to do in the past, where I think we’ve been able to start up and fuel and create new sectors and industries—as if just creating a strategy means government is getting out of the way. I don’t buy that premise.

Government getting out of the way doesn’t mean you don’t need to have a strategy in order to put all the pieces together. It’s a bit of a fallacy. I’m still trying to still wrap my head around that. Bringing together experts is not government getting out of the way.

Again, you’ve got to work. You’ve got to talk to people. We’re seeing a theme where there’s not too much consultation. We saw it with Bill 60, for example, with tenant advocacy groups. Well, there wasn’t much consultation there. There isn’t much consultation, I think we’re hearing, in many other areas, and I think it’s the result of this government tripping over itself. That’s what I’m seeing—without engaging, without talking to folks.

I’ve spoken to many folks in the education sector, and they say, “We wish the government spoke to us more, because we have constructive ideas—ideas that don’t necessarily cost money—in order to solve some of the challenges that students in the classroom, or school boards or government are facing.” And I think we’re seeing this here as well. The government needs to take in that input.

The government side said this: “We cannot go down this path. We have to let our innovators innovate. We have to let our IT companies be nimble. We have to have the environment for those companies to succeed, and the only way we can have those companies succeed is to stay out of their way and let them succeed.”

So let’s talk about innovators. Let’s talk about access to capital.

When I talk to folks in the start-up space—and when they’re trying to grow, and now there’s a round of funding that’s going out, and different people, different groups, are putting in offers, saying, “Here’s our proposal,” almost every single time, the Ontario, the Canadian funding offer is the lowest and with the most strings attached. The other offers? Mostly from the United States. So we’re seeing Ontario companies, Ontario people, Ontario talent going to the United States, being purchased by the United States. We can talk about buy Ontario—we’re losing ideas, we’re losing intellectual property to the United States.

Public procurement, I think, is one of the most powerful tools that the government has to support innovation, to help small firms scale, to give companies a first customer in a test environment, and we can use that strategically to build an ecosystem across multiple sectors. The provincial government has funds and supports funds that do support innovation.

What I think the provincial government could be doing and should be doing, if we look at buy Ontario, is: What are the big challenges that we’re facing in education? What are the big challenges that we’re facing in health care? What are the big challenges that we’re facing in government service delivery? What are those big challenges?

We should put out a challenge to Ontario students. We should put out a challenge to Ontario businesses. We should put out a challenge, frankly, to our world-class talent right here in Ontario, to help solve some of those challenges, to support that, to create new businesses, to create new jobs so that then some of those ideas are successful. Well, guess what? We can export those to the world. That’s what we could do. We could pair buy Ontario with a real plan and a real strategy to address and support Ontario companies, not just Ontario jobs.

We have a lot of firms that are international firms right here in Ontario. Absolutely, they do good work, and absolutely, they’re important to Ontario. But small firms, small start-ups—how are they going to compete with a really big US-based tech company, for example? Good luck. That’s going to be really, really, really hard, Speaker.

We can actually do a lot more of that right here in Ontario. Right now, there are Ontario firms in schools building tools that reduce administrative work for teachers, that help identify learning gaps so that that educator can be more effective at their job. I’ll be very frank, Speaker: In speaking to companies that are doing this work, they’re having a really hard time getting into school boards right now. They’re having a really hard time because the process which school boards use to look at this technology, it’s slow, it’s outdated, it’s not nimble.

Earlier last week, one of my colleagues was saying government just needs to get out of the way and let innovators innovate. Well, government is the block. Government is literally being the block right now to Ontario companies that are creating incredible tools in order to support students in the classroom.

I don’t know if it’s just a little bit about conservatism, where there might be some innovation but it’s really slow. We can’t afford to be slow. Buy Ontario means we’ve got to innovate a lot faster as well. Otherwise, again, we’re going to be sending profits to the United States. We’re going to be sending profits to other parts of the world.

We actually can do this. We can do this here. There are people already doing it here. I met with a student in my riding who attends the University of Waterloo. They have created an app to help students learn French. They have created an app using AI and they have done it quite cheaply. It cost them about 30 bucks a month in the testing phase in order to operate. It’s quite incredible. They wanted to, literally, just go to schools and say, “Just use this. Here, use it for free, whatever. Our costs are so low right now, we’re not paying for business development, we’re not paying for all of these other pieces.”

I think there were some teachers that were using this app because it was pulling from real-world content written in French—not AI-generated content, not something that there might be a hallucination or something like that. It’s using the AI to pull from different reputable publications to help teach kids French, to help teachers say, “Here, student, your interest is in sports.” Now, understanding what that student’s comprehension level of French is, understanding where they are, understanding how they learn and understanding their interests, they are able to pull content, with

definitions, to help tailor that to the student’s interest so that learning is fun. That’s what people in Ontario are doing and we’re seeing government blocking that. So, yes, absolutely, let’s buy more Ontario, but let’s support Ontario innovators to do that.

There’s another company that I spoke with. They have a tool that helps teachers identify learning gaps and they’re in use in some school boards in this province. So it’s good enough for some school boards, but it not good enough, apparently, for other school boards.

We’ve got a problem in public education right now. The problem is that teachers are burned out. The problem is that EAs and ECEs are burned out. Also, EAs and ECEs are not paid nearly enough, quite frankly, and respected nearly enough. We’ve got a problem in public education where educators who are really great educators—principals are identifying these educators and saying, “You’d make a really good principal” or “You’d make a really good administrator.” And you know what those teachers are saying, Speaker? They’re saying, “You know what?

I’m not interested because there’s going to be too much headache, too much stress, too many additional things that I need to worry about, that I need to do.”

Well, we can help deal with that if we support the adoption of innovative tools to help support that workload. Instead of that teacher midway through the school year figuring out what those learning gaps are and what the tailored strategies are that they need to do to support that student, we can do that a lot quicker.

It’s wild. I was talking to a principal yesterday and you can’t even move over the data points from an elementary to a secondary school, and that’s in the largest school board in this country—one of the largest in the world, actually. You can’t move those data points over because, again, we actually don’t innovate nearly enough, as much as we like to think.

So if the government wants to solve some of the challenges, frankly, that we’re facing, those are some of the ways to do that—to help bring down that workload, to respect our educators. We can do that. I’d love to see that happen.

There are products that provide deeper insights into student learning in the classroom that could also, again, as I said, really help increase and help drive some of that efficiency and effectiveness of what’s happening.

Many Ontario municipalities are exploring AI or digital tools for service delivery. They handle inquiries and direct people to point of contact for services. We need to make sure that we have a good ecosystem of Ontario companies doing this kind of work.

I was talking the other week with the leasing sector in this province. The way in which liens and this stuff is tracked right now is really outdated. There are very few that can compete. Let’s use Ontario innovation and talent and skills to solve these problems. We can do these a lot cheaper now than 10, 15, 20 years ago. We’re stuck in almost the Stone Age with some of this stuff in this province. The building was built a long time ago, but our processes shouldn’t be the same.

In health care, there are Ontario firms developing AI triage and diagnostic support and scheduling tools. We’ve often heard that those procurement processes are arduous.

So, yes, we need to support more Ontario, 110%. A strong buy Ontario framework with other strategies could change this.

In the Building Ontario Businesses Initiative Act, an Ontario business means a business that’s a supplier, manufacturer or distributor—essentially, operates permanently within Ontario; the business either has its headquarters or main office in Ontario; or has at least 250 full-time employees in Ontario at the time of the applicable procurement process.

That definition is very, very broad. It includes a wide variety of companies—many international firms. I’m not saying that those firms that are employing people in Ontario, that are developing ideas and supporting Ontario’s public sector or businesses in Ontario should be excluded from that, but we need to make sure our homegrown Ontario businesses are supported. That’s what we need to do. We can do both so that they’re on an even playing field, that they’re on a level playing field. Because guess what? To create businesses here—if they operate here and they grow here, they’re going to be more resilient and adaptable to changes that are taking place here.

Some of these larger firms—it’s great today that they’re setting up here; fantastic. I love it—more of it, why not? But they could leave tomorrow. That’s something that we could see, just like we see in autos right now. We used to have a lot more folks working in the auto sector than we do now. Yes, some of that is productivity, some of that is innovation—absolutely. Some of that is also business decisions.

So, just as easy, sometimes, as those jobs can come here—well, guess what, Speaker? Especially with AI and tech innovation, those jobs can also leave here as well. So we need to create a stronger ecosystem in this province so that we can truly support buy Ontario. These are start-ups, they’re scale-ups, they’re small and medium-sized businesses. I’m talking about medical device developers, classroom, education, technology companies. We’re losing that world-class talent that is trained right here, that is developed right here in Ontario, to the US.

Innovators and founders are leaving because they’re struggling—actually, many of them are telling me—to scale in Ontario, turning Ontario-created ideas into foreign-owned intellectual property where those profits go elsewhere. Some of them have said that they wanted to stay but they left because they lacked access to compute power, to investment or predictable support. That’s actually why we need a strategy around this—not just a buy Ontario strategy; it’s a create Ontario jobs, made-in-Ontario job strategy.

