The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Estimates

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 62(c), the 2025-26 estimates of the Office of the Assembly; the Office of the Auditor General; the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer; and Ombudsman Ontario, having been approved by the Board of Internal Economy and tabled on December 9, 2025, are deemed to be concurred in.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled Expenditure Monitor 2025-26: Q2, from the Office of the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Steve Clark: I seek unanimous consent that the member for Essex be allowed to move second and third reading of Bill Pr8, An Act to revive Thistletown Lions Club, on behalf of the member for Whitby.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent for the member for Essex to be allowed to move second and third reading of Bill Pr8, An Act to revive Thistletown Lions Club, on behalf of the member for Whitby. Agreed? Agreed.

I recognize the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: I seek unanimous consent that the member for London West be permitted to move second and third reading of Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Ludger Michel Estates Limited, in place of the member for Sudbury.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Mr. Vanthof is seeking unanimous consent that the member for London West be permitted to move second and third reading of Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Ludger Michel Estates Limited, in place of the member for Sudbury. Agreed? Agreed.

I recognize the member for Don Valley West.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I seek the unanimous consent of the House that the member for Don Valley West be permitted to move second and third reading of Bill Pr18, An Act to revive 2163694 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Don Valley West is seeking unanimous consent to be permitted to move second and third reading of Bill Pr18, An Act to revive 2163694 Ontario Ltd. Agreed? Agreed.

I recognize the member for Kitchener Centre.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I seek unanimous consent to move second and third reading of Bill Pr16, An Act to revive 1581766 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Unanimous consent is not required.

Gilda Investments Limited Act, 2025

Mrs. Cooper moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Gilda Investments Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Gilda Investments Limited Act, 2025

Mrs. Cooper moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr3, An Act to revive Gilda Investments Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Marbro Holdings Ltd. Act, 2025

Mr. Mamakwa moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr4, An Act to revive Marbro Holdings Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): It is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Marbro Holdings Ltd. Act, 2025

Mr. Mamakwa moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr4, An Act to revive Marbro Holdings Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be is resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Social Asset Measurements Inc. Act, 2025

Ms. Bell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr5, An Act to revive Social Asset Measurements Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Social Asset Measurements Inc. Act, 2025

Ms. Bell moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr5, An Act to revive Social Asset Measurements Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Andrew Zawadowski Medicine Professional Corporation Act, 2025

Ms. Pierre moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr6, An Act to revive Andrew Zawadowski Medicine Professional Corporation.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

0910

Andrew Zawadowski Medicine Professional Corporation Act, 2025

Ms. Pierre moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr6, An Act to revive Andrew Zawadowski Medicine Professional Corporation.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

2512681 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

Mr. Sabawy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr7, An Act to revive 2512681 Ontario Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

2512681 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

Mr. Sabawy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr7, An Act to revive 2512681 Ontario Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Thistletown Lions Club Act, 2025

Mr. Leardi, on behalf of Mr. Coe, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr8, An Act to revive Thistletown Lions Club.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Thistletown Lions Club Act, 2025

Mr. Leardi, on behalf of Mr. Coe, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr8, An Act to revive Thistletown Lions Club.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Five Senses Productions Inc. Act, 2025

Ms. Bell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr10, An Act to revive Five Senses Productions Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Five Senses Productions Inc. Act, 2025

Ms. Bell moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr10, An Act to revive Five Senses Productions Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

2708634 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Ms. Bowman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15, An Act to revive 2708634 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

2708634 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Ms. Bowman moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15, An Act to revive 2708634 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

1581766 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Ms. Clancy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16, An Act to revive 1581766 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

1581766 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Ms. Clancy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16, An Act to revive 1581766 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Ludger Michel Estates Limited Act, 2025

Ms. Sattler, on behalf of MPP West, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Ludger Michel Estates Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Ludger Michel Estates Limited Act, 2025

Ms. Sattler, on behalf of MPP West, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Ludger Michel Estates Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

2163694 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Ms. Bowman, on behalf of Mr. Blais, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18, An Act to revive 2163694 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

2163694 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Ms. Bowman, on behalf of Mr. Blais, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr18, An Act to revive 2163694 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

730159 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Mr. Saunderson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20, An Act to revive 730159 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

730159 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2025

Mr. Saunderson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20, An Act to revive 730159 Ontario Ltd.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Sur-Leen Farms Limited Act, 2025

Mr. Pinsonneault moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Sur-Leen Farms Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Sur-Leen Farms Limited Act, 2025

Mr. Pinsonneault moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Sur-Leen Farms Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Groves Memorial Community Hospital Act, 2025

Mr. Racinsky moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Groves Memorial Community Hospital.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Groves Memorial Community Hospital Act, 2025

Mr. Racinsky moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Groves Memorial Community Hospital.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Honey Harbour Community Church Inc. Act, 2025

Mr. Saunderson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr33, An Act to revive Honey Harbour Community Church Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 89(b), the bill is ordered for third reading.

Honey Harbour Community Church Inc. Act, 2025

Mr. Saunderson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr33, An Act to revive Honey Harbour Community Church Inc.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Orders of the day.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: No further business.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): There being no further business, this House stands in recess until 10:15.

The House recessed from 0924 to 1015.

Members’ Statements

Holiday events in Thornhill

Ms. Laura Smith: Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the absolute privilege of celebrating the holiday season in my riding of Thornhill, marking such a special time, embracing generosity, kindness, gratitude and supporting our neighbours. I’ve seen these values literally come alive in Thornhill.

Holy Trinity hosted their annual Old-Fashioned Festival of Christmas, which featured beautifully handmade gifts. My favourite: their homemade fudge; I ate all of it.

The Garnet A. Williams Seniors Club hosted their first Christmas celebration. It was absolutely fantastic. Smiles filled the room. We danced with Zumba. It was pretty incredible.

I also spent a lovely evening listening to Christmas carols at Thornhill United Church, where we watched performances from local Presbyterian, Baptist, United, Anglican and Roman Catholic choirs, all coming together—one night, local unity—all in support of the Christmas assistance program.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about the great time I had at the BAYT latke bingo night last Saturday. The children were so excited. Fun literally filled the room.

Through all of these celebrations, I’ve seen volunteers giving their time, families supporting local traditions, and neighbours offering kindness to those around them.

One thing is very, very clear: Our community shines the brightest when we all come together.

I want to wish everyone in Thornhill and across Ontario and in this House very happy holidays.

Professors of Funk Friends and Family Christmas Special

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Since 2014, the Professors of Funk Friends and Family Christmas Special, a fundraiser concert for the Back Door Mission, has been held at the historic Simcoe Street United Church, an iconic landmark built in 1867 in downtown Oshawa. This one-of-a-kind festive holiday concert melds together music styles, both traditional and modern, with guest performers from across Durham region. Since its inception, over 100 performers have stepped on that stage to help raise over $100,000 for the Back Door Mission, lifting up the most marginalized members of the community and bringing thousands of people together for this cause every December.

This year’s concert will be another opportunity for our community to come together to appreciate holiday favourites and our neighbours.

I have been proud to support the work of Mission United at the Back Door Mission and its partners that serve our neighbours in need.

The Back Door Mission stepped up during COVID to provide necessary services to unsheltered community members, coordinating emergency care, food, acute medical care and community resources, all while building relationships and hope.

I was proud to work with community advocates and this government to secure necessary funding for medical needs to continue to be met at the mission. The work of the mission is important and complicated, but helping others and meeting them where they are is a goal worth supporting.

I want to appreciate Derek Giberson for organizing this special concert from the beginning and applaud the Professors of Funk and all their talented musical friends, who will be raising money this holiday season to support the mission and all of our neighbours in need.

Merry Christmas.

Public safety

Mr. Adil Shamji: This past Saturday, our nation reflected on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Against this solemn backdrop, I couldn’t help but reflect on the difficult months that Don Valley East has experienced. Just this Monday, for example, a stabbing in Flemingdon Park took our community by surprise. There have recently been two hate-motivated Islamophobic attacks affecting my constituents. And there has been no shortage of auto thefts, armed break-ins, and even carjackings.

At a time when families are hoping for peace over the holidays, many are instead wondering if their homes and loved ones will be safe. And sadly, they have received far too little help from this government. The Premier’s only solutions have been to point fingers at other levels of government, eliminate speed cameras, and leave our jails at record levels of overcrowding.

This fall, I held a community town hall on safety, and I conducted a survey. Nearly half of my constituents reported feeling unsafe. Traffic safety and property crime topped the list of their concerns, followed by violent crime. When asked about solutions, my community called for balance—fair and strong enforcement, yes, but also mental health supports, community programs, and stronger neighbourhood connections. This is the Canadian way—justice paired with compassion, enforcement along with prevention. These values bind us together.

As the MPP for Don Valley East, I will demand better in this Legislature and work with Toronto police and community partners to make our riding safe, supported and connected through incredible initiatives like community safety hubs.

Finally, thank you to all first responders who keep us safe on the front lines.

1020

Peter Marsh

Mr. David Smith: I rise today to recognize Peter Marsh, president of Gallery X Scarborough and a brilliant artist. Last week, I had the honour of welcoming Mr. Marsh to my office to discuss the future of art and culture in Scarborough.

Since arriving in Scarborough in 1965, Mr. Marsh has been a tireless champion of art education.

As Wexford Collegiate’s first art director, he helped transform the school into a leading institution for the arts. His vision endures well beyond retirement, with the music theatre program flourishing and Wexford renamed Wexford Collegiate School for the Arts. In 2015, the school honoured him with the Peter Marsh Art Gallery, a lasting tribute to his decades of dedication.

Even during the pandemic, his One Painting a Day project inspired neighbours and reminded us of the power of art.

Speaker, Peter Marsh’s legacy is rooted in Scarborough’s identity, and his leadership continues to inspire new generations. I am proud to honour him today.

Services de santé dans le Nord

M. Guy Bourgouin: L’accès aux soins de santé dans le Nord est en crise. Dans nos communautés, nous n’avons pas de spécialistes locaux, soit nous attendons des mois—parfois des années—qu’un spécialiste passe dans la région, soit nos médecins doivent nous référer à l’extérieur. Mais même ces options s’effondrent. Dernièrement, des patients du Nord se voient refuser leurs demandes parce que les grands centres, déjà débordés, n’acceptent plus de patients de l’extérieur.

