Report continued from volume A.

1800

Private Members’ Public Business

Gender-based violence

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should adopt the recommendations of the official opposition’s women in the workforce plan to combat gender-based violence by investing in social infrastructure, strengthening women’s economic security and improving the services women count on.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for their presentation.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Thank you, Speaker. Today, in Ontario, there is a mother who is desperate to flee an abusive relationship and begin her life anew. She’s desperate to keep herself and her children safe from harm, to protect them all from the ongoing trauma, but she lives in one of our province’s many child care deserts, which means she cannot enter the workforce to support herself and her family, and the shelter has no room for her.

Today, there’s a woman whose abusive partner has refused to let her work, refused to even let her open a bank account, and she wants to leave. She’s working on a plan. She’s secretly been meeting with a counsellor in a local community agency that offers services, legal supports and career coaching—all the resources she needs to help her get on her feet—but last week, they told her the programs are being shut down due to government cuts, and so she will remain in harm’s way.

Today, there is an emergency shelter worker who’s gotten behind on her rent, and she will fall asleep in her car tonight. She puts her life on the line every day for $19 an hour, but she can’t afford groceries. Now she can’t afford to keep a roof over her head, and while she doesn’t know what comes next, she does know—and so do all of us—that this is not sustainable.

These aren’t hypothetical stories, Speaker. These are the stories that we are hearing from women, from front-line workers, every single day. Violence against women and gender-diverse people is rising at an alarming rate. It is an epidemic.

We know that intimate partner violence is never caused by a single factor alone; that survivors may feel trapped because of a complex mix of psychological, economic and social pressures that make the perceived risk of leaving seem even greater than the perceived risk and the real risk of staying. An abuser exploits these pressures. They control the finances. They isolate from the support networks. They threaten children, and they use ongoing emotional manipulation.

This is why economic security, along with strong, stable community supports, are not optional add-ons. These are essential lifelines that our women are counting on. And it should come as no surprise, Speaker, that the cost-of-living crisis, compounded by the deepening crisis in our social services sector, is a major contributor. While those complex causes of gender-based violence are known, the research is extremely clear: Women’s economic security is deeply connected to their safety.

Stretching back as far as the Great Depression, as far as we have the numbers, we see that intimate partner violence spikes during economic downturns. And we know, not just from the data but from survivors’ lived experiences, that financial dependency is key. It’s a key barrier to leaving the abuse, especially in the absence of not enough essential services like shelters, affordable child care and community health care.

Last year, 11,545 women found refuge in Ontario’s shelters—and that is the good news—but 37,287 were turned away. It’s not just a statistic; this is a moral indictment of this government. What’s worse? Today, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transitional Housing just put out this year’s new femicide numbers: 43 femicides, Speaker—43 precious lives lost, 43 devastated families, 43 devastated communities.

This week, the Associate Minister for Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity told Global News, “History has shown that intimate partner violence has been here for decades. It is not something that you can make go away....” Speaker, we in the NDP beg to differ. Intimate partner violence is pervasive, yes, but it can go away, and we must do everything we can to end gender-based violence. There is no excuse.

Those 43 precious lives last year counted on this government and were failed. The current crisis is entirely of this Conservative government’s own making after eight years in power. This government’s neglect and ongoing cuts to social services, underfunding of shelters, and failure to fund assault centres have left Ontario with very few options. We need action. We need urgent investments to ensure the economic security and safety of Ontario’s women and families. Instead—

Interjection.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Yes. Instead, this Conservative government is spending millions on studies for a fantasy tunnel, billions on energy rebates for the rich, and rewarding the Premier’s friends through the Skills Development Fund, while the threat of gender-based violence continues to rise, because this epidemic is rising in every single corner of Ontario.

We’re all touched by this violence. Sault Ste. Marie saw a 6% rise in IPV calls. Sudbury police responded to nearly 3,000 calls, a 40% jump. Lanark county’s shelter fielded over 3,000 calls. It is a historic number for them. Ottawa saw a 9% rise in intimate partner violence in 2024 and an 18% increase over the year before. And we lost 43 beloved lives last year.

Now, I do want to acknowledge the government’s new investments on shelters and wrap-around services, the $26.7 million over two years. I commend the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity and the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services for helping to secure funding. I applaud their efforts through Ontario-STANDS and the Women’s Economic Security Program. These are important steps; they will make a difference for a number of women—and they remain woefully inept and inefficient.

The Financial Accountability Office estimated last year that less than a third of women and their dependents seeking refuge found a spot. The York Region Centre for Community Safety connected over 800 people and 1,200 of their children last year to intimate partner violence resources, but their government funding was just stripped from 35% of their funding to 6%. It’s abandonment. Since 2018, there has been a 16% decrease in funding for social services per person in Ontario.