The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade—he’s travelling the world. He is trying to sell Ontario to try and bring companies here. I respect that. That is important work. But I think what’s being forgotten now is we’re forgetting how to do this kind of stuff at home. That’s what I’m seeing right now. It’s pretty hard to be able to do both of those things at the same time. And the more folks I talk to, the more concern I have that we are not going to help enable Ontario firms to be able to compete with larger companies that are setting up shop here. So there’s a lot more work to do in this.

In Kingston, Queen’s University—they have a proposal to create a national supercomputer. That’s something I’d encourage this government to really get on board with and help advance that project because that is something that can be defining for our province, in AI and supercomputing. I think it actually can be, so that we can support Ontario students, so that we can support people that have gone into the workforce and they’ve got this idea and they’ve had this idea for a long time. But if we don’t have the back-end support to be able to do it, well, good luck.

It’s going to be much more difficult, and maybe they’ll just stay in their job instead of contributing even more to Ontario—to create more here in Ontario.

We’ve got to commit to giving opportunities through this to small and medium-sized Ontario firms; businesses located here in Ontario, created here in Ontario; firms that are building their product and service infrastructure right here at home.

The government can add mechanisms such as: evaluation criteria weighted towards domestic development; pilots or phased procurement for small Ontario companies; innovation streams for Ontario-only firms; procurement pathways for early-stage technologies.

Without this, buy Ontario really, in some ways, risks just becoming a missed opportunity. It sounds great and looks great on paper, just like those Protect Ontario signs. They look fantastic. They look great at every single press conference. But we’re losing jobs. Ontario isn’t being protected.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I recognize the member from Don Valley West.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Good morning, Speaker, and thank you. It’s an honour to rise today with my colleagues to speak about Bill 72, the so-called Buy Ontario Act. And I say that because, honestly, it suggests something straightforward—something that we should feel proud of; it invokes pride, maybe, partnership and prosperity for the people of this province. I’m sure that’s what the name was designed to do. But, instead, what we have before us is a piece of legislation that really seems to raise more questions than it answers.

More than that, it really forces us to confront a troubling pattern that has come to define this government’s approach. To quote the Queen’s Park Observer from this morning, “The Ford government is heavily comms-driven. The PCs pride themselves on messaging and discipline—it’s not necessarily the message itself, but how they sell it that really matters.” And that certainly is the case when it comes to their performance on the economy, and I fear that this bill is just another part of that narrative.

This bill seems to show a lack of due diligence on the part of the government. In its current form, it seems to be inconsistent with its own bill, too, which was about opening up trade within Canada. It seems to create protective measures that prioritize Ontario companies bidding for public procurement contracts—bids that they could probably win anyway because of their scale and scope without the help of these protective measures. So I’m not really sure that this government’s approach is the right one because it seems to lack the vision that is required to implement a buy Canada policy in a smart way.

Ontario’s economy will certainly benefit from supporting open trade. We’re seeing the opposite of that from south of the border, and we know the pain that it’s causing. This bill seems to invite Ontario’s trade partners to consider further protectionist measures, which will, of course, hurt Ontario companies and Ontario workers.

Speaker, we need a government that is focused on supporting a thriving, competitive economy. We need a government that champions local industry, supports workers, encourages innovation and works collaboratively with our partners across Canada and around the world.

Certainly, the report that we saw from the Financial Accountability Office just yesterday shows this government is not doing what we need it to do on the economy. It’s not doing what it says it does, when it says, “Oh, you know, everything’s great here in Ontario and we spent $40 million on the ads to tell people that.”

Output from manufacturing is down to a 10-year low under this government—they’ve been in government almost eight years now—almost a 10-year low, Speaker. The government has only created less than 10% of what they promised in manufacturing jobs, and we’ve had nine consecutive quarters of rising unemployment. We’ve got an unemployment rate now at a 13-year high at 7.8%. We have over 200,000 young people unemployed, including those in my riding of Don Valley West. Toronto is on the top-four list of the highest unemployment rates in the country—Toronto, Speaker.

So, yes, young people are having a hard time finding a job, despite what the Premier told them to do, which was just simply, “Work harder.”

And so, yes, I understand the government’s need to come up with a new message about what they’re doing to help Ontario and protect Ontario. They do need to do something to turn this ship around. They could have actually done that, if they would have approved our motion last week to create a youth career fund, which would help employ between 47,000 and 75,000 young people in this province, and help small and medium-sized enterprises while we’re at it. But, of course, Speaker, they voted that down.

I do believe that every member in this Legislature wants to see Ontario businesses succeed. But we also know that in a global, interconnected economy, success doesn’t come from isolation or from tearing up agreements that we signed mere weeks ago or from ignoring commitments whenever the political winds shift. Yet here we are again debating a bill that doesn’t seem to actually solve a real problem we have, but to create the illusion of action.

The timing of this bill is very bizarre. Just days ago, we saw Minister Fedeli standing before cameras, proudly announcing a new commitment to strengthening Canada’s internal trade relationships: new agreements, new promises, new declarations that Ontario is ready to lead the charge in reducing barriers between provinces; a celebration of co-operation. And then, almost immediately after that, we’re handed a piece of legislation that pulls the rug out from that very message: a bill that seems to signal loud and clearly that the government is not interested in building a bigger economic tent, but in retreating behind its own walls.

So, Speaker, what is this bill really about? Why did the government put forward a bill that openly contradicts the principles of the agreements they just signed? Why move ahead with legislation that flies in the face of trade commitments that we just made to our fellow provinces?

It really is puzzling, honestly. I stand here a little bit puzzled today. It does seem like it’s really just a marketing ploy. This House and the people we represent, we deserve transparency, we deserve answers, and we know we’re not getting that from this government. We saw the Auditor General’s report that called their Skills Development Fund process not fair, not accountable, not transparent. That was on the training side of the fund, which is over a billion dollars—a billion dollars of taxpayer money not being handled in a way that’s fair, transparent or accountable.

So I don’t expect, honestly, any transparency from this government. But what I do expect is that, if this bill is passed, we will see a whole bunch of problems. We’ll see legal problems, logistical problems, practical problems, financial problems. We see vague powers here, sweeping directives and threats to public services. And we see the same pattern we’ve seen countless times before: policy that seems more designed to get a headline than for the actual long-term good of this province. And that’s really what we should be talking about, Speaker.

Let me get into some of the specifics.

Schedule 1 of this bill, again, flies in the face of countless trade agreements that we have with other provinces, with the federal government and with many of our international allies who have long viewed us as a reliable and predictable partner. For decades, administrations from all parties have worked to build a reputation for openness and co-operation—a reputation that did allow Ontario businesses to expand, our exporters to thrive and our economy to be resilient. But with this single piece of legislation, this government seems willing to put that reputation at risk.

Take, for example, the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. Speaker, this isn’t a historical accord; it’s a modern, sophisticated agreement that explicitly prohibits excluding EU suppliers from many government procurement projects. Those rules exist for a reason: to prevent exactly the kind of political gamesmanship that we’re seeing here.

I expect, Speaker, if this bill is passed, we’ll see legal challenges from our international trading partners. And they have the clout, Speaker. They have an incentive to defend their rights to trade with us. So will the Premier be excited to see those kinds of threats? I can’t imagine he will be, and we can’t just wish away international law because it’s inconvenient in a press release.

This Buy Ontario Act seems to be the polar opposite, as I said, of Bill 2. That is the bill that this government championed with great fanfare when we finally came back to this Legislature. Do you remember, Speaker, back in April, following that cold, dark, early, unnecessary, expensive election that we all suffered through? Bill 2 was supposed to tear down interprovincial trade barriers, to usher in a new era of co-operation between the provinces, to make it easier for goods, services and workers to move freely across the country.

It was a moment when the Premier seemed to be saying, “Hey, yes, we really are open for business here in Ontario.” But with this bill, that picture seems to have disappeared.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed this out too, Speaker. They say that Bill 72 is inconsistent with the work that’s being done between the federal government and the provinces to tear down internal free trade barriers. They say: “Buy Ontario still needs to be compliant with these trade obligations. Domestic agreements, namely the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and the Ontario-Quebec Agreement, limit favouring Ontarian suppliers for contracts valued above strict thresholds....”

Speaker, it’s as though the Premier has entirely forgotten the long list of memos of understanding that he spent the summer signing and, again, bragging about—lots of photo ops, lots of smiling, handshakes, promises of collaboration, the declarations that Ontario would help make it easier, not harder, for goods and services to flow across borders in our country, stripping away unnecessary regulations. So how will this bill play out with all of those provinces who also agreed to remove or reduce their own protections?

This will now be the second time that our Premier has been the reason for stalling barrier-free trade between the provinces. I pointed that out, Speaker, when we debated Bill 2, that it was Premier Jason Kenney in 2019 who took early steps to advance interprovincial trade reform. But our Premier? He actually stood in the way of that. He wasn’t serious about the opportunity then. He’s talking a lot about it now, but it’s mostly just talk. It seems to be all about the headlines and the photo ops. It seems to be more about talk than actual trade.