Cela signifie une chose très simple : les gens du Nord n’ont pas un accès équitable aux soins auxquels ils ont droit. Pendant que les besoins augmentent, les iniquités se creusent. La province sous-investit dans tout notre système. L’impact est encore plus sévère chez nous. Les délais explosent :

—six mois d’attente pour une biopsie de la glande thyroïde;

—plus de deux ans en gynécologie;

—jusqu’à trois ans en neurologie; et

—des années pour obtenir un médecin de famille.

Pendant ce temps, nos médecins doivent faire tout : l’urgence, l’hôpital, les cliniques, la médecine familiale, avec un modèle de financement qui pénalise les petites communautés et un accès très limité aux soins à domicile.

Le système doit changer. Nous avons besoin d’un système provincial centralisé de références pour réduire les délais et garantir que les patients du Nord ne soient plus laissés de côté. Les gens du Nord méritent un accès équitable aux soins, comme le reste de la province. Nous ne sommes pas des citoyens de deuxième classe.

Government investments

Mr. Dave Smith: Speaker, we’ll rise for Christmas in just one more sessional day after today, and I thought I’d look back at some of the progress that we’ve made this year in my riding.

Let’s start with long-term care—it has been very productive for us. AON opened a 128-bed facility in Havelock this past September. A 256-bed facility will be opened by Extendicare in Peterborough, just off of Fairbairn Street, in the new year. And we had groundbreakings and construction has started on two more facilities of 256 beds and 224 beds—one at Trent University, by peopleCare, and another on Langton Street, by Omni. That’s 864 new or refurbished long-term-care beds for our area in a year.

Peterborough also saw a community health centre open at the old Toronto-Dominion Bank location. Up to 5,500 people will be getting primary care who did not have primary care before. This is a game-changer for many in our community.

We have also opened a new 12-bed detox and rehab facility at 24 Paddock Wood in Peterborough.

We’re ending 2025 on a very positive note, and 2026 is looking like it will be an even better year for us.

NYAD Corvette

Ms. Doly Begum: I rise to share the message brought forward by the wonderful children and educators from NYAD Corvette, who are here in the gallery this morning. Recently, I received a heartfelt letter from Gitanjali, one of the students here today. She wrote to us about art. Whether it’s in the form of drawing, singing or performing, it makes them feel happy, confident and connected. However, they’re unable to find affordable after-school activities or arts programming in our community that are accessible to them. In fact, educators at NYAD have shared how extracurricular activities like art strengthen children’s learning by building problem-solving skills, boosting confidence, reducing stress, and helping them appreciate others. Art helps them prepare for their future.

So NYAD stepped up and invested in an arts program themselves, filling a gap that our government should have addressed. Their message is clear: Not only kids at NYAD, but all children across our province, should have this opportunity.

I urge this government to step up and not leave our children behind. We must invest in meaningful extracurricular spaces so that children can explore their talents and grow into confident young people across our province.

Thank you so much for your message. We stand with you, and we’re going to fight hard to make sure that you have accessible space, to make sure that you can draw, perform, sing and dance, and be the wonderful human beings that you want to be.

Public safety / Christmas concert

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Mississauga residents deserve a safe community, free from crime.

I am proud of security and police at Erin Mills Town Centre and Peel Regional Police for their instant response and for apprehending four robbery suspects after an alleged jewellery store theft attempt in the mall.

This week, we also learned about Project Wrangler, which arrested 13 people and dismantled crime groups. This operation required co-operation with many different police agencies in both Ontario and Quebec. This shows that when all hands are on deck and supported by the provincial government, together we can get stuff done.

Thank you very much to the police forces who are constantly working hard to keep our community safe.

Speaker, I want to acknowledge a very talented performer who I had the pleasure of watching this weekend. Zlata Barchuk is 10 years old and a very impressive performer. Her Christmas fairy tale concert in support of Ukrainian children was one of a kind.

Whether you are celebrating Christmas or you are enjoying the holiday season, this is a time to celebrate with loved ones, reflect on the blessings of the year, and look forward to the new opportunities ahead.

Best wishes to everyone for a merry Christmas, happy holidays, and a happy new year.

Holiday messages

MPP Bill Rosenberg: As the weeks and months fly by in our busy lives, we once again find ourselves in the middle of December. This time of year often feels even busier as we prepare to gather with friends and family to celebrate and to make lasting memories. It is a season to appreciate what we have and the people we are blessed to share it with. But not everyone is as fortunate, and this is something we should keep in mind.

For many of us, this time of year can be especially challenging. Everyone carries their own story and their own reasons why the holidays may feel difficult.

Volunteering in the community is something my wife, Jeannine, and I have always cherished. Bringing smiles and warm conversation to those who may not have someone to spend time with means a great deal to us. These moments are deeply rewarding, and they are experiences we truly treasure.

Festive holiday displays are also something I’m quite familiar with. My own home has become a bit reminiscent of the Griswolds’ Christmas Vacation movie. It’s a project that takes weeks to complete, but it’s one that brings us great joy. My Christmas card captures a piece of this display, and I can say our road is well travelled each year by people of all ages coming to visit the winter wonderland of lights.

As we head home for the holidays, I hope each of us takes a moment to look around our neighbourhoods and notice those who may benefit from companionship, friendship, and even just a simple chat. This is a time for all of us to think of others, to open our hearts, and to teach our children the values and traditions our parents instilled in us.

Merry Christmas.

Introduction of Visitors

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je veux souhaiter la bienvenue à mes amis Diane Potvin Carrière puis Jacques Carrière. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

1030

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’d like to introduce two amazing Great Lakes champions: Gregory Ford, who is a Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and vice-president of Swim Drink Fish; and Dr. Eden Hataley, a U of T researcher doing phenomenal work with diverting plastics from our Great Lakes with U of T Trash Team.

Welcome to your House.

Ms. Doly Begum: I’m so excited to welcome the educators and students from NYAD daycare on Corvette: Sandra Holvor-Calhoun, Teneke Shabazz, Alicia Chase, Danielle Wittick, Gitanjali Adhikari, Hendrick Catling, Yannick Ferryman, Izabelle Huggins, Alyanna Cole, Marianna Cole, Milania Brown, Jeremiah Simon, Suleiman Ibrahim, and Mayaye Henok. Welcome to your House.

Mr. John Jordan: I want to introduce my executive assistant, Joseph Ward, and his girlfriend, Sara Benoire.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, Sara.

Mr. David Smith: I’m pleased today to welcome three guests to the Legislature: Neel Joshi, impact director for Scarborough at the Northpine Foundation; Sam Ibrahim, president and CEO of the Arrow Group of Companies in Scarborough; and Gabriel Fanous, vice-president of Arrow Workforce Solutions. Thank you all for being here today. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I’m happy to welcome my friend Ian Wylie to the Legislature. He’s a strong advocate for seniors and vulnerable people in his community.

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Zohaib Malhi and Sheheryar Mian, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier.

Yesterday, the Premier said he doesn’t like answering questions in question period because there are too many lies and he can’t call them out, apparently.

What I have been raising is that the minister hand-picked low-scoring applicants to receive skills development grants, despite warnings from ministry experts. The minister even admitted to this on live radio.

I will ask the Premier: Is that a lie?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, without question, we’ve seen selective information and efforts, for partisanship purposes, to smear a fund that’s training men and women in the construction sector; that’s helping support almost 110,000 people to find employment within 60 days or less.

We’ve worked through this program, through each successive round, to implement improvements—something the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t acknowledged or recognized; these are answers that have been provided in this place—to improve the program that is changing lives.

Again, 100,000-plus people, employment within 60 days or less—it’s supporting incredible increases in young people registering for apprenticeships. You need apprentices if you’re going to build the hospitals and the schools we say we want to build, and we fully intend to do it.

That’s why we’re supporting men and women in the trades, getting young people—we’ve seen a historic increase in the number of women registering for apprenticeships, and it’s only going to continue—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: [Inaudible] any apprenticeships out there.

Back to the Premier: I don’t take being called a liar very lightly. So I do expect some answers here.

This week, I’ve been talking about Connex technologies’ CEO, Sayan Navaratnam, who was hit with a three-year ban by the Ontario Securities Commission for his role in the Facedrive scandal—we all remember that; who could forget? This guy was charged with misleading the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s a certain kind of low. The government still gave him not one, but two skills development grants.

Back to the Premier: Is that a lie too?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, again, organizations are assessed as an organization. They’re assessed with a variety of metrics. A risk assessment process is run. We’ve implemented financial audits for organizations. And that’s what we’re going to do. These are assessing the merits of the programs; not those individuals.

We’re going to make sure that we work hard to support people in the AI sector. This is disrupting workers of this province, and workers want to know that they have a government that’s going to help them with respect to AI disruption.

President Trump’s tariffs—we’re supporting Unifor and other automotive, key unions in the response; in the skilled trades, to actually build the Ring of Fire, something we’ve said we’re going to do; partnering with the federal government and others on major national projects like new nuclear, small modular reactors.

We’re supporting young folks in entering meaningful careers, in apprenticeships.

That’s what we’re doing. That’s what this fund is doing. It’s changing lives. And we’re proud to support the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Tell that to the people in Brampton—the 3,000 Unifor workers who are losing their jobs.

The only one who is deflecting and, frankly, hiding from the facts here is the Premier—and frankly, this Minister of Labour as well. For the last seven weeks, I have raised concerns about government funnelling taxpayer money to hand-picked applicants with close connections to this government, and every time, the Premier has dodged the questions.

I have asked the Minister of Labour to resign. I have asked for him to be fired.

Is the Premier refusing to fire his Minister of Labour just to protect himself?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, we take our orders from the people who elect us—not from the leader opposite—the people we serve in the province of Ontario.