According to the FAO, spending projections for the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services over the next three years say that they are $7 billion below the funding needed just to maintain the current standards. It has brought the sector right to the brink, and Ontario women are paying the price.

This Premier truly is a jobs disaster, Speaker. The consequences for women are devastating, because 75% of the community social services sectors are women workers, and 96% of the child care workers are women. It is wonderful that this government is supporting women entering male-dominated sectors like skilled trades, but we cannot aspire to bolster women’s economic security without funding the sectors that they already work in.

In this sector, these women experience poverty wages, burnout, wage theft under Bill 124, high turnover and chronic understaffing. Ontario’s child care workers are a prime example of work of equal value not being valued by this government. These workers are exceptional—they are accredited; they hold significant responsibilities—and many of them can’t even afford groceries. It has created a recruitment and retention problem. Where will we find those 10,000 RECEs that we need to meet the government’s 2026 target?

1810

Front-line workers in the community service sectors are not only making poverty wages; they’re being subjected to ongoing wage theft, because these workers never received the 6.5% retroactive wage increase when Bill 124 was found unconstitutional by this government. It is shameful, and it is creating a staffing crisis in this sector as well.

Ontario needs a comprehensive plan to ensure women’s economic security and safety. The motion the NDP are making proposes a call on the government to make two very simple but impactful steps. First, fully fund and implement $10-a-day child care.

Interjections.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Yes.

Child care access remains one of the biggest barriers to women’s workforce participation, especially in northern and rural communities. Yet even in cities like Toronto, Kitchener, London, families are still living in child care deserts. We need to negotiate strong provincial funding agreements to ensure that there’s a high-quality, accessible, equitable system. We need to expand the public and not-for-profit child care spaces to meet the increased demand, and make those jobs in the child care sector good careers. This is work that should be valued.

And if we want to prevent gender-based violence, we must immediately invest $3.9 billion in social services funding to restore the 16% cut, the per person decrease. We have to pay our community and social service workers what they’re worth. We must commit to having sustainable, predictable and regionally realistic core funding for shelter services, gender-based violence education and prevention programs, front-line community agencies, developmental services, and mental health and addictions services.

Together, we can take these meaningful steps. We can end the epidemic of gender-based violence in this province.

We are in the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. I urge this government and all the parties here to support this motion and to prevent the preventable, and ensure safety and security for all Ontario’s women and families.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I rise today to speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Parkdale–High Park, and I would like to start by acknowledging the member for their commitment to reducing and eliminating intimate partner violence in Ontario.

I grew up as a child of the 1970s and 1980s, seeing women’s activist and feminist movements advocate for reproductive rights, workplace equality, the political representation of women, and ending violence against women. It has been inspiring to live through this transformation—where societal structures kept women marginalized.

And yet, in recent years, I have grown concerned to see the erosion of protections that the women before me have fought so hard to secure. We have not seen the progress on ending violence against women that we would have hoped for.

The motion confronts truths that thousands of women’s organizations, front-line workers and survivors have been sounding the alarm bells on for decades. First, we cannot talk about violence against women without talking about job security. We cannot talk about preventing femicide without talking about child care, housing and social services. And we cannot talk about “choice” or “leaving” unless we talk about whether the victim can afford to survive. If we’re serious about preventing violence and femicide against women, then we must be serious about strengthening the systems that allow women to live in safety, participate in the labour market, and leave when they want or need to.

Last week, I attended Aura Freedom International’s public installation on intimate partner violence at city hall. At the flag-raising and the ceremony, I heard from Councillor Lily Cheng, who shared an anecdote that really stuck with me. She shared that there were 20,000 incidents of intimate partner violence in Toronto that the police responded to. The good news is that we know that now, because we started collecting the data. What was interesting is that in that same year, there were 12,000 cars stolen, and we all know which story got more headlines. When violence against women reaches levels nearly twice as high, it is met with apathy and silence. Cars receive more attention than abused women. This should actually outrage every one of us.

Gender-based violence is not only a crisis of safety; it is a crisis shaped by economic and social inequality, public policy and government choices. Given the well-documented health, social and financial consequences of intimate partner violence, it should concern every member of this House that nearly all women who have experienced IPV face barriers in accessing health care, housing, child care and other social supports.

This is the reality, Speaker. Every indicator on gender-based violence tells the same story: Every 48 hours in Canada, a woman is killed, most often by a man she shares a home with. In the last year, we’ve seen Ontario record 43 femicides. In rural, remote and northern communities where social services are scarce, women face intimate partner violence at a rate that is 75% higher than it is for urban women. And in 2022, the Financial Accountability Office estimated that over 37,000 women were turned away from shelters. Shelters are over capacity, and women are sleeping in cars, in unsafe homes or returning to their abusers because, actually, there’s nowhere safer to go. And we know that financial abuse is one of the primary barriers preventing women from leaving violent relationships.