So, Speaker, showmanship—that really seems to be what this is about. But I fear that this showmanship will lead to some very tough conversations, as I said, with our fellow provinces, the federal government and our international trading partners.

Speaker, I’m wondering what the next conversation between the Prime Minister and the Premier is going to look like, whether it’s on the phone or text—who knows? We hear these different stories. The last time we know the Premier decided to insert himself into international trade matters, he actually halted Canada-US negotiations through his ad campaign. This time, Speaker, he isn’t just interfering with our trading relationships with the US, he’s undermining trade with our fellow Canadians.

Speaker, let’s move to

section 4 of

schedule 1. It looks to create a stronger, more formalized expectation on subcontractors, who in many cases are the ones who are actually responsible for purchasing on behalf of hospitals, school boards, transit agencies, municipalities and many other public sector organizations. These are the people and companies that handle procurement on a day-to-day basis. They navigate very complex supply chains. They ensure compliance with existing regulations. So it’s already very complex, and they have tight reporting requirements.

And now, with this piece of legislation, this government wants to add yet another layer of red tape, Speaker—one that seems to be broad, ill-defined and incredibly burdensome. Who exactly and how will we evaluate, audit and enforce the mountain of new reporting this bill would demand? Do we have the digital systems? My colleague from Ajax has talked about AI, our need to advance that here with a strategy. Do we have the processes and the staff to do that? This isn’t a matter of just tightening the bolts. It’s an overhaul of an administrative ecosystem, and that doesn’t happen easily or for free.

The government would likely have to hire more employees, analysts, auditors, compliance officers, administrators, IT specialists and managers to oversee them all—an entire new bureaucracy devoted solely to figuring out who bought what from where, and whether it meets these shifting directives that the minister feels like issuing that week.

But Speaker, again, that actually seems like a problem, hiring all those people. Wasn’t it just this summer when the Treasury Board president stood up and said, “We’re going to freeze hiring at agencies”? They said every ministry must tighten its belt, that they would let few hires happen, that you have to come to them for special approval. It’s just one more puzzling aspect of this legislation.

We know that this government governs from sound bite to sound bite, from slogan to slogan, without any real sense of long-term responsibility, or certainly any ability to manage our economy. This bill is just one more example of that.

We’ve got the Toronto Star’s Martin Regg Cohn saying, “Now, Canada’s richest province is back to erecting barriers again, all on its own. Thanks to Ford’s Ontario, it is once again each province for itself....

“For all his fulsome words, Captain Canada has gone back on his word.”

This bill is yet another populist stunt. It seems like a performative gesture meant to look bold while creating far more problems than it will solve. It’s a headline-chasing exercise that leaves taxpayers, public institutions and workers to deal with the fallout.

There are vague, sweeping powers in this bill. We see that there’s unchecked authority when it comes to those responsible for setting the directives. Sections 3 and 5 of

schedule 1 make the scope of this directive alarmingly broad—so broad, in fact, that it’s difficult to imagine the drafters ever intended to build in meaningful guardrails at all. The bill outlines sweeping powers without defining their limits or criteria. It leaves open vast interpretive space for ministers and bureaucrats to impose requirements that could change from year to year, from month to month.

Who will bear the brunt of that? It’s not the government itself; it’s not the Premier’s office, even though he’s doubled the size of it and won’t tell us how much he spends on it. It will be our schools. It will be our hospitals. It will be the children’s aid societies, our public health units, long-term-care homes, transit agencies and every other organization who is focusing on serving the public, Speaker. They’ll be the ones left scrambling.

They’ll be forced to navigate an unpredictable landscape of procurement directives, reporting rules, compliance expectations, and knowing it all could change at a moment’s notice with a new directive. This is not responsible management. It’s broad, sweeping powers and it really seems to be chaos by design.

And then, Speaker, I think it gets even worse.

Section 6 of

schedule 1 allows the government to withhold funding to any public entity that fails to comply with whatever edict the minister has lately chosen to impose. So just think about that. A hospital that does not perfectly, to the letter of the law, follow a procurement directive, maybe just simply because they’re too complex to understand—even in that kind of situation, they could see their budgets slashed. They could see having to basically write a cheque back to the government.

This is from a government that its own audit found irregularities in one of the companies it gave taxpayer money to. Now we’ve got a forensic audit going on. Have they asked for that money back yet? Did they stop writing those cheques?

Just recently we heard—we’ll get confirmation in the days to come, I expect—they gave that money for years to that company while they knew about the irregularities in that company. Now, they’re going to say, “You skip crossing a t or dotting an i and you might have to give us our money back.” It doesn’t really seem balanced. Maybe that’s what they’re hoping for. Maybe they’re thinking that when these public sector organizations fail to administer all these rules perfectly, maybe that’s how they will end up balancing the budget, Speaker, because it’s certainly not a smart plan that they have today.

Let me be absolutely clear, though, Speaker. We’re not opposed on this side of the House to buying more goods and services from Ontario businesses. We know that they are great. We know that they’re innovators. We know that companies from around the world buy Ontario goods and services. We want Ontario companies to succeed, to grow and to compete successfully. But this bill, Speaker, is drafted with such sweeping language, such glaring lack of precision, that it leaves far too much room for misinterpretation. And that is just not good. It’s dangerous. It creates uncertainty and complexity. That will not help our Ontario companies grow and succeed and compete.

Our allies, our trading partners and our fellow provinces deserve clear signals that Ontario is not looking to tear up the agreements we just signed. Instead, this bill seems to suggest that ministerial power is going to actually change how we deal with provinces in Canada, and we find that very, very troubling.

Why does this government have to push something that seems to be so isolationist when we do think there’s middle ground, Speaker? You can develop local procurement strategies that don’t get in the way of trade agreements. We could have maybe just simply taken the act this bill would repeal and tweak the wording around subcontractors to make sure that they are buying local when possible. But instead, we have this big bill trying to make a splashy headline.

What we need to see from the government is not a base instinct to just, again, drive a message home about all they are doing to “protect” Ontario, because we know their plan isn’t working. We know. Again, as I said, nine quarters of rising unemployment, 700,000 people unemployed, including 200,000 young people, including those in my riding of Don Valley West.

I get the instinct to try to change the channel and talk about, “Look at what we’re doing over here. Look at what we’re doing over here, while all of you over here”—including Toronto. Toronto, the capital of Ontario: We are number two on the list of highest unemployment in this country. Could we have a plan to fix that? It is certainly not this bill.

We could have had tax cuts to help small businesses. I’ll conclude there, Speaker.

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

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to another day at the House.

I must say to the member from Don Valley West, I am shocked, actually shocked, with the speeches I heard coming out of the Liberal members. We had an election in February of this year. The overarching theme was Protect Ontario. The people of Ontario want to be protected.

You mentioned some comments about free trade within Canada. Nothing in this bill contradicts the free trade within Canada Act. We are continuing to move ahead with labour mobility, reducing duplication that has nothing to do with supporting Ontario and Canadian businesses.

Is it fair to say—if I could ask a question to the member from Don Valley West—that you will not be supporting this bill, not be supporting Ontario businesses first, not be supporting our government’s mandate to extend this to the broader public sector, to municipalities, to school boards, to Metrolinx, to Infrastructure Ontario, to support the mandate to buy Ontario- and Canadian-made products?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I’m kind of shocked by the question because again, as I highlighted, it’s under this government that we’ve had nine quarters of rising unemployment. It’s under this government that more businesses are closing their doors than opening their doors. We have proposed lots of things that would help Ontario, and this government has ignored them. We’ve proposed a small business tax cut; we have proposed a youth career fund that would help both businesses and young people.

So, again, we’re trying to understand this bill. It seems to be that it’s all about the marketing ploy as opposed to actually creating jobs and helping Ontario businesses. This government is not serious about that. If they were, they would be doing things like taking the $5 billion that they have in the Protect Ontario account and making good use of it now.

The jury is still out on whether or not we will pass this bill. Maybe we will get a better understanding of how this government will actually implement it in the days to come.

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

M me France Gélinas: La députée d’Ottawa–Vanier a mis des bons points par rapport à ce que—acheter en Ontario, est-ce que c’est important? Oui, absolument. Les néo-démocrates, il y a deux semaines, on a mis de l’avant une motion qui disait juste ça : achetez en Ontario. Par contre, lorsqu’on a eu la chance de débattre d’un projet de loi qui était pour protéger des entreprises franco-ontariennes qui ont besoin d’aide en ce moment, le gouvernement de M. Ford a voté contre. Je me demande si, du côté des libéraux, ils sont d’accord que d’acheter en Ontario, ça devrait inclure acheter également d’entreprises franco-ontariennes?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I thank the member from Nickel Belt for the question. Absolutely, we think that supporting Franco-Ontario businesses is important, and it was really disappointing that this government voted against the member from Ottawa–Vanier’s bill. Certainly, Franco-Ontarian businesses are an important part of our economy, of our culture, and supporting them is the right thing to do. Speaker, we can’t buy from French Ontario businesses if we’re buying from other jurisdictions outside of Ontario. We’ve got them right here; we can buy from them at home. So certainly we want to continue to see that.