Let’s talk about Unifor. That member said she was going to be there, in the rain, for the Unifor workers, and she never showed up. We were there, speaking to the leaders of that union, talking with them about ways we can support them. We’ve invested through SDF. We value what they do. They challenge us for better public policy. They actually bring things for sound public policy—something we never get from those members opposite. That’s why we’ve made incredible investments that have attracted billions in the automotive sector. The Premier knows and the leaders of that union know that you can’t negotiate from your knees—and they know that the Premier will never turn his back on those workers, ever.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: The Premier has already turned his back on all those workers.

This morning, Trillium reported that another company that’s owned by Sayan Navaratnam, Knowledgehook, received a skills development grant. Mr. Navaratnam was fined by the Ontario Securities Commission for misleading the public—with taxpayer dollars—during the COVID-19 pandemic. None of this was a secret—we all knew—but the minister gave Mr. Navaratnam money anyway.

Whenever this government has the choice between corporate insiders and the public, they always choose insiders, every single time.

Back to the Premier: Why did your Minister of Labour insist on giving millions of taxpayer dollars to someone who has been sanctioned by the Ontario Securities Commission?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Here we go again. Look at the publicly available guidelines for SDF. Dollars don’t go to individuals; they go to organizations.

By the way, that’s not the CEO of the organization, Knowledgehook.

Let’s look at what that group does. They’ve partnered with Toronto District School Board, Peel District School Board. That member herself said that we have to bolster teacher training, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’ve brought in math proficiency tests for teachers. We’re strengthening math training for students. They’re doing incredible work. They’ve got a former Mexican President on their board—leaders in the industry—and were even awarded an award from the former Premier, Kathleen Wynne, and Ontario Centre of Innovation. This is a group that’s helping train teachers.

I expected her to oppose building trades and unions like LIUNA, operating engineers, carpenters, UA. I didn’t expect her to oppose training for teachers.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, that’s some wild behaviour over there when Santa Claus is coming to town. Let me tell you, there’s going to be some coal in those stockings over there.

We are seeing the same pattern that we always do with this government. Navaratnam donated thousands of dollars to Conservative Party members. His company hired a former Ford government staffer as their lobbyist. And then, guess what? He got $2.5 million—not from Santa Claus, but from the Skills Development Fund and that Minister of Labour.

1040

This has become the standard for this government, because everybody is told very clearly that they have to pay to play; we know it because they tell us.

Is the Premier rewarding disgraced CEOs because they are his party’s donors?

Hon. David Piccini: They can mock and make Christmas references all they want, but on this side of the House, when 100,000-plus people go from underemployment to employment—that’s something to be proud of.

What else are we doing? They wanted to give pink slips to men and women who work in our nuclear sector. What are we doing? We’re refurbishing Pickering. We are then building small modular reactors. We’re exporting that technology to the world. We’re building new nuclear—for 90% of which the supply chain is here in Ontario.

We have a fund that’s going to support workers in training. They’ve opposed those folks. That is why unions have abandoned them.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke—and after her disgrace review by members, she spoke about restoring confidence with labour.

Well, news flash: If you oppose every project that puts those people to work, you’re not supporting labour; you’re against them. They see it exactly for what it is.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, dance, dance, dance faster there, Minister.

I’ve got to tell you: I’m old enough to remember when these very members were calling out the Liberal government, before them, for their pay-to-play schemes—they were in power then. They were calling them out, in opposition. And now they are following the same playbook.

The 3,000 workers in Brampton, 1,000 in Sault Ste. Marie, 1,000 workers in Ingersoll—they have lost their jobs, under your government’s watch.

Families across this province are trying to stretch a dollar. They are struggling to make ends meet at this very moment, and this Premier doesn’t seem to care. That is the message that they are getting every single day from this government.

So I want to know from the Premier: Why did the Premier let donors and insiders cut the line for the Skills Development Fund, to keep the gravy train flowing?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, let’s talk about affordability in this country—something, from coast to coast to coast, that concerns Canadians.

What does the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposes every measure for energy independence and energy security—something that is driving down energy prices and providing stability in the energy sector. She opposed it.

When we talked about removing the tolls on the 413, she opposed removing tolls.

She opposed licence fees.

She even opposed hunting and angling and waiving fees there. This is just absolutely crazy for folks in rural Ontario.

They’ve opposed every measure we’ve put in place to put more money back in people’s pockets.

And then, when we want to create the opportunity for economic investment—we’ve significantly improved revenue for foreign direct investment in this province. They opposed every measure.

They opposed building new schools, new hospitals, Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass, and the Ring of Fire.

These are all tangible things that are putting people to work and providing better opportunities—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: Yesterday, the Premier vigorously defended giving tens of millions of dollars to people we can’t trust.

We have the ongoing investigation by the OPP into Keel Digital Solutions.

And then we have Mr. Sayan Navaratnam, whose company received a skills development grant despite him being sanctioned seriously by the Ontario Securities Commission—and then he also took all of us on a ride, in the pandemic, for $2 million. They still gave him money. We learned today that another of his companies, Knowledgehook, received $1.5 million from the Ontario government.

So the question is simple: Why does the Premier continue to give millions of dollars to people who we know are bad actors?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Again, this is an organization that was praised by the former Liberal leader, Premier Kathleen Wynne. This is an organization that has partnered with school boards all over Ontario; that has attracted leaders on their board, who include the former President of Mexico. This is an organization that is helping empower a next generation of teachers with proficiency in math.

The Skills Development Fund is supporting—from manufacturing halls to long-term-care facilities to union training halls to teachers.

We know we need more teachers. This government and this minister have done an incredible job of building new schools—a new school in my own community. You’re going to need teachers to staff that school, and we have a plan that’s supporting a next generation of teachers. We’re going to keep doing that to build a stronger Ontario.

Again, they’ve got no idea, no plan for jobs—just partisanship.

We’re focused on meaningful training opportunities—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: My dad used to say, “Be careful who you hang out with because you’ll be judged by the company that you keep.”

As it turns out, the lobbyist for Knowledgehook is no other than David DiPaul, who was the director of stakeholder relations in the Premier’s office. Before that, he was actually Michael Ford’s chief of staff. So, I guess the Premier likes to keep it all in the family—keep it tight.

You have to wonder: Do you have to get a former Premier’s office staffer, or maybe a current one, to make securities violations go away, taking the government for a ride go away, so you can get a skills development grant?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, again—selective.

We talked about the hospitality workers’ union, whose head of GR is a former staff member of Kathleen Wynne. But none of that matters. I see a remarkable young man in him—a remarkable young man who wants to stand up for hospitality workers, who met me in my first week on the job. I didn’t give two hoots who he worked for in the past—because it was what he was doing and the impact he had on training. That’s what we’re focused on.

Training a next generation of teachers; training a next generation of young people to enter meaningful careers in apprenticeships; working in construction; building new schools—they closed; building new highways—highways they opposed; unlocking the potential of the Ring of Fire—they oppose; supporting us on the nuclear sector—again, stuff they oppose.

Bring forward a meaningful plan for jobs; put it in this place.

Let’s debate public policy and stop smearing—including staffers of your former government. They’re [inaudible] too.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Well, just like I’ve said thousands of times before—like the greenbelt, all roads lead to the Premier’s office.

The company Facedrive—the one that took us for a ride for two million bucks—changed its name to Steer, and then it changed its name to Argo, I think just to cover their trail. In September, they got a new head of business operations, Jenna Bendayan, who, until August this year, was the head of priority initiatives in the Premier’s office. That’s a pretty tangled web.

This all stinks, and it lands right at the feet of the Premier.

So when is the Premier going to come clean about the grift that is the Skills Development Fund?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, again, it’s about impact—supporting teachers, supporting them in all of the school boards that they’re partnered with: Toronto, Peel, Ottawa, Durham, Halton, Hamilton, and Simcoe.

Let’s look at some of the testimonials here. Ashanty, a grade 6 teacher in Toronto, who uses Knowledgehook to help tailor teaching math skills that match the unique needs and learning styles of her students—and Claudine, a grade 5 teacher, through 20 years, has noticed math anxiety in young students.

These are the substantial things we see, and so we’re trying to address that with the educators at the front of the class, providing supports for parents and families.

Again, all of these things—they oppose. I can’t understand why they’re opposing.

When you empower young people with proficiency in math, they see right through the tax schemes of the Liberals, who just want to tax them to death. When we empower them to stand on their own two feet, do you know what? They see right through what the Liberal government did: tax them to death—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Food banks

Mr. John Fraser: It’s close to Christmas, and the great thing about Christmas is that there’s always an ability to redeem oneself.

Speaker, we all agreed, when we pulled American liquor off the shelves, it was the right thing to do. We sent a message. It felt good. And do you know what would be even better? To do some good at home with that action and not just let this liquor collect dust in a warehouse.

What I’m calling on the Premier to do today—asking the Premier, all of us—can we sell that American liquor, use the profits, and give it to Ontario’s food banks and have it do some good? There are more people than ever going to visit food banks in Ontario this year. It’s going to be really tough. It would help a lot of people.

1050

So will the Premier instruct the LCBO to sell that surplus liquor we have collecting dust and use that money, the profits, to give to Ontario food banks?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: I thank the member opposite for the question.

What we have seen since we took the American liquor off the shelves is a massive increase in sales in Canadian products. Ontario, in particular—a 79% increase in Ontario VQA wine alone.

The member opposite may want to support American companies, but this government, our Premier, has said we need to get behind the people of Ontario. We need to support all of those workers in Ontario. And what are we seeing? Record numbers of people who are employed in this industry as a result of that.

We will continue making sure that we’re doing the things that we need to do to protect the people of Ontario, to increase the opportunities for jobs, and to make sure that Ontario is the best place in the G7 to invest in.

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: According to Daily Bread and North York Harvest Food Bank, visits to food banks reached another all-time high this year: 4.1 million visits in Toronto alone. And they’re up in my riding of Don Valley West too, at the TNO food bank. What do we hear from this government on that? Silence.

Speaker, other provinces are stepping up to help their local food banks by selling off the US alcohol on the shelves. We know the PC government is holding $80 million of US alcohol in storage—the finance minister said that about $2 million of that will expire over the next six or seven months. Basically, it will all be poured down the drain.