Femicide, though, is not just about women being subject to violence. The kind of violence that we see is also having a huge impact for children in those families. Many times, children live in homes, fearful of being abused, or are worried for their parent. It was heartbreaking to hear the stories of moms and kids living months in shelters, coping with the situation. We heard from many stakeholders yesterday on this issue that it’s these same children that often come back, seeking help for themselves, or the young boys growing into young men, some repeating the behaviours. There’s so much to do upstream on this issue, and we need to do it all together, and we need to be proactive about both the moms and children experiencing violence.

Speaker, nothing about this violence is exceptional or rare. This violence plays out every day to all types of women and all the time. This violence is preventable, but only if we confront its root causes, and one of the strongest predictors of whether a woman can escape violence is her financial independence. Economic insecurity traps women in violence. Strengthening women’s economic power is violence prevention.

The evidence is overwhelming. From the Canadian Centre for Women’s Empowerment: 86% of victim survivors were pressured or coerced to quit work by their abuser. That’s a familiar story, isn’t it? And 93% were denied access to their own money, had paycheques taken or had financial aid stolen. These facts paint a clear picture, and it’s frankly very easy to understand: If a woman cannot afford rent, she cannot leave her abuser. The woman cannot access child care. She cannot leave her children to go to work. And if her income is unstable, she’ll be unable to secure housing after leaving. If the community support isn’t available, she has nowhere to turn. So economic insecurity is not isolated from violence, and it’s one of the driving engines of intimate partner violence.

Having strong social infrastructure is also critical to building women’s safety. No child care, or underfunded child care, means that women are unable to participate in the labour market, improve their education or their overall socio-economic status, or, ultimately, leave violent homes without risking homelessness or poverty.

The Auditor General’s report revealed that of the 86,000 new child-care spaces that were to be created by 2026 under the funding agreement with the province, there are only 36,000 spaces available at this time. Also, we need to talk about the $10.2 billion in federal funding this government received, and they spent it in four years instead of five and haven’t achieved the promised targets. We need to make this connection between how important it is to deliver on that program and this issue that we’re talking about. It is clear from the Auditor General that our provincial child care is only a piecemeal solution to systemic underfunding. The provincial government needs to take responsibility to implement the plan, stop the finger-pointing at the federal government and deliver on its targets.

1820

We talked about shelters. We know the situation in shelters. Again, I too wanted to acknowledge that there have been recent investments in shelter beds. There have been expansions. I heard about them yesterday as well. We needed it, and I appreciate that.

The length of stays, though, in shelters are also getting concerningly long, because what happens next for women and kids? Sharing rooms in a single room in a shelter for 10 to 12 months is far too common, and we need to get very proactive around supporting housing and community supports.

Indigenous, racialized and disabled women experience disproportionately higher rates of IPV, and they face language barriers, system navigation challenges and culturally unsafe services. Chronic underfunding of culturally specific organizations leaves these women at even greater risk.

This motion recognizes what front-line agencies have been sounding the alarm about for years: Violence against women and femicide thrive where governments underfund the very systems vulnerable women rely on to stay safe.

In the interest of supporting women affected by intimate partner violence, it is critical, as public servants, that we support and work towards investing in social infrastructure. This would include that women would have child care, housing, health care, mental health care and community supports required to live safe; strengthening women’s economic security through stable work, decent wages, training opportunities and targeted economic support; and improving the services that women need to count on in crises.

We even know that it is fiscally responsible to do this. Every dollar invested in violence prevention and women’s economic security returns multiple dollars in reduced health care costs, justice system costs, social services and labour market losses. But most importantly, we know it sets a new path for women and children impacted by violence.

Now, I did want to make a comment as a new member to this Legislature: In the last few weeks, I learned all about the work of the IPV committee that was started. We know that there were 50 women who came forward with courage to share their experience in a closed session. There was a hundred experts in the field who came forward with their knowledge, with their evidence and recommendations. These recommendations are research-backed, survivor-informed and they’re fiscally responsible to do. These, with all the other reports and coroner’s investigations, give us everything we need to accelerate our actions on this issue.

We will support this motion because the content of what is being proposed is essential, and it must be advanced. But nonetheless, I have to say, what I have witnessed is a disappointing display of partisanship on an issue that needs to put all of our political stripes down.

I would ask, as the report is released on IPV—or here we are with another motion, with another plan—that members in this House reflect on what are the actions and behaviours that are most likely to have the greatest impact and easily bring cross-party support. It’s just too important of an issue to not produce a concrete plan and set some actions.