This bill certainly does not talk about that, and I would, again, welcome the government’s response as to what they are going to do to actually support Franco-Ontario businesses when they defeated the bill from the member from Ottawa–Vanier.

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

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Thank you to my colleagues for all three sets of remarks this morning.

When we look at this bill—I think that probably everybody in this Legislature is here because we’re committed to doing the right thing for Ontario and for Canadian businesses. Some have said that this bill is actually more just a branding exercise, a rebranding on this issue, given the legislation that it’s planning to repeal.

But on the flip side, we’ve heard in all three perspectives that it’s actually giving undue power and unnecessary power to a small select group of people to be able to advance the issue.

So my question to the member from Don Valley West is, what do you think we’d be able to do very differently with this piece of legislation versus what they already had on the table in 2022 and why the additional extra powers?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I thank the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her question. Yes, that’s exactly one of the challenges with this bill, that it’s not really clear what it will do differently except give these vast sweeping powers to—actually, we’re not really sure who. I think it was one of the law firms who looked at this bill, who said, “Well, gee, will it be Supply Ontario? Will it be another agency?”

And again, these directives could come at any time. The public sector agencies who are going to be scrambling to figure all this out—we could have simply changed, as I said, the rules for subcontractors under the bill that this bill repeals, and that would have, I think, done what the government says they’re trying to do.

So why they’re doing this and giving themselves sweeping powers that will, again, put everybody on edge around what’s actually going to change this month—I think that is a question this government still needs to answer.

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

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of the official opposition, and my constituents at home in St. Catharines. My question is to the third party member. Ontario remembers promises around buy Ontario, supporting local workers, strengthening our supply chains and investing in our communities. We know the Liberals made some of those commitments, but too often Ontario manufacturers and steelworkers in Niagara were left on the sidelines, sitting at picket lines.

With Bill 72 now before us, there’s real opportunity for us, as legislators, to get it really right. Will you work with us to ensure that the bill prioritizes Ontario-made goods, Ontario workers, Ontario manufacturers so that communities like Niagara and Hamilton finally see the public investments that benefit the people who live and work there? I’m sure you also agree Ontario deserves a buy Ontario policy that actually delivers.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: I’d like to thank the member from St. Catharines for the question. She’s absolutely right. I know the member’s very passionate about the Garden City Skyway project and the fact that we’re not using Ontario steel there.

This provincial government has invested into Ontario steelmakers. I would note, though, the federal government has invested a heck of a lot more, proportional to what this provincial government has been doing. It’s a shame that Ontario steel has not been used by this government in major infrastructure projects in this province. This government needs to do a lot better when it comes to it.

Again, I’m a little concerned, because I look at it; it’s a nice title, Buy Ontario Act—100%. I think every member in this House can agree we need to buy more in Ontario. We need to buy more from Niagara winemakers. We need to buy more steel in Hamilton and so many other things in this province, and support Ontario innovations and innovators.

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

Ms. Lee Fairclough: It’s good to be able to ask another question. This question is to my member from Ajax, who in his remarks, I think, really highlighted the importance of AI and innovation in our province in the future and the fact that this government just voted down a bill that would make sure that we had a strategy for that.

Again, we’ve got a bill here that’s talking about really prioritizing Ontario-based companies around procurement, but yet we’re not prioritizing for some of these other areas. So I just wondered if the member from Ajax will speak a little more to that.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: I thank my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for the question.

This government can talk the talk. I don’t see them walking the walk when it comes to ensuring that we’re able to create new Ontario businesses and new innovations, and creating that ecosystem in order to do it.

We heard the government’s reasoning for voting against Bill 61, a bill to create an AI talent innovation strategy in this province. The government just needs to get out of the way and it’s magically, essentially going to happen. Then we see here the government is getting in the way.

So the messaging doesn’t really line up, quite frankly. They had a really great opportunity to be able to hear from stakeholders, from experts, from folks quite frankly more knowledgeable than all of us in that field on what Ontario needs to do to develop a strategy on AI talent and innovation.

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Seeing the time on the clock, members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Forest industry

MPP Billy Denault: For generations, the Ottawa Valley has been the beating heart of the forestry industry, a place where hard work, family tradition and innovation thrive beneath the tall pines. Forestry isn’t just a sector in my riding; it’s a way of life passed down through generations who take pride in sustainable stewardship and small town entrepreneurship.

Over the past year I’ve had the privilege of meeting with industry leaders at round table discussions and visiting remarkable family-run operations, from Carson Lake Lumber and Killaloe Wood Products to Ben Hokum and Son, Herb Shaw, McRae mills, Murray brothers and many more. Each represents a story of perseverance, community and innovation.

This summer I welcomed Ontario’s Associate Minister of Forestry and Forest Products, Minister Holland, to my riding as our government reaffirmed its commitment to these forestry families. Through the forest biomass program over $9.1 million was invested in projects across eastern Ontario, with more than $4.4 million directed to Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke alone.

These investments strengthen the sector’s competitive advantage, create jobs, increase productivity and open doors to emerging products. Killaloe Wood Products received $952,437 to acquire new mobile equipment and that will fuel the availability of forest biomass and bioenergy production in my riding.

These aren’t just numbers; they’re investments in people, in rural communities and in the next generation of forestry families who care for the land that sustains us.

In the Ottawa Valley we don’t just grow trees; we grow opportunity, family and pride.

Birchcliff Bluffs United Church

Ms. Doly Begum: Speaker, every year Birchcliff Bluffs United Church hosts their beautiful Christmas Miracles at the Birchcliff Bluffs United Church in support of the United Church as well as the Bluffs Food Bank. It’s such a beautiful, beautiful event, where the proceeds go to help the food bank. We know people in our community, right now especially, are struggling. People are trying to make their rent, trying to keep up with their groceries, and it’s just not enough.

It’s one of the ways during this beautiful time the United Church comes together with the community to support the local food bank, which is just in their basement.

It’s a beautiful evening of heartwarming Christmas stories, and I am excited to join some outstanding storytellers to read one of these stories, like every year. The storytellers include Avis Favaro, Ann Ward, John Moore, Steve Paikin, Minister Katie Vardy, who will do the storytelling that evening, along with music director Randy Vancourt, who will have musical sessions, the Birchcliff Bluffs UC Choir as well as singer Loralie Vancourt, Daniel Giverin on violin and special guest musicians the Ault Sisters, accompanied by David Warrack.

There will be some wonderful community members who share some conversation, a gingerbread house, raffle tickets, holiday prizes etc. that are made by Shirley Scott.

I just want to give a big shout-out to the entire team that put this beautiful occasion together. I’m looking forward to another year of Christmas miracles.

Riding of Nepean

MPP Tyler Watt: Over the last few weeks, I have been reminded again and again of the incredible pride that we share in Nepean.

Earlier this month, I toured Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Centre south Nepean and main primary care clinics, and I left inspired. The team here is breaking down barriers to care, supporting families and building a healthier, more equitable Nepean. Their work embodies what community looks like when we lift each other up.

I was also honoured to join many of my Ottawa area colleagues at the Ottawa Sikh Society Gurdwara Sahib to celebrate the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Standing with the Sikh community for such a meaningful occasion reminded me of the strength we draw from our diversity and our shared commitment to service.

In Barrhaven, we celebrated two milestones that speak to our growth and spirit. St. Mary community centre officially opened its doors, a new space for families, seniors and newcomers to connect and feel supported. The Barrhaven BIA marked its 20th anniversary: two decades of driving local business, fostering neighbourhood pride and helping shape one of the fastest-growing communities in the country.

Speaker, everywhere I go in Nepean, I see hope. I see people who care deeply about one another, who show up, who build, who give. That is the heart of Nepean, and it is the privilege of my life to represent it here in the Legislature.

Holiday messages

MPP George Darouze: As we approach the end of 2025, I have been reflecting on the year that was: 2025 has been a year defined by collaboration, community and progress. Here at Queen’s Park, we have been working to advance legislation to support and invest in our communities, and I’m proud of the work that has taken place here. But the engagement with the community is what I’m most proud of.

This past summer and fall have reminded me once again why Carleton is such a special place to represent. From the historic celebrations of Dickinson Days in Manotick to the tradition and agricultural pride showcased at the Metcalfe Fair, Richmond Fair and Capital Fair, our communities come together to highlight the spirit of our region.

As we move into the Christmas season, I look forward to joining families at parades, tree-lightings and other community events that bring neighbours together. This is the season that inspires kindness, connection and gratitude as we look towards opportunity in the new year.

To residents of Carleton and to my colleagues here at Queen’s Park, I wish you all a wonderful Christmas and holiday season to end 2025.

Violence against women

Ms. Catherine Fife: November 25 was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which is an epidemic.