My question to the Premier: Will he pour all that US booze down the drain or let the LCBO sell it to help food banks feed families?

Mr. Dave Smith: This is a government that has done everything possible to protect the people of Ontario, to protect the industries in Ontario.

When we take a look at the measures of removing the American product off of the shelves, what has this meant? Not just an increase in VQA wine sales—it has also seen an increase in craft beer. We have seen an increase in craft cider—in fact, craft cider is now the fastest-growing industry in the alcohol file in Ontario. And all of this translates to jobs. This is about protecting the people of Ontario. This is about doing things that increase opportunities for employment—and it is the right measure to do this.

To put American alcohol back on the shelves would mean we’re saying to all of those Ontario employees, “You’re not valued. We want the Americans more than we want people in Ontario to work”—and we disagree with that philosophy from the Liberal Party.

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

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Actually, there are four provinces that are putting that surplus United States liquor to good use. They’re selling it, and they’re donating the profits to support people in need. And the need in Ontario has never been greater.

Here in Toronto, the Daily Bread Food Bank, in my riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, reports more than 4.1 million food bank visits in the past year. That’s a record 340% increase since 2019.

To the Premier: Will he make this commitment to support struggling Ontarians this Christmas season and donate liquor profits to food banks?

Mr. Dave Smith: Madam Speaker, I am appalled that the member opposite has stood up here and said Canadian people, Ontario jobs should not be protected. I’m appalled that the member opposite is supporting American companies by that kind of a statement. This government will not do that.

We are here protecting the people of Ontario. We’re ensuring that people in Ontario have jobs, that they have the ability to go out and buy the things that they need to buy. We want to make sure that we’re protecting the workers in this province, and we’ll continue to do that.

We’ll take no lessons—from these things coming from that Liberal member.

Government advertising

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I know everywhere you look, there is an ad for the Ring of Fire. We saw them on TV during the World Series. They are showing up in countless other places—all over downtown Toronto, but far away from Kiiwetinoong.

To the Premier: The public deserves to know how many taxpayer dollars have gone towards this self-serving campaign.

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

Hon. Doug Downey: I just want to re-emphasize the importance of the Ring of Fire. The wealth that is in the ground that we can extract with our partners will be transformative for this province. It is billions upon billions of dollars of investment, and we want the people of Ontario to know that the investments will cascade throughout the entire province—to manufacturing and development in southern Ontario, all the way through the north. It’s an opportunity for us to look for and engage with partners—both First Nations and others.

We are getting the word out that when the Americans talk about the critical minerals, they’re talking about our critical minerals. So it’s important that we take a leadership role. We put, literally, a stake in the ground, and we get the job done.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I was simply asking for an amount. And those aren’t your minerals.

One of the things that this government needs to understand is that your approach to Bill 5, the Ring of Fire, and even these ads I talk about does not trump the inherent rights of the First Nations who live on these homelands.

This government’s approach will not work. Let me very be very clear on that. This government is getting very bad advice on this work. It will not happen.

Speaker, will this government commit to pulling all of the Ring of Fire ads and stop misleading the public?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw the words “misleading the public.”

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: What cannot stand is that it takes 15 years to build a mine in the province.

What is unacceptable is a world where China, the great violator of human rights, a country that has electricity using coal power—that they triumph.

Every day, members opposite work together to land-lock our resources.

We can build in partnership, but stagnation is not an option. Our Premier campaigned on a “one project, one process” vision to cut the permit timelines by 50%. We have made that a reality, in partnership with First Nation communities, because of billions of dollars of investment.

The improvement of quality of life—10,000 jobs are on the line unless we work together as legislators to get minerals out of the ground, the most ethical resources on earth.

We all should be proud of this country, proud of our workers—proud of the ethics that underpin it.

You should stand up for Ontario’s resources. Get them out of the ground.

Government accountability

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: We’ve asked the President of the Treasury Board several questions about the audit process. Most times, it seems like she has not been permitted to respond. There are serious questions around why the government would continue to give Keel Digital Solutions more money, even after serious irregularities were found. This matter was ultimately referred to the OPP to investigate.

A simple question: Why would the government continue to give a company more money after irregularities had been found and the company was flagged for forensic audit?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: A simple question deserves a simple answer—and I think I’ve mentioned it a few times in this House: Within 24 hours, we reported it to the OPP, once it was recommended. Maybe the third party is just not listening.

1100

Let me tell you what we are doing for our publicly funded post-secondary system that they continue to vote against.

We’ve invested almost $2.5 billion into the post-secondary system within the last 18 months. Again, the leader of the third party voted against that.

We’ll continue to be there for the post-secondary sector, with strategic investments into the sector—whether it’s STEM, skilled trades, nursing or teaching seats. We’ll continue to be there while the NDP vote against it and the Liberals vote against it as well. We will not rely on them to support the post-secondary sector. We’ll continue to be there for the post-secondary sector.

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

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: That wasn’t an answer to the question. That was deflection, distraction, misdirection.

We get it. An audit was conducted. Irregularities were found. The police were contacted. We get it. But the government kept giving more money to Keel Digital Solutions, even after they knew all these things had happened.

Back to the President of the Treasury Board: How could she have condoned such actions?

Hon. Nolan Quinn: I guess the member from Kanata–Carleton didn’t hear me.

Within 24 hours, we reported it to the OPP—within 24 hours.

Again, they don’t want to talk about the publicly assisted post-secondary system; I do.

We’ve invested a significant amount of money into the system. Whether it’s the $1.3 billion that we’ve invested in the system to stabilize the sector—because their federal counterparts created chaos right across all of Canada.

But do you know what? They’ll continue to vote against our strategic investments into the post-secondary sector, including the billion dollars they voted against in budget 2025—$750 million for priority STEM programming, 20,000 new funded seats that they voted against.

I don’t know how they stand up and ask these questions when they continue to vote against our post-secondary system.

Ontario economy

Mr. Dave Smith: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

President Trump’s tariffs are changing the investment landscape across the globe. This unprecedented attack on critical sectors is forcing us to build a future that moves away from an overreliance on the US.

Businesses from across the world are also recognizing that the volatile environment in the US does not give them the certainty they need to make long-term investments.

While there are challenges for Ontario, there is also immense opportunity. We are the stable and reliable partner that companies from across the globe are looking for.

Speaker, can the minister highlight how our government has been working to attract more investment and bring more companies to Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Madam Speaker, today is the day to say thank you—thank you to the 409 international companies that invested nearly $40 billion in Ontario, creating 24,711 jobs last year. So thank you to them. That is an increase of 400% since 2019.

Despite the unprecedented economic uncertainty driven by Trump’s tariffs, this year, again, looks promising.

Last week, Ontario landed—in five days, in five cities—$1 billion in new investments, creating 770 jobs, last week alone. The week before that, we joined the Premier in St. Thomas, at Vianode, who are investing $3.2 billion, creating 1,000 jobs.

Speaker, we are going to continue to ensure that Ontario remains the best location for worldwide companies to enter.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Mr. Dave Smith: Thank you to the minister for that.

Global competition for investment is fierce, and our government continues to ensure Ontario is top of mind for companies across the world. We’re promoting our strengths and building on our successes to date.

After years of Liberal high taxes, we’ve restored Ontario’s ability to compete for job-creating investments. We’ve lowered the annual cost of business by $12 billion annually, making it easier for companies to come and set up and grow.

Speaker, as President Trump’s tariffs continue to reshape global supply chains and push companies to rethink where they operate, can the minister share how we’re ensuring Ontario remains the best place for businesses to invest, expand, and create more good-paying jobs?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Madam Speaker, we have now secured, in Ontario, $113 billion in investment from companies around the world—and more importantly, they have hired 113,000 people in the province of Ontario.

One million more people are working today in the province than the day we were elected. Speaker, 70,000 new jobs were created in the last three months alone.

Make no mistake: These are challenging times. But Ontario is showing our resilience. We’re taking actions to build on that progress. We’re tearing down international trade barriers. We’re adding $200 billion to our country’s GDP. We’re going to continue to bring investments from around the globe. We will come out of this once-in-a-generation crisis stronger than ever.

Northern health services / Services de santé dans le Nord

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Access to health care in northern Ontario is in crisis. Patients face years-long waits for specialists, and referrals outside of the region are often rejected due to strict catchment rules, creating a two-tiered system that leaves northerners behind.

To the Premier: Cancer and disease do not discriminate based on where you live, so why does the Ontario health care system?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m proud of the work that we’ve been able to do to expand access in northern Ontario. I point to one program, in particular, that is in its second year in Ontario—of course, that’s practice-ready Ontario—giving those opportunities for people who trained in other jurisdictions across the world. And now we have practice-ready Ontario communities such as Bracebridge, Cochrane, Gore Bay, Greater Sudbury, Kenora, Kincardine, Listowel, Little Current—I could go on and on.

The point is, when we make opportunities for people to be able to train and work in northern Ontario, they absolutely embrace it.

When I look at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine doubling the number of learners we’ve been able to get embedded and having opportunities in northern Ontario—and the stats show that when people train and practise in a community, they are far more likely to stay in those communities.

Those are the changes that, frankly, the member opposite continues to vote against.

But we as a government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, will make those investments, because we know northern—

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: À la ministre : ces belles paroles ne répondent pas aux besoins des gens du Nord. Et voici la vraie réalité du Nord : six mois d’attente pour une biopsie de la glande thyroïde; plus de deux ans en gynécologie; jusqu’à trois ans en neurologie; et des années pour obtenir un médecin de famille. Voilà les réalités. Pourquoi le gouvernement continue-t-il de maintenir un système où les patients du Nord sont laissés pour compte au détriment de leur santé?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: When the Ontario government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, expanded the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, which is now offering an additional 108 seats, nearly doubling their capacity, what did the member opposite do? He voted against it.

When we expanded the Northern Ontario Resident Streamlined Training and Reimbursement program, commonly called NORSTAR—a program which reimburses medical residents for travel and accommodation expenses when completing clinical assignments in northern Ontario health regions—what did the member opposite and his party do? They voted against it. Eighty-eight medical residents have participated in the NORSTAR program, providing over 3,000 days of coverage in 25 northern Ontario communities.