The most compelling and powerful example I’ve seen—one of them; there have been a few, but this came to light for me again—was a truly collaborative effort at a really important time. This was the 2010 Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions report. It had cross-party signatures from all parties, including the current and previous Minister of Health and deputy leaders; the current NDP critic for health, who is here and who has cited it recently; and many other parliamentarians, including being championed by a Liberal minister.

I heard it mentioned here in the Legislature. I heard it mentioned at a board meeting last year at the hospital I used to work at. It still grounds us in actions that we can all get behind. And this issue deserves that exact same cross-party support.

I’m anticipating that this motion may not pass today, but I think what I’d like to see is a real commitment—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Good evening, and thank you, Speaker. It’s an honour to be here today and speak about an issue that is deeply serious, deeply personal for so many, and one that requires each of us to bring not only our voices but our compassion and our determination. Intimate partner violence affects people in every corner of our province.

Because this issue is so incredibly serious, it was important for us to take the time needed to reach the right decision. Today, by calling intimate partner violence endemic, we are naming this crisis honestly and directly. We are recognizing that the work ahead of us is difficult and absolutely critical if we are going to address the root causes of this violence and protect those who continue to experience harm.

To properly address any problem, we must first describe it properly. That is why this language was chosen carefully and deliberately. This definition brings Ontario into alignment with the director general of the World Health Organization and with leading scholars, who have all identified intimate partner violence as endemic.

It’s time for us all to acknowledge the true scale and urgency of what so many individuals and families are living through. We hope Ontario’s elected representatives can speak with one voice, a single, united message that violence has no place in our province and that every person deserves to live in safety, free from fear.

Alongside this statement, we are taking meaningful action. Through Ontario’s Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, our government is investing more than $1.4 billion to strengthen prevention, to expand supports for survivors and to ensure offenders are held accountable.

As part of this work, we are funding 85 community projects across the province, initiatives that help survivors rebuild their lives and create safer communities. We are also investing $26.7 million to increase emergency shelter spaces and enhance essential support programs, ensuring that help is available when someone takes that incredibly brave step to reach out. Because we know front line organizations are facing significant pressures, we are providing $310 million over three years to help address rising operational costs for those serving survivors of gender-based violence, human trafficking and other vulnerable populations. This year alone, we are providing an additional $22 million to help agencies meet growing service demands. Programs like Investing in Women’s Futures and Women’s Economic Security are playing a vital role in helping women regain stability, rebuild their independence and move forward with confidence and hope.

These investments reflect not only a financial commitment, but a human one: a commitment to every survivor who needs support, to every child who needs safety and to every community that believes in a future free of violence. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence demand a response that is grounded in evidence, compassion and urgency.

That’s why our government is taking significant practical action to confront this crisis head-on. We welcome collaboration and cross-party partnership to build on the strong, targeted programs already in place. Our focus remains on solutions that truly make a difference, supports that help survivors, investments that strengthen prevention and measures that hold offenders accountable. That is what the people across Ontario expect, and that is what they deserve.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the Ontario NDP shadow minister for women’s social and economic opportunity, the MPP from Parkdale–High Park, for bringing this motion, this Women in the Workforce Plan.

The motion has two goals. One is to ensure economic security for Ontario women, and the second is to end gender-based violence, and these two goals are intimately connected.

1830

I used to live in Geraldton, Ontario, and I was talking to a former mayor up there. He told me that when the mill in the next town, which is Longlac, closed, six months later the women’s shelter filled up. It really speaks to the need for women to have economic independence, because economic independence allows women to leave abusers.

The ask is to restore critical funding for social services that have been cut over the last seven years. The member was talking about a 16% cut to social services and also to secure $10-a-day child care. Restoring funding to social services not only helps provide the services that women need to stay safe; it can also provide a decent living for the women who are working in those services.

I want to thank the community members, the men and women who work in these services, who are here in the House to listen to this debate. Thank you for coming here to witness the debate. Thank you for all of the work you do. Know that we are fighting for you, that we recognize the importance of the work you do, that this is life-saving work that should be recognized by this government and that we need to improve the working conditions that you work in so that you have less work to do and that you’re paid properly for doing it.

I asked to speak to this motion because it’s absolutely important for men to take responsibility for bringing an end to violence against women and children. As men, we need to serve as role models of healthy masculinity and respect towards people of all genders. We need to speak up for the women in our lives, and we need to protect children from violence, because we know and the studies show that children who grow up in violent households grow up to be abusers. So we need to take responsibility for all this, to help to break that cycle of violence.