The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses collates the names of femicide victims who were murdered in the province of Ontario each year. These women were killed by men, most by men whom they knew. It is an honour to share their names today:

Deborah Anishinabie;

Jolene Arreak;

Susan Berrezueta;

Alisha Brooks;

Serenity Brown;

Sacha Charles;

Sukhdeep Cheema;

Renée Descary;

Rachelle “Francis” Desrochers;

Eleanor Doney;

Tracey Duncan;

Karen Marie Ferguson;

Anita Goodings;

Anita Joan Gray;

Sheila Ann Hercules;

Robin Emiline Kanasawe;

Lori Konrad;

Savannah Kulla;

Yuk Kwan Chu;

Ravina Maghera;

Paula Mallette;

Shelley Anne Marconi;

Barbara Morgan;

Barbara O’Donnell;

Shahnaz Pestonji;

Phy Puth;

Nilakshi Raguthas;

Brenda Rus;

Amanpreet Saini;

Nieshia Sam;

Charlene Shellard;

Shalini Singh;

Marilyn Stevens;

Mikaila Straatsma;

Virginia Theoret; and eight Jane Does.

They mattered, and they deserve justice.

Peel Regional Police

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Earlier this month, I was proud to congratulate Chief Nish Duraiappah and the Peel police for Project Winner, which took over a million dollars in illegal drugs, guns and over a thousand rounds of ammunition off our streets.

This year alone, our government invested almost $8 million in the Peel police through the Community Safety and Policing Grant Program. Project Winner is a powerful example of how our government’s investments in community safety are delivering real results.

I was also proud to join the Premier and the Solicitor General at the Toronto police chief’s gala at the Automotive Building at Exhibition Place to support Victim Services Toronto.

The following week, we announced an investment in mental health support for first responders, including $25,000 each for the Peel Regional Police, Peel paramedics and the Mississauga firefighters. I want to thank them all again for everything they do and for meeting with me yesterday here at Queen’s Park, including Chris Varcoe, Adam Neal, Mike Widmeyer, Wesley McEwen and Michael Smith from the Mississauga Fire Fighters Association.

And finally, Speaker, next Tuesday, December 2, I am hosting a community information session on crime prevention with the Peel police, OPP and other local experts at the army, navy and air force veterans club in Lakeview, and everyone is welcome to attend.

Hospital parking fees

MPP Wayne Gates: Over the summer, I met with my constituents who are part of an organization called Ontario Parents Advocating for Children with Cancer. They’re the parent voice for families who have children diagnosed with cancer across the province. We spoke about the many issues that parents and families who have children living with cancer face. It’s an almost unimaginable situation, one that creates an incredible number of challenges.

One of these challenges is the cost of hospital parking. We’re not talking about a visit to a hospital for a few days or a week at a time. We’re talking about months, sometimes even a year or longer, of daily hospital visits for their family. When the costs add up, they’re staggering. It’s thousands upon thousands of dollars. I’ve talked to parents in my community who have had to go in debt or take out a second mortgage just because their child got sick with cancer.

The amazing people of OPACC fundraise to reimburse families for some of the costs, but let’s be clear: Hospital parking is not something any family with a childhood cancer diagnosis should be worrying about.

I’m calling on this government to do the right thing and take action to eliminate hospital parking fees for families dealing with childhood cancer. Let’s get this done. Let’s continue to work for elimination of hospital parking fees for every patient, worker, family member and doctor in the province of Ontario.

TD Coliseum

MPP Monica Ciriello: Last week, Hamilton and the entire Golden Horseshoe witnessed a moment, decades in the making: a grand opening of the new TD Coliseum.

What was once an inspiration was now a reality and a landmark in our downtown core. It didn’t open with just a routine ribbon cutting; it opened with an icon: the legendary Sir Paul McCartney stepping onto a stage with over 14,000 people in the crowd on opening night.

It was more than just a concert; it was a statement for our city. This isn’t about big names and bright lights; it’s about building the way Steeltown has always built: with grit, sweat, pride and an unwavering love for our city.

Across Hamilton, you could feel the impact. Local restaurants and bars were packed, reservations jumped by more than 50% and hotels that had seen quiet nights were suddenly full. From the hard-working trades who rebuilt the arena to the restaurants and shops in every corner of our city, Hamiltonians felt the lift.

And what this tells me is that when people believe in Hamilton, when we invest in Hamilton and when we work for Hamilton, together, we build opportunity. Good jobs, busy kitchens, full dining rooms, tourists, families and fans filling our downtown streets—that’s the Hamilton way: hard-working people from Hamilton building something great together.

Whitby firefighters

Mr. Lorne Coe: On August 20, 2024, Whitby Fire and Emergency Services responded to a house fire with reports of a person trapped on the second floor. Captain Christopher Curry and firefighters Terry Williams and Adonis Perez confronted intense flames, heavy smoke and rapidly deteriorating conditions. Advancing with a firehose, they extinguished the multiple fires while searching for the trapped occupant. After forcing open a blocked door, they located the unresponsive individual. Moments later, the ceiling collapsed on them. Despite the extreme danger, they pressed forward and carried the victim to safety.

Their actions demonstrate remarkable courage, professionalism and unwavering commitment to protecting Whitby residents. Recently, these firefighters received the 2024 Ontario Medal for Firefighter Bravery, our province’s highest honour for those who have risked their lives to save and protect the lives of others.

I’d like to extend our congratulations for their extraordinary courage and bravery.

House sittings

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

Hon. Steve Clark: Point of order: I just want to advise the members of the House that the night sitting scheduled for this evening has been cancelled.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Graydon Smith: I am very thrilled to welcome my former CAO from the town of Bracebridge from my mayoral days, John Sisson, and his partner Robin Hiltz to Queen’s Park. Welcome to you both; great to have you here.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Today I’m pleased to welcome the Camp Molly foundation board, who are joining us for question period and a Legislative tour. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I’m very pleased to welcome page Manélie Lavictoire and her very proud parents who are here today: Azadeh and Guillaume Lavictoire who all are from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: I’d like to welcome Ontario Genomics to the House. They had a reception this morning and I’m really looking forward to our meeting this afternoon.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I am pleased to recognize today Andrew Darwin from my riding of Scarborough North who began his term as a Legislative page on November 17. Andrew is an exemplary grade 8 student at Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati Catholic School and we are proud to see him representing our community here at Queen’s Park.

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Andrew’s proud family in the members’ gallery—his father Darwin Thevathasan; his mother Vathana Arulappu; and his sister Andrea Darwin—who have joined us in support.

My sincere thanks to all of our pages for their excellent service, particularly Andrew. Thank you, Andrew.

Hon. Doug Downey: I’m really pleased to introduce David and Heather Breckles long-time good friends who watch this show every single day, so I’m glad to have you here in person.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome Dr. Nicholas Leyland from Hamilton Health Sciences. He was here at Queen’s Park for making women’s health a priority—I couldn’t agree more.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Let’s not start chirping before we even get to question period.

The member for Beaches–East York.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome powerful Priya Vithani from beautiful Beaches–East York and I want to welcome our biggest fan of question period, watching us every day from Tillsonburg, Ontario, Pat Brady, who I think loves me more than the member from Haldimand–Norfolk.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: I’d like to introduce an entrepreneur, a friend and an inspiration: Linda Pond. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I am pleased to introduce the Canadian Nuclear Association today here at Queen’s Park. I can’t wait to be there this evening to speak at your event.

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to welcome three of my constituency staff; it’s their first time at Queen’s Park: Anita Bourgeois, Lise Beaulne and Cathy Pfeifer. They make me look good. You can all laugh.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I’d also like to welcome the members of the Women’s Health Coalition and all that have joined today to advocate for women’s health issues.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, we’re wrapping up another week here in the Legislature. Here’s where we are at with this government: a House leader under RCMP criminal investigation, government decisions under OPP anti-racketeering investigation and a Premier who is holding the line for all of the ministers involved.

After weeks and weeks of embarrassing headlines, we are still no closer to getting answers from this government about how they decided which organizations would receive skills development grants.

I’d like to ask the Premier to tell us how it is possible that so many applicants with insider connections got funding from this government.

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, when we make these decisions, we assess broad government priorities. I want to reference one in particular. Yesterday, the government announced Pickering nuclear generation’s refurbishment. This is a refurbishment that will, alone, create over 37,000 jobs and contribute $41.6 billion to our economy.

When we make decisions to support training for many of the men and women in Ontario’s building trades, it’s with nation-building in mind. It’s with a $200-billion commitment to infrastructure in mind, Speaker. When you look to refurbishment projects like the one announced yesterday, the incredible Minister of Energy and our finance minister were there, supported by a number of men and women from Ontario building trades, they recognize that this project will put their men to work. They know that, had it been up to the members opposite, they would have given them pink slips, Speaker.

That’s why we’re training, nation-building, building—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, you know what, Speaker? It’s really unfortunate that the Premier scheduled a press conference at exactly this time so he didn’t have to be here to answer these questions—

Interjections.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We’re not going to go down that road today. I will warn people today, and people will be removed from the chamber if they don’t follow the rules.

Please continue.

Ms. Marit Stiles: The government may be sick of hearing these questions, and let me tell you, I am really sick of asking them. That is why I submitted a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner this week. Ontarians deserve answers, and I am not going to stop fighting to get them.