Speaker, I could go on, but the point is, when we make investments, northern Ontario benefits. And if the member opposite really wants to help his communities, he will step up and say, “This is good for my community, this is good for northern Ontario, and I will support it.”

1110

Subventions destinées à l’éducation / Education funding

M^me Lucille Collard: Depuis plus de 25 ans, l’éducation publique de langue française est celle qui connaît la plus forte croissance en Ontario. Les inscriptions ont plus que doublé.

Aujourd’hui, ils font face à une crise causée par une pénurie chronique d’enseignants, un manque d’infrastructure pour desservir 110 000 élèves qui n’ont pas accès à une école francophone, en plus de devoir mettre en oeuvre des nouvelles obligations provinciales sans financement additionnel.

J’ai une question pour le ministre de l’Éducation. Comment le gouvernement peut-il prétendre respecter les obligations constitutionnelles de l’article 23 de la Charte alors qu’il n’investit pas les ressources nécessaires pour offrir aux élèves ayant droit à une éducation en français un accès réel, équitable et local à une école de langue française?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member will know—in fact, I was just in Ottawa last Friday to announce significant funding for an expansion of a French school in her riding, actually, I think it was.

There has been a significant increase in funding toward our French education partners—over $2.2 billion in funding. It’s an average of over $19,000 per pupil in that sector.

Part of the reason we’re making such dramatic investments on the French-language side is partly because the popularity of French-language education has exploded across the province of Ontario, not just in our French-language school boards, but also in our English-language school boards, where we’re seeing more and more movement toward—sorry, I always forget; excuse me—French immersion in our English boards as well.

We know that the Minister of Colleges and Universities put more funding in to have more French teachers.

All in all, it’s a significant amount of investments, because the system is a good system. It is a system that is giving our students the best opportunity to succeed and—

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

M^me Lucille Collard: On reconnaît en effet que le système francophone est un bon système. Et les enjeux auxquels font face les conseils scolaires ne sont pas liés au travail des conseillers scolaires. Il est lié au sous-financement.

Le ministre de l’Éducation répète depuis des mois qu’il ne touchera pas aux conseillers scolaires francophones. Pourtant, il met en place des structures comme les bureaux d’assistance aux élèves et aux familles qui ont, en fait, pour effet de retirer des pouvoirs essentiels aux conseillers scolaires, comme on l’a vu—c’est ce qui est arrivé au Québec et en Nouvelle-Écosse.

Est-ce que le ministre peut garantir clairement aujourd’hui que toute initiative de son gouvernement respectera non seulement l’existence des conseillers scolaires francophones, mais aussi leur pouvoir réel de gestion et de contrôle tels qu’ils sont protégés par la Constitution?

L’hon. Paul Calandra: J’ai déjà dit, ce gouvernement va toujours respecter la Charte et la Constitution. C’est pourquoi nous avons fait beaucoup d’investissements dans l’éducation francophone aussi. Au même temps, c’est vrai que nous voulons faire des changements dans le système d’éducation pour assurer que nos étudiants ont les ressources pour avoir le meilleur succès.

That means that all boards will be challenged—and every trustee—across the province.

I’ve said this on a number of occasions, and I’m not going to back down on it just because the Liberals, an arrogant, outdated party, do not agree—

Interjection.

Hon. Paul Calandra: You’re right; it is. You’re right. It’s Christmas for students, parents and teachers in the province of Ontario because they finally have a government that actually cares about them. That’s why it’s Christmas.

The party opposite is—you see how angry they get when you call them arrogant and outdated—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Domestic violence

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: My question is for the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity.

Intimate partner violence has a devastating impact on women, children and families in every part of our province.

Through the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, this House moved to undertake an in-depth study on intimate partner violence two years ago and to hear directly from survivors, front-line organizations and experts about what more needs to be done. The member from Kitchener South–Hespeler has shown tremendous leadership throughout this work. She has been a tireless advocate for this issue, playing a key role in the committee’s work, listening to survivors, championing their voices, and helping to shape the committee’s report.

Speaker, can the associate minister share how the work of this committee, including the leadership of the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, is helping to continue our government’s efforts to address intimate partner violence?

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: Thank you to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence for that question.

Madam Speaker, I also want to take a moment to recognize the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for the incredible work she has done in preparing a report on intimate partner violence. The compassion and diligence she has brought to this study has been incredible.

Through the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, members heard from survivors, families, Indigenous partners, service providers, police, and community organizations from across Ontario, who shared their stories and recommendations. Their testimony makes it clear that intimate partner violence is a serious and persistent problem.

As the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity, my focus is on making sure women have the safety, stability and economic independence they need to build a better future for themselves and their families.

The committee’s work and the report that the NDP shamefully called slop will help inform and strengthen our government’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

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

Speaker, this report on intimate partner violence is the result of extensive work by this House. Over two years and many months, the committee has heard from survivors, front-line workers and experts. They have held long days of hearings, listened to more than 150 witnesses, and reviewed a substantial record of written submissions. The member from Kitchener South–Hespeler did the hard work of pulling that evidence together into a draft report so that the committee could review and finalize its work. Instead of staying at the table to work through the report, I saw that the opposition members chose to walk out of the process. That decision spoke louder than a thousand words about how seriously they take this issue.

Can the associate minister tell the House how our government is focused on turning this work into action for women and survivors—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the associate minister.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: Intimate partner violence is not an issue for slogans or quick clips. It’s a devastating reality for women and families in every part of our province and country.

That is why the committee worked through long hearings, heard from survivors and front-line organizations who gave their time and shared their stories. And it’s why the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler devoted so much of her effort to preparing a draft report that reflects that record. When some members chose to walk out of report-writing instead of staying and doing the detailed work to edit and finalize the report—that act of walking out spoke for itself. Our government members stayed. We stayed because survivors stayed and shared their stories, and we will never walk out on them.

Speaker, I did not come here to play political games. I’m here to stand with women across the province and help survivors build a safer province for them and their families.

We will use this work that the committee has done and the report to drive the action and add to the $1.4 billion—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Health care funding

MPP Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier.

My local hospitals are in crisis. Emergency room wait times are pushing 10 hours, and front-line staff are exhausted, from chronic underfunding and short-staffing.

Last week, Niagara Health announced 100 layoffs, and the workers are on edge, wondering who’s going to lose their job.

The Premier has caused the conditions where the very people who keep our hospitals running will lose their jobs. And now, in the middle of flu season, the government’s underfunding will make wait times worse and put lives at risk.

1120

Why won’t the Premier properly fund hospitals so Niagara Health can cancel all layoffs and ensure patients get the care they need and deserve and save their lives?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As we continue to fund our hospital partners almost a billion dollars—4% annually—we see that they have the capacity to be able to look carefully at their individual organizations to make sure that they are providing exceptional care. We are doing that through a three-year process that ensures they can take that look very closely at their individual organizations and make assessments.

Having said that, we have invested and we will continue to invest in our hospitals—as I said, over 5% annually on their base budget. Why do we do that? Because we know that when we have strong hospitals, when we have emergency departments, ORs and ICUs that have the capacity, we are able to look after our most vulnerable.

We’ll continue to do that work, and part of that work is working very closely with our hospital partners to make sure that they are assessing their organizations.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for St. Catharines.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the minister: You brag about investments. There are 98 health care workers who are losing their job because of your mismanagement of funds. Families with children, young people trying to survive and save up for a home, single people who don’t have a second income to rely on—these are the health care workers who will lose their jobs just before Christmas because of this government’s financial mismanagement.

Through you to the Premier, Speaker: Instead of leaving workers in the dark, will you shed light on any plans to cut additional programs—like senior care, community clinics, or entire hospital departments altogether?

Premier, Ontarians deserve to know: Who are you planning to sacrifice next?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I hear the member opposite spouting, frankly, fallacies.

We know that the changes that are being made—I withdraw.

I see the work that our hospital partners are doing to make sure that the assessments are ensuring absolutely critical front-line care.

It really speaks to the difference between that party and the party in power, and that is, we’re not willing to just continue status quo.

We want to expand access in our provincial hospital system.

We want to ensure—which is why, on Monday, I was able to announce an expansion of community diagnostic surgical centres—hips and knees—that are going to be able to assist 20,000 people over the next two years to get those critical services.

We are protecting our hospital capacity by actually making more options available, whether it is through expanded—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Ferry service

Mr. Ted Hsu: Wolfe Island is in decline—the medical clinic closed, contractors won’t work there, tourism jobs wiped out, young families are moving away. In September, Marysville Public School had only two students registered. The median age was 50 years old in 2011; in 2021, it was 60. The culprit? Unreliable ferry service.

Wolfe Island needs this Premier to station two paramedics on Wolfe Island, just like Pelee Island, which has less people; or, number two, pay to speed up completion of the Kingston ferry dock, which is four years behind schedule; or three, bring money to the table and talk to people in Kingston who have trained marine officers for years and know how to get more trained.

Will this Premier protect this corner of rural Ontario and do these things?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We continue to make investments into our ferry system across the province.

That member knows we’ve worked with him and many of the residents in that area to continue improving access not only from our ferries, but also in general—on the program.

Madam Speaker, our government has invested over $70 billion into public transit. A key part of that continues to be ensuring that all ferry operations across the province continue to operate.

We’ll continue to work with the member on his concerns around paramedics and ultimately see how we can support him in that as well.

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

Mr. Ted Hsu: Speaker, the Premier should know that people on Wolfe Island are talking lawsuits now because of unpredictable and unending ferry disruptions. Here are the top three causes:

(1) Paramedic calls. Will he permanently station paramedics on the island? Pelee Island has some, and less people live there.

(2) Backup generators break down because until the Kingston ferry dock’s charging station is completed, backup power is used more than it was designed for. The dock is four years behind schedule. Get it done.

(3) Shortages of captains and mates. Like he has done for other skilled workers, he can incentivize people to enter that career. Come to Kingston, where we know how to train them.

Will the Premier protect this corner of rural Ontario and do these things?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I urge that member to also speak with the municipality with respect to the paramedics and the funding for that as well. We are always happy to support initiatives that are brought forward, but ultimately, that responsibility stands with the municipal government as well.