Again, I want to thank the member for bringing forward this motion. Thank you for allowing me to speak to it and, absolutely, I hope every member in this House stands up and votes in favour of this motion. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s a pleasure to rise to discuss this very critical issue as a member of the justice policy committee that conducted the hearings over 13 days with 150 witnesses: 60 with lived experience and victims, and 90 who are experts in the field.

As a father of three, I echo my colleague’s comments. This is an issue that pervades all of society. It’s not one gender or the other. It’s not pitting one gender or the other. We all have to stand shoulder to shoulder on this to make a difference, and we have to stand shoulder to shoulder across party divisions as well. We saw that during the hearings at the justice policy committee. We heard testimony from victims in closed session, experiences that no one should have to live through, and the devastation and the carnage—not just in the immediate crisis of the trauma, but in the long-term impacts. We heard overwhelming evidence about the cyclical nature, and those who experience gender-based violence in a household as young children will often live to repeat that in their adult lives.

We know that we can break that cycle with upstream investments, and that by investing in education and prevention, we can help to address that problem moving forward. But we also need to make sustainable investments in the front-line workers that address the crisis on a day-to-day basis and see that carnage.

I believe, Madam Speaker, the report that was generated by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, which will be coming back to this House, goes a long way to addressing those issues. And while we respect the intent of this motion, it is my belief that this government is taking actions and working proactively that will help to not only address this issue but reduce the prevalence and, hopefully in the future, eliminate it. We have a comprehensive and fully funded strategy in place, one that is based on evidence and focused on concrete actions moving forward.

We’ve heard many times the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity stand in this House and talk about the investments we are making in ensuring that women have an economic future, that they have a sustainable future so that they can escape this cycle and move forward with their lives.

As my colleague indicated earlier this fall, we made a deliberate decision to recognize intimate partner violence as endemic. This decision was not taken lightly. It was made, as I said, after extensive hearings. But we made that declaration together with an action plan. We need to move forward on this issue. It is more than labelling; it is addressing this issue at its root causes, to make sure that we can move forward and ensure the safety and health of all our residents across the province.

Some of the extensive investments that we are making have been already stated, including the $1.4 billion we are investing through our Ontario-STANDS program to support survivors, to expand education and prevention programs upstream and to ensure that offenders are held accountable. These are tangible actions that reach across our communities in this province. I stand behind those initiatives.

We will be moving forward. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we will do that.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I am pleased to rise in support of motion 40. I want to speak directly to one of the clearest, most powerful tools that we have to strengthen women’s economic security and reduce the risk of intimate partner violence, and that’s affordable, accessible child care.

We know the numbers: 44% of Canadian women will experience intimate partner violence in their lifetime, and that number jumps to 57% for those women living in poverty. Poverty traps women. It keeps them dependent on partners who may be unsafe. It limits their options, their mobility and their chance to leave. And one of the biggest drivers of that poverty, one of the biggest barriers to work, is the lack of affordable, reliable child care.

I’ve spoken with countless parents across Ontario, overwhelmingly mothers, who told me $10-a-day child care gave them the freedom to go back to work, to maintain their careers and to rebuild a source of income they could rely on. They told me it restored stability, confidence and independence.

That independence saves lives. But for far too many families, that independence is simply not available. Nearly 70,000 Ontario families aren’t using child care because they can’t find a spot.

We know exactly what happens when child care isn’t available: Women become the default parent. They step back from work, lose income, lose benefits and fall into economic vulnerability that increases the risk of violence that makes it harder to leave unsafe situations.

Speaker, this is not inevitable. This is a result of policy decisions: the failure to expand spaces, the refusal to fund systems properly, the government’s unwillingness to pay early childhood educators the wages they deserve. These choices have created a crisis in child care that directly harms women’s safety.

The Auditor General told us that we need 10,000 more RECEs by 2026, but workers are paid so little that many leave the sector altogether. When educators can’t afford to stay, families can’t get care. When families can’t get care, women can’t work. And when women can’t work, they can’t build financial security that protects them from violence.

Motion 40 addresses this head on. It calls for a fully funded, fully implemented $10-a-day child care system across Ontario. It calls for a real workforce strategy with a wage grid of $35 to $45 for RECEs, decent standards, and the funding required to expand public, non-profit child care spaces so families can finally get the access that they were promised.

Speaker, child care is an economic security. Economic security is safety. And safety is the foundation of every right we claim to uphold. For these reasons, I strongly support motion 40. And I urge all the members of the House not to take this as a partisan motion, but to see it for what it is—it’s the right thing to do—and vote for motion 40.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Ms. Jess Dixon: Before I speak to the motion before us today, I want to begin somewhere else, which is speaking directly to the survivors and the organizations and the front-line workers who support those survivors every single day. Ultimately, you are the reason that this work matters. You are the reason that the committee sat and that the testimony was heard. And you are the reason that we keep pushing for change, even when I know that the systems around you may feel slow or fragmented or overwhelming.