Will the Premier come clean about his involvement—full transparency, full disclosure—about all of the political interventions and communications related to the SDF grants?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, I welcome any opportunity to stand up and speak about the work this government is doing to invest in training for our next generation. As I mentioned, this government is committed to nation-building. We’re laying down partisan stripes, working with the federal government, working with provinces from around Canada to nation-build.

I just highlighted a specific project that we announced just yesterday, Speaker. Had it been up to the members opposite, they would have handed those workers in Pickering pink slips. They would have sent them home, Speaker.

This government is investing in a refurbishment that will create over 37,000 jobs. This is what is so exciting about our nuclear sector: 90% of project spending will occur right here in Canada, in Ontario. This is incredible.

Supporting our local businesses—and those businesses know that, when it comes to linking with training, they’ve got a government that’s going to support them—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Laying down partisan stripes? I mean, it’s like you can’t get a grant from this government unless you donate to that minister’s riding, for goodness’ sake. Are you kidding me?

Speaker, it is undeniable. Ontarians have had enough of this minister’s endless excuses. They want him gone. So back to the Premier: Will you listen to Ontarians and fire this minister?

Hon. David Piccini: As I’ve said, we have put those stripes down. We’ve invested in projects whose executives have donated tens of thousands to the members opposite—but that doesn’t matter, as I’ve said—investing in projects led by former candidates of the parties opposite—but that doesn’t matter. What matters are the merits of the training they are delivering and the work they are doing to train Ontarians.

Again, I reference that this leader campaigned on giving pink slips to the men and women of Pickering’s nuclear sector. She can’t name one training centre—not one training centre—that she’s actually visited. I know because many of these unions have reached out to me saying they’ve invited her, and she’s refused to come.

It’s really, really, really disappointing, but it’s not surprising because they have abandoned that party opposite. They used to be the party of labour; now it’s Premier Ford and the Ontario PCs because we’re putting their members to work.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, let’s talk disappointing, shall we? It is really shocking how deep this scandal goes and how close the connections run to this government. In round 5 of the Skills Development Fund, an Alberta company called Technology North received $900,000 from the Ontario government. Was the Minister of Labour aware that his wife was a lobbyist for Technology North?

Hon. David Piccini: It’s shameful that they’re bringing family members in—a hard-working woman like my wife who works closely and follows the rules of the Integrity Commissioner.

Again, we’re proud to invest in nation-building projects that are going to put the men and women of this province to work because we’ve got a plan. We’ve got a plan to build highways, a plan to build roads, a plan to build public transit, after years of neglect, and a plan that’s going to make Ontario an energy superpower, from small modular reactors and the 18,000 jobs there to nuclear refurbishment in Pickering to potential new nuclear in communities like mine. People see the immense opportunity this offers.

We’ve got an energy minister that is enabling Ontario to stand on our own two feet, to be energy sufficient. We’re going to make sure we have a talent pipeline to meet the needs of tomorrow and the days to come, and we’re not going to apologize for it.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, the minister, I think, said he cleared it somehow—I don’t know—but we’re going to need proof of that. We’re going to need proof of that because the minister’s wife, Faith Chipman, is a lobbyist for Technology North. She’s also a registered lobbyist here in Ontario.

The minister can say there’s nothing to see here, but there is a pattern. I mean, just look at who has benefited from this fund that he controls. We’ve got the Premier’s campaign manager. We’ve got the minister’s close and personal friend, the Paris groom. Now, we’ve got the minister’s wife.

Did the minister give a $900,000 grant to Technology North because his wife is a lobbyist for that company?

Hon. David Piccini: No. As I’ve said, this government is committed to supporting meaningful training pathways in every corner of our economy.

This morning, we were out, and I met with a number of our labour unions, and members of the OPFFA yesterday who were disappointed that that member opposite would oppose the very training that’s helping their men and women in uniform, delivering better training on the ground.

That’s what we’re going to continue to do: nation-build, to build projects that are going to define a province, define a nation and put the men and women who are going to get the job done to work, with better training, breaking down barriers for meaningful pathways to apprenticeships. Statistically, it’s working.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition can’t name one union that she’s visited, one training hall—the men and women in our provincial building trades who are getting the job done.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, this minister is going to do absolutely anything, it’s clear, to avoid answering questions about his grift. It’s not about the fund. It is about the grift. It is about the direct line between this minister, between the people who are making decisions and the people who are benefiting. It is never, ever about the people of Ontario. It is never about the workers. It is always about this minister and this government and their insiders and their friends.

The laundry list of lobbyists who have made millions of dollars from their connections to this fund and this government continues to grow. Meanwhile, we found out yesterday that manufacturing jobs in this province are down to 1976 levels.

How many unemployed workers are not being trained right now because of this minister using that fund as a slush fund for his friends and family?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, it’s completely inaccurate. We’re going to continue to stay focused on supporting training pathways with our fund that’s improved after every round, that’s linking to our employment management system that requires a financial audit, that requires monthly reporting that every dollar goes to training. Why are we doing that? Because one need look no further than the recent pandemic to the tariff policies that we see from President Trump.

We’re investing in projects that are helping men and women of any age get better trained to deal with the disruptions that we’re seeing in our economy, and we’re proud to have a program that’s making those investments. We’ve seen an increase in registration in apprenticeships, support for AI-driven training, support for training that’s delivering a better generation of PSWs and health care workers, and we’re going to continue to stay focused on that.

Manufacturing jobs

Mr. John Fraser: My question is to the Premier. Ontario’s manufacturing jobs as a share of the economy is the lowest it has been since 1976. It’s not because the economy is growing—we’ve had nine straight quarters of decline—no, it’s because the Premier continues to shovel millions and millions of dollars out the door, no strings attached, to friends and insiders in the rot that is the Skills Development Fund.

There is no real plan for jobs in Ontario, and everybody can see it. Our unemployment is at a record high. The Premier thinks the solution is to shovel $10 million out the door to the owners of a strip club.

Speaker, when is the Premier going to get serious about manufacturing jobs here in Ontario?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, to the member opposite for that very important question.

Let’s go back in time a little bit, when the government that he was part of said to manufacturers, “We don’t want you in this province anymore. We want a service economy,” and abandoned our manufacturing sector. Then 300,000 manufacturing jobs later, Premier Doug Ford and this government come in, and today, from the low point of Kathleen Wynne and the previous government of 750,000 jobs, we’ve grown it to 830,000 manufacturing jobs. Because we have the backs of the manufacturing workers in this province, be it in steel, be it in auto, be it in lumber. Right across this province, we’re supporting manufacturing. We’re supporting workers.

In fact, we’ve gone further. We’ve done a manufacturing tax cut to incent more capital to support the businesses that hire the workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: It’s interesting for the minister to say that because they’ve gained about 20,000 jobs in seven years, which is way slower than the population grows, but I’ll let him explain that in his response.

It’s actually not about jobs with the Premier. It’s all about the big show. They’re in such a hurry to do things—and I think they’re in double digits for housing bills now, each one undoing the one that was there before. Our housing starts are the lowest in the country by a country mile, and that gap is growing.

They’re in such a hurry, they gave tens of millions of dollars to a company that they put under a forensic audit, and they continue to give it to them.

They were in such a hurry to start Ontario Health atHome that dying people couldn’t get the supplies they needed to die in dignity at home.

We need a serious government and a serious Premier who’s serious about jobs. When is the Premier going to do that?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, you know what an unserious government does? They said they would shut down the Pickering nuclear station. That’s what an unserious government, the previous Liberal government, said.

Yesterday, I was very proud to be in my riding of Pickering–Uxbridge, along with the great Minister of Energy and Mines, to announce the refurbishment of the Pickering nuclear station, which will power 2.2 million homes—clean energy, good jobs. You know how many jobs that will be? Some 30,000 new construction jobs supporting our manufacturing sector.

With their government, there wouldn’t be one job—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Don Valley North will come to order.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: —their policies.

Madam Speaker, we’re stepping up for building the vision and the future of this province, but we’re doing it today.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, with this government, mistakes are going up and jobs are going down. And if you want a visual representation, a real visual representation, just take a look at the signs that the Premier sent to replace the speed cameras. They are huge. They are huge to the point of absurdity. You can’t miss them. You could fit three of me inside them, and that’s a big sign.

Speaker, having a big sign just doesn’t compensate for having no plan. If this Premier was serious and we had a serious government, we wouldn’t have to talk about strip clubs, forensic audits, oversized signs, licence plates that don’t work—do you want me to go on?

I guess the real question here is, when is the Premier going to get serious about his job and about the jobs of Ontarians?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The member opposite is searching for a jobs plan, and there’s one right before them: the authorization of a nuclear refurbishment that will create 37,000 net new jobs starting in 2026 for the people of Ontario, a nuclear asset which the Liberal Party campaigned on closing, turning their backs on 2,000 workers.