That being said, we have to work to tackle the challenge of labour shortages across all sectors, as the Minister of Labour has stated many times. The programs that he has put forward many times—the purpose of those is to ensure that we have a skilled workforce all across the province.

That is exactly what we are committed to doing—delivering a world-class transportation system, which includes the ferries on Wolfe Island. It also includes the investments that we have made to date on developing those ferries and developing new and improved electric ferries that are now in operation as well.

We’ll continue to work with the community in question and continue to improve upon those services.

Red tape reduction

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: My question is to the Minister of Red Tape Reduction.

At a time of global uncertainty—with rising costs, supply chain pressures, and economic instability putting added strain on families and job creators—people are feeling the squeeze. This is especially true during the time of year when budgets are tightest and household expenses are stretched to their limit.

Speaker, families deserve real relief; not more paperwork and red tape slowing them down.

Through cutting unnecessary and outdated regulations, our government has been focused on putting time and money back where it belongs—into the pockets of the people who earn it.

Can the minister please explain how our government’s red tape reduction efforts are delivering real, practical savings for Ontario families and businesses when they’re needed most?

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: That member knows very well from his own community—he hears it first-hand from them: Every time that we can save those small businesses money, those manufacturers time and money, it’s more money that they can invest in their community, especially this time of year.

That member knows we inherited a deplorable record. Ontario was the regulatory capital of Canada. That was deplorable.

Instead, we’ve turned it around. We are now the best place to do business. In fact, thanks to the work our government has done through the Minister of Economic Development, we’ve attracted more jobs here. We’re reshoring investments into Ontario. We’re allowing businesses to know that we’re there to help them move forward, not get in their way.

We’re reducing the red tape, not just for businesses to grow and employ people, but for everyday Ontarians.

Whether it’s helping them with their disability payments, whether it’s helping them strengthen the justice system, we’ll always put people above paperwork.

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

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I thank the minister for that strong response.

The numbers speak for themselves, but what really matters to families and job creators is how those savings are being delivered on the ground.

People in my community of Brampton West want to know where the paperwork is being cut, how approvals are being sped up, and how government is getting out of the way so they can get on with their lives.

Speaker, through Bill 46 and our broader red tape reduction work, our government has taken targeted, practical steps to modernize outdated processes, digitize services, and eliminate duplicative rules across ministries.

Can the minister share some specific examples of how we are cutting red tape in real, tangible ways and how these changes are making a direct difference for workers, families and businesses right across Ontario?

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: All our measures combined have really made a huge impact on Ontario. Whether it’s the nearly $1.2 billion we’ve saved people of Ontario and companies, whether it’s the 1.8 million hours we’ve saved them—that’s time and money they can invest back into the economy, back into their families.

Speaker, frankly, it’s our government’s real approach—to put people at the centre of everything we do.

We are laser-focused on unlocking every part of our economy, continuing to grow our economy, continuing to shore those investments, continuing to grow those jobs.

Whether it’s the forestry sector in Thunder Bay; whether it’s our health care sector, through Minister Jones; whether it’s our mining resources; whether it’s building more homes—every step of the way, this government has been able to reduce red tape.

We’re bringing more rental units on board. We’re unlocking jobs up north. We’re creating roads to places where folks want to actually get to see their families—to save time to actually see their loved ones. And we’re doing it all while continuing to protect Ontarians and standing up for them every step of the way.

Municipal development

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier.

The region of Waterloo is in an unprecedented position. They announced last week that all housing development is paused because of an inappropriate and inadequate level of water infrastructure. They look to this government, because you have changed the planning rules so many times that you have created chaos for municipalities across this province.

And we all know that the construction sector, right now, is hurting desperately. This will only lead to a drop in construction jobs, that is obviously connected to infrastructure—which is caused by your downloading to municipalities.

My question to the Premier: When are you going to do your job and support municipalities? They draw jobs in the province of Ontario. And we will never achieve our potential as a province without housing and infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: I rise to answer, as the Acting Minister of Infrastructure.

To the member’s question: This is the result of years of Liberal government inaction on infrastructure investments—quite frankly, aided and abetted by the NDP for three of 15 years.

That has changed, under the leadership of Premier Ford. It is our Ontario Progressive Conservative government that has put in a record $4 billion in investments to support local water and critical infrastructure, through our Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program. This program has seen great success thus far, and it has allowed local infrastructure projects to advance, helping to support the current housing supply, and making new homes possible across our growing communities, both in Waterloo and across Ontario.

Annual report, Auditor General

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled 2025 Annual Follow-Up on Performance Audits, from the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.

Deferred Votes

Development charges

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We have a deferred vote on private members’ notice of motion number 43.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1133 to 1138.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Members, please take your seats.

On December 9, 2025, Ms. Pierre moved private members’ notice of motion number 43.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

• Allsopp, Tyler
• Anand, Deepak
• Armstrong, Teresa J.
• Bailey, Robert
• Begum, Doly
• Bell, Jessica
• Bourgouin, Guy
• Bresee, Ric
• Calandra, Paul
• Cho, Raymond Sung Joon
• Clancy, Aislinn
• Clark, Steve
• Collard, Lucille
• Cooper, Michelle
• Crawford, Stephen
• Darouze, George
• Denault, Billy
• Dixon, Jess
• Dowie, Andrew
• Downey, Doug
• Dunlop, Jill
• Fairclough, Lee
• Fedeli, Victor
• Fife, Catherine
• Firin, Mohamed
• Ford, Doug
• Fraser, John
• French, Jennifer K.
• Gates, Wayne
• Gélinas, France
• Gilmour, Alexa
• Glover, Chris

• Gretzky, Lisa
• Grewal, Hardeep Singh
• Gualtieri, Silvia
• Hamid, Zee
• Harris, Mike
• Hazell, Andrea
• Holland, Kevin
• Hsu, Ted
• Jones, Sylvia
• Jones, Trevor
• Jordan, John
• Kanapathi, Logan
• Kernaghan, Terence
• Khanjin, Andrea
• Leardi, Anthony
• Lecce, Stephen
• Lumsden, Neil
• Mamakwa, Sol
• McCarthy, Todd J.
• McCrimmon, Karen
• McGregor, Graham
• McKenney, Catherine
• McMahon, Mary-Margaret
• Mulroney, Caroline
• Oosterhoff, Sam
• Pang, Billy
• Parsa, Michael
• Pasma, Chandra
• Piccini, David
• Pierre, Natalie
• Pinsonneault, Steve
• Pirie, George

• Quinn, Nolan
• Racinsky, Joseph
• Rae, Matthew
• Rakocevic, Tom
• Riddell, Brian
• Rosenberg, Bill
• Sabawy, Sheref
• Sandhu, Amarjot
• Sarkaria, Prabmeet Singh
• Sarrazin, Stéphane
• Sattler, Peggy
• Saunderson, Brian
• Schreiner, Mike
• Shamji, Adil
• Smith, Dave
• Smith, David
• Smith, Graydon
• Smith, Laura
• Smyth, Stephanie
• Stevens, Jennifer (Jennie)
• Tabuns, Peter
• Tangri, Nina
• Thompson, Lisa M.
• Tibollo, Michael A.
• Triantafilopoulos, Effie J.
• Vanthof, John
• Vaugeois, Lise
• Vickers, Paul
• Wai, Daisy
• Watt, Tyler
• Williams, Charmaine A.
• Wong-Tam, Kristyn

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Trevor Day): The ayes are 96; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

Member’s birthday

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Point of order?

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to acknowledge that it is the birthday of the wonderful member for Huron–Bruce today.

Happy birthday.

Applause.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Pursuant to standing order 36(a), the member for Ottawa South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to the question given by the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development regarding skills development. This matter will be debated on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, following private members’ public business.

There being no further business, this House stands in recess until 3 o’clock.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1500.

House sittings

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

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. Point of order: I’d just like to advise the House that the night sitting scheduled for this evening has been cancelled.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Laura Smith: It is my very great honour to introduce and welcome my OLIP intern, Ms. Geneva Fuina, and my executive assistant, Micah Dodo, into the House. Welcome.

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs / Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy / Standing Committee on the Interior / Standing Committee on Social Policy

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 66(c), the 2025-26 supplementary estimates of the Treasury Board Secretariat, before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; of the Ministry of Transportation, before the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy; of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, before the Standing Committee on the Interior; and of the Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security, before the Standing Committee on Social Policy, are deemed to be passed by the committees and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

Reports deemed received.

Introduction of Bills

Textile Waste Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur les déchets textiles

Ms. McMahon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 with respect to textile waste / Projet de loi 90, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2016 sur la récupération des ressources et l’économie circulaire en ce qui concerne les déchets textiles.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Does the member wish to explain the bill?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Indeed, I do. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

The bill amends the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016. A new section 75.1 provides that no more than three months after the day the section comes into force, the minister shall commence a review to determine the manner in which to include textiles as a designated class of material in respect of which brand holders or others are required to carry out the responsibilities set out in subsection 61(1) in determining how best to include textiles as a class of materials.

The minister shall consult with the listed persons and entities and have regard for the desirability of responsibility being assigned, where practicable, in accordance with the listed rules.

No more than six months after the day the review has been commenced, the minister shall report their findings to the Legislative Assembly, including an estimated timeline for when it may be possible to designate textiles. Three months later, the minister shall provide an update to the Legislative Assembly on what progress has been made. If textiles have not been designated six months after the initial report, the minister shall provide reports every two months until textiles have been designated.

Right to Repair Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le droit de réparer

Mr. Rakocevic moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2023 with respect to consumers’ right to repair certain consumer products / Projet de loi 91, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2023 sur la protection du consommateur à l’égard du droit des consommateurs de réparer certains produits de consommation.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Does the member wish to explain the bill?

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Yes, Speaker. This right-to-repair bill will ensure that consumers will have the power to fix the products they own, such as electronics, household appliances, farm equipment, vehicles or mobility aids. It will also ensure that suppliers must provide the tools, parts and documentation needed for repairs to support both individuals and repair businesses.