1840

Over the past 18 months, I have had the privilege and the great responsibility of listening to survivors, advocates, police, crowns, service survivors, shelters, child welfare workers and so many others. It was your voices, their voices, that shaped every part of the work that I’ve done—not symbolically, not as a gesture, but structurally, in the way that problems are defined, in the way that systems were mapped and in the architecture of the solutions that were suggested.

I want to say this very plainly: I heard you, I believed you and your experiences are reflected in everything that I wrote in what is coming. That’s why I need to be honest about why I’m not going to support the motion in front of us today, and it’s not because I disagree with the importance of this issue.

My entire career—10 years before politics—was built on addressing these harms, and I only left that career to come here to the Legislature to keep working on it. It’s not because I disagree with the need for prevention or community supports. I agree wholeheartedly and have spent months building something that argues for exactly that. And it’s not because I don’t respect the passion of the people that this motion speaks of. I understand it. I understand the urgency and the grief and the desire to put forward something concrete.

But this motion asked the Legislature to agree to one partisanly worded plan as though it solves everything, and I can’t support that, because it doesn’t reflect the full scope or complexity of what survivors in the sector told us they need. Again, it’s not that the ideas are unimportant; it’s that they’re incomplete. Survivors didn’t ask us to just endorse one pre-written plan over another; they asked us to come up with solutions to fix the systems that are failing them. They asked for coherent, connected systems that work in practice, that talk to each other, that reduce the burden that they carry and that intervene early and consistently, and systems that prevent violence as versus just reacting to it—and systems that will remain stable regardless of what government is in power.

That requires more than endorsing any single motion. It requires a structural blueprint that talks about governance and prevention, justice reform, victim supports, coordination, funding, data infrastructure—that can hold and support many good ideas, including those from advocates and opposition members. Over the last few months, that is what I have been building.

Survivors told us they were exhausted by having to retell their stories, so we’re talking about something that reduces that burden. Front-line workers told us that systems don’t talk to each other, so we’re suggesting a model that connects them. We’ve heard that they need stability, clarity and a provincial structure that makes sense, and, again, that is what the coming report strives to provide.

I do believe in my heart that when that report becomes public, that survivors and sector partners will see that it reflects their voices and their expertise and their frustrations and their hopes, not because their words were printed verbatim but because the problems they would describe were turned into solutions, not slogans. For that reason, I can’t support this motion.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

MPP Jamie West: I rise today in support of my colleague’s motion to adopt the women in the workforce plan. This plan aims to combat gender-based violence by investing in social infrastructure to boost women’s economic security. It includes strengthening the community services and public sector supports that women rely on. It ensures women have access to good jobs and decent working conditions.

The ability to get out and stay out of an abusive situation is rooted in financial independence, a reality that is increasingly difficult during times of economic downturn and record unemployment. Our plan takes action to ensure the safety of all people experiencing gender-based violence, and it starts with greater economic security.

As the shadow Minister of Labour, I want to spend a moment discussing a crucial part of our plan: paying community service and social service workers what they’re owed. On an hourly basis, women make 87 cents, on average, for every dollar made by a man, and the gap is larger for women who are racialized, newcomers, disabled, Indigenous and trans. And on top of this wage gap, community and public sector workers, of which 75% are women, have been experiencing wage theft due to the Conservative government. These workers did not receive the retroactive 6.5% wage increase when Bill 124 was found unconstitutional, and because of this wage theft, staffing and retention remains a critical issue. This impacts the ability for women in precarious positions to access these services—the services that were sabotaged by the Conservative government through Bill 124.

These should be stable, good-paying jobs that serve community members in need, but instead, pay equity becomes an ideal that is far-fetched. Wages are stolen and services are understaffed. Everyone is worse off. This creates a downward cycle where women are underpaid, have little economic security and then cannot get out of abusive situations, cannot escape. We must end the cycle. By implementing a wage grid and decent work standards for early child care providers, we will create good careers in child care. By delivering the 6.5% wage increase stolen by the Conservative government, we will pay community and social service workers what they’re owed. When good jobs are stable and available, everyone benefits, especially the most vulnerable.

These workers are the backbone of our social safety net and a lifeline for those experiencing violence coupled with economic insecurity. I encourage all members to support this motion. We owe it to our neighbours and our community members who are struggling; we owe it to each other to foster a sense of hope for those in need. It starts with ensuring access to services and wages that are fair and livable.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thanks to the member from Parkdale–High Park for really connecting economic security with the safety of women across the province of Ontario.