Madam Speaker, if the members opposite seek a plan to get people working, they will commit today to Ontario’s nuclear advantage, a program that will use 90% of our program spend that stays in this province, supporting the supply chain, supporting workers, supporting families. We want members opposite to support our plan to expand energy, to build net new nuclear, to fire up the supply chain and to get 30,000 Ontarians working.

Unemployment

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: The FAO’s report yesterday highlights yet again that this government’s rosy picture of the Ontario economy is just plain wrong. These are the facts: Ontario’s unemployment rate was 5.9% when this government took office; now it’s 7.8%. And Ontario cities hold the indistinct honour of taking the top four spots in Canada’s list of cities with the highest unemployment rates.

Speaker, what do they do in response to this jobs crisis? They brag about their Skills Development Fund, which got a failing grade from the Auditor General because it was not fair, transparent, nor accountable because the labour minister gave money to his friends instead of high-scoring applicants.

Speaker, my question to the finance minister: Will he stand up today and admit that that was wrong?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: What was wrong were the failed policies of the previous Liberal government. I know it hurts. I know it’s painful. Madam Speaker, often the truth hurts. I know it’s painful.

I know it’s painful to hear that our economy grew under our administration from $850 billion to $1.2 trillion. That really hurt.

It really hurts to hear that under their government manufacturing got as low as 750,000 jobs in this province. There are 70,000 more manufacturing jobs today under our government at 830,000. I know that hurts a lot to hear that.

And our Minister of Energy: I know it really hurts when we give you the opportunity to support 30,000 new construction jobs for Pickering and another 18,000 jobs in Durham. That’s almost 50,000 new construction jobs. You have a chance to vote for the people of Ontario—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The leader of the third party will come to order.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Step up and vote for Ontario.

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: It’s clear: The finance minister does not want to speak about the Skills Development Fund because he knows he cannot defend the indefensible. He won’t stand up and defend it. He knows that Ontario’s unemployment is not being addressed by the Skills Development Fund; it was really a way to make the government’s friends and insiders—just make them richer. And in the process, they secured money for the PCs through donations.

Speaker, this program has been in place since 2021, unemployment started rising in 2023, and Ontario has more unemployed people than we ever have before. The Skills Development Fund is a fiasco.

Through you to the finance minister: When will he step in and stop the flow of taxpayer money to the Skills Development Fund?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Oh, it’s tough to be on the other side of the aisle—I understand that—very painful, because under their government, we saw a credit rating downgrade. I know it hurts when we you see credit rating upgrades, lowering the borrowing costs for Ontario to put more money into the people of Ontario: businesses, workers and families. In fact, the fall economic statement, which they did not support—they did not vote for—highlighted almost $12 billion in cuts in taxes and fees for consumers in Ontario; money back in their pockets.

But wait, there’s more: $11.5 billion back in the pockets of businesses around this province, including $5.6 billion back in the pockets of small or medium-sized businesses that the members opposite have the option to vote for Ontario, vote for our energy plan, refurbishing Pickering, building the SMRs. Come join us.

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Speaker, do you know what’s tough? It’s tough for this finance minister to stand up and even utter the words “Skills Development Fund.” Do you know why? Because he knows that giving money to it, until it’s cleaned up, is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money. He won’t admit that that program has not boosted the jobs and talking about job creation is not the same as creating jobs.

Youth unemployment is near an all-time high under this government. We know that gangs are recruiting those youth to violent crime. And, Speaker, they’re vulnerable in part because they can’t find a job. In my riding of Don Valley West, parents of these youths are worried that their kids will be the next ones recruited to gangs and violent crime. Our youth career fund that this government voted down would have provided work for up to 75,000 young people.

My question to the finance minister: When will he start focusing on helping young people find a job instead of helping PC friends and insiders through the Skills Development Fund?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Let’s be clear what the member opposite and the Liberals are saying: They’re saying no to the men and women who are building this province. That’s what they’re saying. They’re saying no to the great workers who are building Ontario.

Let’s just take a look at the announcement yesterday that was made and some of the supportive quotes from the ironworkers who helped build this province. They were at the announcement; they’re supporting this government because they know these are good-paying jobs and they will continue to do that.

Carpenters were there. The Canadian Union of Skilled Workers, LIUNA and the boilermakers were there. The construction workers and Teamsters Canada were there. The Society of Union Professionals, the engineers—you know, I think it’s time that the members opposite wake up that something is happening here. We’re building Ontario, we’re creating the conditions for great jobs, the energy future for this province, supporting the men and women who are building this province.

I say it again—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Highway safety

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: To the Premier: Northerners saw more closures on Highway 11 and 17 yesterday, and more today. Now, for more than 24 hours, the emergency room in Kapuskasing is closed because the on-call doctor is stuck on the road. Yet, this government refused to act, and we are still seeing accidents and closures all the time, and winter has not even started.

Can the Premier explain what their plan is to ensure these highways are safe, to remain open for families, hospitals, workers, goods and economic activities? Because your plan, what you’re doing, is not working.

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We have deployed over 1,400 pieces of equipment across our highways, with a specific focus on the north and making sure that we clear those highways. We have the best standard of highway clearance in all of Canada, and we continue to beat that standard 97% of the time.

Over $100 million was invested last year in improving winter maintenance on northern roads. And guess what? Every time we have invested or made investments within budgets—the fall economic statement that is here today—that member has voted against every single one of those investments into highway maintenance and improvements into highway maintenance, Madam Speaker.

We’re going to continue to ensure that we have those highways clear. We’re going to continue to ensure that our winter maintenance program is enhanced, like we have every single year, year over year, and ensure that we continue to have the safest roads in North America.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: I listened intently to the minister, and your investments don’t seem to be working. Highway 11—the Trans-Canada Highway, the one that actually gets to the engine of northern Ontario—between North Bay and Cochrane, from January to September, was closed for a total of 32 days—32 days. We got that from the Ministry of Transportation. So whatever you’re doing isn’t working.

This is the highway that actually gets to Crawford—minerals of national significance—that gets to Agnico Eagle, that gets to Detour Lake, that actually drives this province. And it’s two lanes. You promise things but you don’t deliver. When are you going to take northerners and the Trans-Canada Highway seriously?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: There is no government that has invested more in northern highways and northern winter maintenance than this government. Let the record show for itself, Madam Speaker: just last year, over $500 million of investments into the north, which the members opposite have voted against.

In fact, they fundamentally disagree with building roads, whether it’s Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass or our investments in Highways 11 and 17. The Premier announced his intent and our plan to build, in that member’s own riding, the expansion of the 2+1 pilot program, which the member has consistently voted against every single time.

We have a $30-billion plan over the next 10 years to invest in our highways and in infrastructure and building those northern highways, and we will do that. We’ll get shovels in the ground despite the opposition of the NDP and Liberals of not investing in those areas, Madam Speaker. With over 1,400 pieces of equipment deployed across our highways to ensure we keep people safe, we’re going to continue to do whatever we can to do—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Responsabilité gouvernementale / Government accountability

M. Ted Hsu: Le site Web personnel de la présidente du Conseil du Trésor de l’Ontario dit en anglais qu’elle est « ensuring the provincial government delivers value to taxpayers ».

Son ministère a sûrement dû l’avertir, car le ministre du Travail avait personnellement choisi de financer les demandes de développement de compétences qui avaient de faibles cotes, qu’il mettait sérieusement en danger cette « value to taxpayers ». L’argent allait aller à des projets qui avaient moins de chance d’aider les gens à trouver un emploi. D’ailleurs, c’est exactement ce que conclut la vérificatrice générale.

À la présidente du Conseil du Trésor : est-ce que le ministre du Travail lui a carrément caché les cotes?

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

L’hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Merci pour cette question très importante. Écoute : What we are doing in this province, and what I’m not hearing from the member opposite, is supporting the training of the great men and women of this province who are building this province.

What the minister is doing is helping to retrain and reskill and bring into the workforce all the workers that we need, whether it’s science, technology, engineering and math.

From the Minister of Colleges and Universities to the Minister of Labour focusing on skilled trades, making sure the ironworkers and the boilermakers and the carpenters and the men and women who are in those organizations not only build our nuclear capacity in this province that supports our manufacturing capacity in this province but that we, as a government, are providing them the tools, in partnership with those workers’ unions and those workers’ organizations, to make sure that we can continue to build this great province.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Kingston and the Islands.

M. Ted Hsu: L’année dernière, après que le ministère de la Santé a donné son feu vert à la nouvelle clinique de médecine familiale Midtown à Kingston, la clinique n’a pas pu signer de bail ni embaucher de personnel parce qu’elle attendait l’approbation du Conseil du Trésor. C’était frustrant parce que les gens attendent depuis longtemps un médecin de famille. Mais on devait patienter parce que le Conseil de Trésor devait faire son travail de s’assurer que le gouvernement en ait pour notre argent.

La présidente du Conseil du Trésor a-t-elle bel et bien validé le financement du Fonds pour le développement des compétences pour des demandeurs mal cotés, ou est-ce que le ministre du Travail l’a dupée?

L’hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Encore merci pour cette question très importante.