It will also ensure that if a supplier refuses or cannot comply, they must replace the product or refund the consumer. For seriously defective motor vehicles, like a lemon, it will also establish clear rules to protect buyers. Ultimately, this bill is about fairness, choice and putting control back into the hands of consumers.

Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur l’organisme ontarien de défense du consommateur

Mr. Rakocevic moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 92, An Act to provide for the development and implementation of a plan to establish a consumer watchdog organization / Projet de loi 92, Loi prévoyant l’élaboration et la mise en oeuvre d’un plan visant à créer un organisme de défense du consommateur.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Does the member wish to explain the bill?

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Yes, Speaker. Today, once again, I am introducing the Ontario Consumer Watchdog Act, 2025. This bill is a new and improved bill that directs the minister to work with stakeholders and the public to create an independent consumer watchdog to protect people from bad actors in the marketplace, including online.

An Ontario consumer watchdog would be able to investigate complaints and lay charges and ensure fairness in the marketplace against bad practices like dynamic spy pricing, online scams and much, much more. This is a bill about giving people confidence that their rights as consumers are protected.

Petitions

Transportation infrastructure

Hon. Steve Clark: This is a document petitioning the government of Ontario to call on the federal government to restore full navigation to the Rideau Canal by installing a structure to enable all marine traffic to pass through the LaSalle Causeway in time for the 2026 boating season, which marks 200 years since the start of construction on the canal.

Speaker, the petition really is—the impetus of it is because Public Services and Procurement Canada has not established a clear timeline or plan or demonstrated that they understand the urgency of replacing the temporary structure with a permanent bridge that restores full navigation. We’re talking about the LaSalle Causeway in Kingston. They have installed a temporary-fix bridge that restricts marine traffic for an indefinite period of time. The structure doesn’t allow for full navigation of the Rideau Canal, which is a UNESCO world heritage site. It’s a significant economic driver between Kingston and Ottawa. Just for members to note, the Rideau Canal contributes $309 million annually to the economy of eastern Ontario, supporting marinas, shops, restaurants and seasonal employment along the 202-kilometre historic waterway.

I’m pleased to affix my signature to this petition and I’ll send it to the table. Just give me a minute for my pens.

Homelessness

MPP Catherine McKenney: We know that research is consistently showing that each person experiencing homelessness costs $50,000 to $60,000 annually in emergency shelters, hospital visits and interactions with the justice system, and that the cost of providing permanent supportive housing is $14,000 to $26,000 per person per year. This is according to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, who also noted that we have over 80,000 people homeless in this region.

1510

The undersigned are asking the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize that homelessness is not an option and to implement effective measures with adequate funding to end its burden on our institutions, the economy and the homeless.

I will affix my signature to this and send it down with page Olivia. Thank you.

Camping fees

Mr. Ted Hsu: This petition is entitled, “Make Accessible Camping Affordable.”

There are disability discounts for campsites in Ontario parks, but there aren’t any disability discounts for roofed accommodation such as yurts or cabins.

So the signers of this petition are asking the Legislative Assembly to extend existing discounts for those with disabilities to any accommodation booked in an Ontario park and to review fees for roofed accommodation in Ontario parks.

Road safety

MPP Lise Vaugeois: This petition is entitled “Safe Roads for All.” It’s got signatures from all over Thunder Bay–Superior North: Terrace Bay, Schreiber, Marathon, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg, Geraldton.

It’s really calling on the government to crack down on unsafe carriers, trucking businesses that put their drivers out on the road without adequate training, put them in trucks that are not adequately safetied. There’s simply no enforcement of these companies, and so that’s what this petition asks for.

I fully support this petition and will give it to page Andrew to deliver. Thank you very much.

Social assistance

Mr. Adil Shamji: I have before me a petition that is calling for an increase in social assistance rates. It does so against the backdrop of an affordability crisis that has made it difficult for people to put food on the table and for them to be able to pay their rent, and it reflects on the fact that social assistance rates have fallen well behind the pace of inflation.

As a result, it is calling for substantial increases to ODSP and to Ontario Works. Specifically, it is calling for those to be doubled and to do so as soon as possible.

It’s been signed by many, many constituents. I’m happy to sign this petition and hand it to page Emery.

Energy policies

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: This is a petition to call on the Electrical Safety Authority to approve balcony solar. All across Europe, people can go to IKEA and they can buy solar panels to put on their balcony. It reduces energy costs for low and middle-income people and tenants, and it shouldn’t be illegal here in Ontario. It’s completely widely used in Europe.

I’m calling for a fast track for the legalization of balcony solar to make sure we can reduce emissions, increase the access to clean energy and reduce energy costs for renters and people in apartment buildings.

I approve of this petition. I will sign it and give it to page Maggie.

School governance

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: The following petition I have to read is entitled “Withdraw Bill 33: Listen to Parent and Student Voices.”

This government has made trustees the scapegoat for their own failures. Instead of admitting to the punishing cuts, including $6.4 billion cut from education, they are claiming trustees are the culprits. People know this is categorically untrue. They know that the trustees did not go to a Blue Jays game despite claims from the Premier and minister. It was the higher-ups; trustees never even had a chance to vote on it.

This petition calls upon the government to stop the power grab, stop the centralization of power, stop this excuse to grab school board lands and to reward party loyalists. This is a bill that will not address the broken funding formula, and it does not address class sizes.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Anna to the Clerks.

Social assistance

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: I have a petition today to raise social assistance rates.

This petition is part of the effort coordinated by Sally Palmer of McMaster University regarding the tragically low social assistance rates for both Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program. In coordination with a letter signed by 230 organizations and sent to the Premier and cabinet ministers, this petition calls for social assistance rates for these two programs to be doubled.

I’m happy to sign this petition and give it to page Manélie to bring the document forward.

Environmental protection

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I have a petition from a number of my constituents to protect Ontario’s future.

They are raising significant concerns about Bill 5 and the extraordinary powers it gives the Premier and cabinet to create special economic zones, which undermine Indigenous rights, environmental protections, labour laws and just basic democratic oversight. These petitioners are calling on the Ontario Legislature to repeal Bill 5.

I fully support this petition. I’ll sign it and ask page Raj to bring it to the table.

Public transit

Mr. Adil Shamji: I have before me a petition demanding action and accountability in regard to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

It comes as no surprise to the members in this House that the Eglinton Crosstown is 15 years old and yet has not opened yet and is billions of dollars over budget, with no accountability or transparency. This has caused profound disruption, with devastating impacts for businesses and congestion in the local economy, and has provided inadequate opportunities for quality jobs or community benefits.

It recognizes that urgent action is necessary. It enumerates what action items need to be taken, including the introduction of a public inquiry and establishing a mechanism for communities and businesses negatively impacted to seek compensation or alternative remedies.

It calls for a responsive provincial mechanism to rapidly fix new problems that are identified with the Eglinton Crosstown once it opens.

Finally, it asks the government to commit to ongoing, meaningful and binding community consultation in the remaining phases of construction, especially with the view towards informing any further construction on the Ontario Line, so that we can make sure this disaster never happens again.

I fully support this petition, have affixed my signature to it and am pleased to hand it to page Maggie.

Health professions

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I have a petition concerning changes to entry-to-practice requirements that were recently approved by the College of Psychologists and Behaviour Analysts of Ontario.

Like many MPPs, I have received emails and phone calls about these changes. There are concerns about a drastic cut to minimum training. The doctoral degree requirements are proposed to be removed, as well as the four years of supervised training for master’s candidates. Critical licensing exams will be removed. Practice areas will be collapsed and national accreditation for program approval will no longer take place.

There are, as I said, concerns about what this means for the safety and quality of psychological care and also the fact that it will put Ontario at the bottom of all Canadian provinces in terms of entry-to-practice requirements.

The petitioners are calling for a transparent and comprehensive consultation process to be undertaken with the CPBAO membership and stakeholders to make sure that training requirements are aligned with evidence-based standards and that the public is protected.

I fully support this petition, affix my signature and will send it to the table with page Emelin.

University funding

Mr. Ted Hsu: This petition is from my constituents, who are saying that universities are integral to our society because they create resilient, affordable communities and they stimulate local, regional and provincial economies.

These signers, many of them are associated with Queen’s University in my riding, and they’re calling on the government of Ontario to invest in Ontario’s future by boosting Ontario university space operating funds by 11.75% annually for a five-year period, just to bring Ontario close to the Canadian average.

1520

Tenant protection

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: This petition is calling on the government to improve tenant protections. In my riding, for every affordable house that we build, we lose 39 in the private sector. That’s why we see homelessness doubling since 2022. It’s calling on the government to create protections to stop renovictions, illegal AGIs etc.

I fully support this petition. I know that this will do a lot to prevent more people from being homeless or having to rely on food banks because of increased rental costs. I will sign my name and pass it to page Manélie.

Health care services

M^me France Gélinas: The petition is quite simple. It’s called “Remove the HST from Massage Therapy Services.” Massage therapy is a regulated health profession in Ontario. They help to manage pain and injury. They improve mental health and physical well-being. But services provided by regulated massage therapy in Ontario—all the services are taxed.

Removing the HST on massage therapy would improve the accessibility and affordability of massage therapy services. So the people petition the assembly to direct the minister to take the HST off the services offered by registered massage therapists.

I agree with this petition, will affix my name to it, and ask Andrew to bring it to the Clerk.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Mike Schreiner: This is a petition from a number of constituent families from Community Living Guelph Wellington. They have pointed out that funding for people with developmental disabilities has not been keeping up with the cost of living. As a result, Community Living agencies are having to cut back services, sell off group homes which are critically important for housing, and other service cuts.

They’re calling on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take immediate action to increase funding to Community Living agencies in line with both the cost of living and the needs of developmentally delayed adults.

I fully support this petition, will ask page Murphy—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member from Waterloo.

School governance

Ms. Catherine Fife: I want to thank Wilfrid Laurier University students and University of Waterloo students for collecting signatures for this “Stop Bill 33” petition. This is a petition that calls on the government to pull Bill 33 entirely from the House. It is undemocratic in the views of students. It shuts down the voices of students on campus.