I just want to say I’m stunned that the government is not going to be supporting this plan, because no report is going to keep women safe. Tangible action items that connect economic well-being and education and child care and access to independence will make the difference for women across Ontario. We owe them that. In fact, we take an oath in this House to serve everybody, and that includes the most disenfranchised. All that women are asking for in the province of Ontario is a fighting chance to reach their potential.

I became a child care advocate 27 years ago, when I had my first child, and I realized that I was working three weeks out of every month to pay for the child care. I thought, “This has got to change.” It has not changed, Madam Speaker. The importance of child care—and my colleague raised it—is that when you have access to training and to education, you can get a job so that you can be independent so you are not trapped in an unsafe situation.

For the 13 years I’ve served here, I have never seen so many women come into my office in Waterloo with their children and ask for help. By the time you get to an MPP’s office, things are pretty damn bad. I think about those kids, because when you look at their little faces and their eyes, you know that they have seen things that they should not see. Thank goodness we have organizations that are represented here today, like Women’s Crisis Services of Waterloo Region, where we can tap into some of those grassroots organizations. We had to do a walk on Saturday called Voices Empower to raise money to keep women safe in Ontario. That’s where we are. That is the truth. This is people speaking truth to power. That’s what this member is—she’s trying to help you. Help us help you, right?

We shouldn’t have to fundraise to keep women safe in Ontario, nor should we have to, in the face of an economic downturn. You will not be able to rebuild a broken economy off the broken backs of women in this province, and women are honestly the anchor that holds everything together. Think of the potential of this province if they could reach their potential. If every woman in Ontario had the chance to get that education, to get that training, to ensure that her children were growing up in a safe and healthy environment, think of the fundamental societal change that that could mean.

The wait times for child care across the province of Ontario—Kitchener-Waterloo was listed as a desert. It is. But in Toronto, it’s two to six years. Do you think a woman can stay in an unsafe situation and wait for child care for six years? Something has to give.

The member has brought forward a plan. Break past the partisanship and vote for it. Let’s get something done for women in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): The member has two minutes to reply.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: It grieves me that the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity did not stand to speak to this motion. It grieves me that the Minister for Children, Community and Social Services did not stand and speak to this motion. It grieves me that the member from Simcoe–Grey said that the government is doing all that they can do; $8.25 million is what they have budgeted to expand shelter beds in Ontario, when 37,000 women were turned away last year, but they have budgeted $9.1 million to study a tunnel.

1850

It grieves me that the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler used “I” in almost every sentence when it is a “we.” And I hope that she will change her mind, because the “we” that wrote this plan—I want to thank the members that are up in the galleries and filling them. The members that I want to thank, that are behind this plan, that are asking you to please do this plan, are OPSEU, CUPE, OFL, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, the Association of Early Childhood Educators Ontario, the Equal Pay Coalition, WomenACT, Possibility Seeds, Sistering, the Redwood women’s shelter, Timmins and Area Women in Crisis, SAVIS of Halton, PSAC, DICE, West Neighbourhood House, Romero House, Parkdale–High Park constituents and the NDP riding association, Peel Poverty Action Group, Bi+ Women of Toronto, Healing Breath, Canadian Connections, the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, Social Planning Toronto, the Association of Ontario Midwives, Ontario Says No More, the United Church of Canada, Lumenus, St. Luke’s United, Regis College, Emmanuel College, the Filipino Christian Fellowship, and all the other IPV and labour advocates that are here in the House.

We will not stop fighting for you and for women of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): The time for private members’ public business has expired.

MPP Gilmour has moved private member’s notice of motion number 40. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All of those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Pursuant to standing order 36, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

Adjournment Debate

Government accountability

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): The member for Ottawa South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the PA to the Premier. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, thank you for being here. And to the table and everybody else who is sticking around a little bit extra for the late show, I appreciate you taking the time—

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, you can leave; that’s all right. My colleagues have heard enough of me already today.

I hate to be expressing so much dissatisfaction on a daily basis, but it seems to be what continues to happen. When you ask almost about—actually, more than—100 questions literally about the same thing and you don’t get an even somewhat satisfactory response, I think that’s a reason to be dissatisfied.

Now, in particular, my dissatisfaction is related to the inability to get a response regarding what happened to Treasury Board with regard to the Skills Development Fund. We do know that Keel Digital Solutions was audited by the Treasury Board and then that audit was flagged for a forensic audit, which has later been turned over to the OPP, and that Keel Digital Solutions continued to get tens of millions of dollars from various ministries, including the Ministry of Labour, during that time.