Let’s bring it back to my riding—and I’m sure for all of us who represent our constituents there. We put a shovel in the ground. The Minister of Education supported the building of a new Catholic school in Pickering for 622 students, 88 child care spaces—haven’t been built in over a decade, for the Catholic system. Do you know what the workers there said? “We need more machinists. We need more HVAC specialists. We need more skilled workers in this province to help build this province”—$200 billion of infrastructure to build this province. So the retraining, the reskilling, the support for these workers is what this province needs more than ever right now.

Let me tell you this: Be it an apprenticeship program or a better jobs program or a fairs program or a dual credit system in grade 11 or 12, this minister, this government won’t relent, supporting the workers of Ontario.

Road safety

MPP Mohamed Firin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Honourable Minister of Transportation. Every Ontarian deserves to feel safe on our roads. But dangerous and careless driving continues to put lives at risk and devastate families.

We have all heard heartbreaking stories, like that of Andrew Cristillo, a father of three tragically killed by a driver charged with dangerous driving and stunt driving.

Our communities deserve real protection.

Earlier this week, our government introduced legislation that would crack down on dangerous driving and keep our communities safe. Can the minister explain how this new legislation will make our roads safer for everyone?

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you to the member from York South–Weston for your commitment on raising this important issue: road safety.

Speaker, no family should ever face the heartbreak of losing a loved one because of a reckless driver.

That’s why our government will introduce a tough new law and measures to crack down on dangerous driving, inspired by the Andrew’s Law petition. These changes include a lifetime licence suspension for anyone convicted of dangerous driving causing death, immediate roadside licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments for dangerous driving behaviour and increased fines and penalties for driving with a suspended licence and distracted driving.

Under this Premier’s leadership, we’re taking decisive action to deter reckless behaviour, hold offenders accountable and make sure Ontario’s roads are the safest roads in North America.

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

MPP Mohamed Firin: Thank you to the honourable member for the response. It’s encouraging to hear that our government is continuing to prioritize public safety and hold reckless drivers accountable.

Families in my riding of York South–Weston want to know that these measures will make a difference. They also want to have the confidence that this bill will help prevent tragedies like Andrew Cristillo’s from ever happening again.

Our government must continue to demonstrate leadership and take immediate action on our roads and highways.

Speaker, can the minister share more details on how these changes will protect drivers and pedestrians and strengthen road safety across Ontario?

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you again to the member from York South–Weston.

Our government is committed to making our roads safer than ever. In addition to lifetime licence suspensions for dangerous driving causing death, we’re introducing new roadside suspensions for careless driving—seven days for careless driving and 30 days for careless driving causing bodily harm; increasing fines for distracted driving and commercial vehicle offences; and enhancing driver education for young and novice drivers to prevent dangerous behaviour before it starts.

We’re also consulting on new policies to support families impacted by impaired driving, including requiring offenders to provide financial support for victims’ children.

These measures send a clear message: Dangerous driving will not be tolerated in Ontario. We will continue to put road safety first and protect lives here on our roads.

Indigenous community safety

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: ᒥᓄᑭᔐᐸᔭ

This fall, Anishinabek Nation and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation declared states of emergency because of a public safety crisis. In NAN territory, the push for resource development has made communities more vulnerable to human trafficking, gang-related crime and drug activity.

To the Premier: What actions has this government taken to address the public safety crisis in First Nations across Ontario?

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

Hon. Doug Downey: We have taken several actions and engaged in conversations that are still ongoing. We’re very aware that we do have some challenges, and we’re partnering with First Nations to make sure that we are doing things properly, to make sure that we’re doing things in concert.

We do have a table that meets regularly to deal with First Nations bylaws and the enforcement of those bylaws to try and find a way that we can work together to achieve a common goal of having everyone feel safe in their communities, make sure that the resources are there to follow through and make sure that that happens.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Conversations and tables are not good enough right now. First Nations have declared states of emergency, and this government has not responded.

I know that the Premier talks big about extracting from the north but ignores the crisis—the crises, actually, in mental health and addictions, public safety and health care.

When will the Premier start to value the lives of First Nations people and children over the dollar signs he sees on our lands?

Hon. Doug Downey: Our government does understand the unique social challenges facing First Nations communities, and we understand the need for tailored, community-based responses. There’s almost $4 million through the Roadmap to Wellness to continue supporting emergency prevention and recovery efforts through the regional Social Emergency Managers Program. We’re aware of the recent states of emergency declared by NAN and other First Nations following incidents of violence, and we’re working closely with our federal partners as well.

There’s $94 million over three years to improve the health and well-being of Indigenous and northern communities, including $60 million for mental health, addictions and opioid services. Our government has allocated $110 million to improve emergency preparedness for funding supporting community organizations, expanded emergency programs and others.

We are not just meeting at tables and having discussions; we are acting, and we are putting resources in place.

French-language health services

M me Lucille Collard: It’s truly unfortunate that this government’s mishandling of public funds has forced us to spend so much time discussing their skills development fiasco instead of the real issues affecting Ontarians, like access to health care.

The situation is even more troubling for the francophone community. It has now been a full year since the government received the major provincial plan developed by l’Hôpital Montfort, a plan the government itself commissioned to improve health services in French. It’s been a whole year, yet despite all this work, despite the urgency, the government has still not responded.

I’ll offer an occasion to the minister to offer a response as to when the government is going to finally respond to the Montfort-led provincial plan and invest in francophone health care so that our communities can receive the services that they have been waiting for.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the member opposite for raising a very important issue. As she knows very well, we have embarked on the largest primary care expansion in decades, really, in the province of Ontario—multidisciplinary teams—with an investment of over $2 billion. In February 2024, you will remember that we announced our first round of 78 new and expanded multidisciplinary teams across Ontario. Of course, all of those teams are now up and running, taking on new patients. Our most recent expansion was in June of this year, again, where we intend to expand access to primary care.

There’s no doubt that Ontario leads Canada, but we can do more, and we are doing more with these investments. We are currently assessing the applications that came in in September, and I look forward to good news shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Lucille Collard: Obviously this government continues to ignore the very real challenges Franco-Ontarians face when trying to access health care in their own language. I didn’t hear the minister mention the word “francophone” in her answer. Did I miss it? Did somebody hear “francophone?” So there’s definitely some misunderstanding.

Access to francophone primary care is profoundly inadequate, so I will ask the minister: What is your actual plan to increase the number of seats for French-speaking doctors, nurses and other health professionals in Ontario’s universities and colleges?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: It would probably be helpful for the member opposite to actually pull out the applications and what we’re looking for across Ontario. As we embark on these expansions, we have very much focused first, of course, on communities that have the highest unattachment rate—and I say that knowing that Ontario leads Canada in attachment rates of 90%.

She might also be interested in knowing that in the application process, applications that have a focus on areas of high need, communities that have a higher population of First Nations and francophone populations, have actually been prioritized. To suggest that we are not actively working with Montfort, in particular—they have been a leader in ensuring that we are encouraging individuals who want to come to Ontario and practise their health care profession in Ontario. We are doing that. We have done that with Practice Ready Ontario, we have done that with the CPSO and we will continue to do that.

Anti-racism activities

Mr. Billy Pang: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. Ontario is one of the most diverse provinces in Canada, and that diversity is one of our greatest strengths. However, we have seen a rise in hate-motivated incidents that have targeted places of worship, cultural centres and community organizations. These acts of hate not only threaten the safety and well-being of communities in our province, but they go against everything we stand for as Ontarians.

People in my riding of Markham–Unionville and across the province want to know that our government is taking action to protect our communities and prevent these acts from happening.

Speaker, can the minister please tell this House what our government is doing to combat hate and ensure that Ontarians feel safe in their communities?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Scarborough–Agincourt.

Mr. Aris Babikian: Thank you to the member from Markham–Unionville for that question. Racism, hate and discrimination have no place in Ontario and will never be tolerated. That’s why our government continues to work with community partners and organizations from faith-based and cultural communities to create community-centred solutions that combat hate and build safer communities right here at home.

Earlier this month, our government launched another round of the Anti-Hate Security and Prevention Grant. Since May 2023, we have invested $58 million to help faith-based and cultural organizations strengthen safety and security at places of worship and other culturally significant spaces.

Speaker, hate has no place in Ontario and we are taking decisive action to ensure that every person in Ontario can practise their faith, earn a living and raise a family—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member from Markham–Unionville.

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for that response.

Security upgrades are critical to addressing hate incidents in our province. That’s why the Anti-Hate Security and Prevention Grant program is so important in establishing safe and inclusive environments for all Ontarians. But we know that these investments alone are only part of the solution.

Education and prevention are equally important to address the root causes of hate and build understanding among communities. Our government is working beyond physical security measures to promote inclusion and prevent hate from in our communities.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant please explain what additional steps we are taking to foster education and awareness, so that Ontario remains a province where everyone feels safe and respected?

Mr. Aris Babikian: Thank you to the member for highlighting this important point. The member is absolutely right. Combatting hate requires more than security upgrades. That’s why in addition to the Anti-Hate Security and Prevention Grant, our government is