What I’ve been trying to get at is that as soon as that audit flagged the need for a forensic audit, the clock starts. What needed to happen was—the Treasury Board needed it for cabinet office, needed it for their relative ministry offices, the Ministry of Finance offices and all their political counterparts’ offices—that they had a very serious concern, that they were sending someone to a forensic audit because they were hiding something. They didn’t trust them. Now, if you were in business and somebody gave you a bad invoice, and you go, “I’m sure this is a bad invoice. We’re going to have to check the inventory,” you wouldn’t do any more business with them. You wouldn’t send them money until you found out what the answer was.

So my point is, apart from the fact that the Minister of Labour intervened on behalf of Keel Digital Solutions to award them a government grant when the public servants said, “Don’t do it”—and he did that because his close personal friend Michael Rudderham was the lobbyist, clearly in a conflict. Apart from that, which is bad—it’s not good—the machinery of government doesn’t appear to have been working. So I simply want to understand how it happened. Who made the decision not to stop paying Keel Digital Solutions? Was it a departmental decision? I don’t think so. Was it political interference? I don’t know. Were people not doing their jobs?

There are two separate things here: There’s the mud that’s the Skills Development Fund and what happened with Keel Digital Solutions—and it’s not just them—but it’s also, who’s watching the money? Who’s taking care of the taxpayer? Who’s looking to make sure we get value for money? Because at least a year transpired between when that audit flagged deep concerns. I just want to know what happened. I think that’s a fair question.

Then, there’s a secondary question, which I didn’t get to fully today—and I might tomorrow—which is: (1) Are you continuing to audit all of the contracts with that company? (2) Given what you know about the Skills Development Fund, and that low-scoring projects got the most money, and the recommendations of public servants were clearly overrode many, many times, don’t you think if you were the person who is in charge of making sure that people were held accountable, that we got value for money, that we made sure that no one was making off with government money—don’t you think you’d want to know what the heck was going on? Those are fair questions.

It’s not about the $10 million to the strip club. That’s another issue. The issue is: Are you actually protecting the people’s purse? Yes or no?

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Premier.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I join the House this evening as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security.

In 2023, a routine audit raised concerns about an external service provider, and that process identified irregularities that led to a comprehensive forensic audit of the organization in question. The results of this forensic audit, received November 5, recommended that the matter be referred to the Ontario Provincial Police. Within 24 hours of receiving this report, the referral was made. All payments associated with this provider are currently under review, and further actions will be taken based on that outcome. Out of respect for the Ontario Provincial Police, I will not be commenting on this matter further.

But let me tell you what we are doing to support our publicly funded post-secondary system. Ontario is home to 56 publicly funded institutions. These 56 institutions deliver high-quality education to more than 880,000 full-time students across the province. Inside each of these institutions, we are preparing the workforce of tomorrow. That highly skilled workforce is protecting Ontario and our economy today and for decades to come, which is why our government continues to make the critical investments to support our post-secondary institutions and our students, to get them into rewarding careers that fill labour demands across the province.

Over the past six months, our government has invested nearly a billion dollars in new funding to expand enrolment in key economy-driving programs at our colleges and universities.

In April, we announced that our government is investing $750 million into STEM programs at our world-class colleges and universities. This expansion will fund up to 20,500 STEM seats every year, giving students access to cutting-edge programs, hands-on learning opportunities and work placements with employers so that when they graduate, they’re ready to take careers in STEM by storm.

Our government knows that in order to have successful futures, students from K to 12 need a strong start to their education that inspires a love of learning and equips them with the skills they need to thrive, which is why in June, our government stepped up to invest more than $55 million to expand teaching seats in our bachelor of education programs. This investment will train up to 2,600 new teachers for Ontario classrooms.

But our work doesn’t stop there. Like all labour markets across Ontario, our government continues to monitor the needs of the health care workforce. As part of our government’s plan to protect Ontario, we are connecting everyone in the province to convenient, high-quality health care close to home, which is why in August our government invested nearly $57 million to expand enrolment in nursing programs at Ontario’s colleges and universities. This expansion will train an additional 2,200 nursing students to deliver excellent health care across Ontario.

To close off an incredible summer of investments, our government is investing $75 million to expand enrolment in construction-related programs at colleges, universities and Indigenous institutes. This investment will train up to 7,800 students for in-demand jobs, such as urban and land-use planners, electrical engineering technicians and other careers that build a stronger Ontario.

Our focus is simple: Protect Ontario’s economy, equip the next generation with the skills they need to succeed and continue building a highly trained workforce that keeps our province competitive, strong and growing. That’s why we’re currently doing a funding model review—a process that hasn’t been looked at in over 10 years—to identify a future-ready framework.

Speaker, our government will always support—always support—our publicly assisted colleges, universities and Indigenous institutes as pipelines for building a strong workforce in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): There being no further matters to debate, pursuant to standing order 36(c), I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

This House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1903.