Madam Speaker, universities were traditionally ground zero for democracy. What this government is very actively doing is undermining democracy on our campuses and taking away student democracy choices around where their tuition goes.

Why is this important? Because these tuition and ancillary fees fund food banks; they fund mental health supports; they fund over 250 student clubs. Bill 33 puts services at risk of being shut down.

Students in the province of Ontario are not going to take this, Madam Speaker. They are fighting back and they’re asking us as MPPs to be in their corner so that their voices matter on campuses.

There is a saying that a confused and uneducated electorate is easily manipulated. Well, the students on university campuses in the province of Ontario are not going to take that. They’re fighting back, and the official opposition is right there in their corner.

Orders of the Day

Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en réduisant les formalités administratives

Ms. Khanjin moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 46, An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 46, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): The Minister of Red Tape Reduction.

Interjections.

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you, colleagues. I’m thrilled to be able to speak today for what is the third reading of the Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, 2025, also known as Bill 46. This is a really pivotal and important piece of legislation that complements everything our government has done since day one, and that is really stand up for Ontarians, protect our economy, create the right conditions for growth and break the status quo.

Speaker, we knew from day one that the status quo wasn’t working. People didn’t have access to health care. There was too much bureaucracy. There was too much red tape. We inherited a government that decided they would tax everything that moved, regulate everything that didn’t, and they left us with skyrocketing hydro bills, crumbling infrastructure and a stagnant economy.

But Premier Ford brought hope to this province. We turned things around. We were able to invest in all the sectors that keep our economy going and also keep our people healthy. Whether it’s our manufacturing sector, our forestry sector, whether it’s our health care to keep people healthy, every step of the way, the Premier has been there to make those investments and back those individuals who work in those industries. It’s no wonder that we’ve attracted more jobs than all the 50 states combined. It is part of that team effort approach that our government has done, and it starts with reducing the red tape.

In this bill, we have very pragmatic and practical measures of how we’re going to reduce red tape, again bringing common sense back to Ontario. It starts with things like recognizing health professions from any other province so that they can actually practise here. It starts with things like making life a little easier for radiologists. It starts with things like—even if you see a podiatrist, reducing the red tape for them and the health care hurdles that they’ve had to go on. Recognizing international standards, for instance: If something is really good in the EU, why don’t we recognize it right away here in Ontario if it passes all the safety standards?

There’s nothing more frustrating than having to fill out the same form over and over again and having to repeat the same story to multiple ministries over and over again if you’re a business and if you’re a person. You just want to get on with your day, and you expect a lot from the taxes you pay. This is something our government has really led by example, and that is we brought a lot of respect to taxpayer dollars—respect in the sense of making the right investments, respect of returning those hard-earned dollars to the pockets of hard-working Ontarians.

It means real impact, Speaker. For example, you look at the changes we’ve made in terms of red tape reduction for Ontario’s forestry sector by streamlining development approvals to get projects off the ground faster, exempting Canadian Disability Benefit payments from ODSP so that people don’t get their federal benefit clawed back. Again, that was a team approach, and our Minister of Children, Community and Social Services worked very hard on that change with sector stakeholders, so I commend him for that incredible work.

Think of the propane workers: Some people heat their home with propane; others simply use it during barbecue season. But I bet you didn’t know that we have a shortage of these propane workers. And frankly, there was a regulation getting in their way when it came to propane purging. Something we heard from the sector—not something we hear about day to day, but it actually does impact us every single day when we do turn on anything that requires propane. As a result of these changes, we’re able to increase the safety compliance by increasing the people that actually are trained to do the propane purging, and this alone is going to save $4.6 million annually to the sector—real impacts for real people that impact all of us here in Ontario.

But that’s not just it. This bill is filled with a lot of different measures, including removing barriers so that more teachers can actually become principals and vice-principals in our publicly funded schools. I want to thank our Minister of Education, who worked on those measures.

And again, for people who are passionate about the education system, instead of putting barriers in front of them, we’re saying, “You’re passionate about teaching. How can we help you excel your career?” We show that same level of respect not only to our educators but to our health care professionals, to personal support workers, to our skilled trades workers, where, again, we don’t want government in their way. They’re doing really hard work. They’re going day to day trying to do the best they can to raise up our economy, to raise a next generation of leaders. Again, there was government getting in their way, and this government, under Premier Ford, has removed those roadblocks.

But it does not just stop there; it’s also our infrastructure. For us to get to our jobs, for us to get to our schools, to get to our hospitals, we need core infrastructure. But again, there was a lot of red tape in the way there. That is where we saw the impact that strong-mayor powers had in terms of red tape reduction. I saw it first-hand in my own community—an incredible story called Canadian Crane. It was a family that immigrated to Canada from Iran, and their dream was to own a business. So they started a business called Canadian Crane. Many of you who have manufacturing plants in your community may have seen their bright-yellow-with-red-writing crane on a lot of those shop floors. They started with a very small footprint, and they have been able to expand. But they’re so successful, they need more space, and that’s where the red tape came in.

1530

They had a perfectly situated space in the city of Barrie, but they weren’t able to break ground. The space was very close to the current footprint they already had. Thanks to the strong-mayor powers, they were able to actually expand their operations and, right now, they’re going to be celebrating in a few weeks of getting the drawings done up and hopefully getting that project off the ground in the new year.

Speaker, again, this is a good example of real reforms that our government is championing to bring change not only to our communities but to employers, because we know they’re all across the province in every corner of this province. From main streets to industrial parks, from farms to innovation hubs, the spirit of hard work and resilience defines who we are and defines Ontario. Our government will not stop defining that Ontario is a place to invest, a place that is open for business and a place to grow.

A good example as a huge sector that not only helps our economy, but our tourism sector as well, is the snowmobile industry. In the same bill, when we’re talking about reducing red tape, we worked with the Ministry of Transportation and the Ontario federation of snowmobile associations to be able to reduce the red tape when it comes to snowmobile groomers—that they’re able to groom all our different trails using different types of technology. There was a regulation that was totally out of date that was made for a different time when we only had one type of trail groomer, and so now, we’ve expanded that. This is going to make a significant improvement to not only our communities but to those trails.

Also, it really highlights the impact that snowmobile clubs contribute to our economy. They contribute $60 million annually to our economy through labour and resource costs, not to mention the ripple effects on tourism. Over the past three seasons alone, the snowmobile federation clubs invested $61.6 million to reinforce their commitment to grow sustainably. That’s in partnership with our government, which is why just last week, Speaker, you saw us provide another $3.9 million in additional funding to protect Ontario’s snowmobile trails this season, bringing the total support to $4.9 million in 2025-26. We understand for every kilometre of trail, for every snowmobile we have out on the trail, there are ripple effects to our communities, to our rural communities and all across the north, connecting people.

That was all done under the leadership of Premier Ford and his government and our government. We’re showing that we’re not only protecting Ontario’s snowmobile network and our communities that rely on them and the $6-billion impact that the overall sector has on our local economy, but it really proves to you that every measure we do is grounded in common sense and it’s dedicated to saving people time, money and effort.

This bill, if passed, will not only deliver immediate benefits but will also lay the foundation for continued progress. Please join me to support this bill and to support Premier Ford. Let’s unlock our economy. Let’s continue to grow our economy, grow our communities, cut the red tape, bring common sense to this province and have a sense of urgency for what’s happening south of the border. Our economy depends on it.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s always a pleasure to represent the people of Waterloo in this House. It’s a huge responsibility that we take very seriously.

Bill 46, Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, is an interesting piece of legislation for this government to introduce at this time in the history of this province. I say that because there are about 200 workers out on the front lawn of Queen’s Park right now from the Ontario new immigrant program. They were accepted into this program. They were acknowledged as needed professionals with skills that the province of Ontario needs. They paid their $1,500 fee to apply. Due diligence was done, and they were accepted here. Many of them have been here for two, sometimes three, years.

I met many of them over the last year and I know my colleague from Parkdale–High Park and my other colleague, Lise Vaugeois—we have been meeting with them and listening to them. They are caught in a blue-tape conundrum. I don’t know if I can say “red tape,” because this is purely about politics.

The Ministry of Labour, which we all know is embattled in scandal right now, and is losing credibility with every minute that passes in this House—there are 44 open cases in my office right now of people who are contributing to the local economy, who have brought their families here, and then were told two weeks ago now, I think, that all of their applications will no longer be reviewed. Administratively, the burden apparently is too high; the red tape that was created by the Ministry of Labour was too onerous, too heavy.

I call it “blue tape” because under the surface, there is a gaslighting of new immigrants in the province of Ontario which I find disgusting, Madam Speaker. Remember that we were all new immigrants in Ontario and in Canada—except for the First Peoples—and yet it seems that this government has found a politically expedient way to dismiss and discard the people who have come to this province at our request: mechanics, engineers. There was a line worker from the Toyota plant in Cambridge.

What the government has said is that these applications are fraudulent—“they are not legal and we are doing a full review now”—after three full years. What I know for sure is that people who are breaking the law—people who are fraudulent, people who have figured out the loopholes with the Ministry of Labour—don’t show up day after day in the rain, in the sleet, in the snow. They have come to us and said, “Please, give us some accountability. Please give us some transparency. Please, we are victims of your red tape,” or your blue tape—because now, for some reason, it has become politically popular to scapegoat and gaslight new immigrants in the province of Ontario. It’s a dark day for us, I would say.

When you talk to some of these folks who are, right now, on the front lawn of Queen’s Park, all they want to do is go back to their jobs. They don’t want to be on OW. They don’t want to be viewed by this government as someone who is taking advantage of the system. They came to Ontario to be part of the solution, and to be honest, we need them, Madam Speaker.

The administrative burden that the Minister of Labour, this particular minister, has created is a point of shame for us in the official opposition. To treat fellow human beings so poorly and to gaslight the new immigrants that are coming to this province, I find it to be a red-tape storm that a real leader—if we did have a real leader in the province of Ontario, they would acknowledge that these are good people fighting just to be part of our economic ecosystem—including doctors, I just want to say.

I wrote a letter to the Minister of Health and, of course, the Minister of Labour—I’m pretty sure they go right into the bin—but there are doctors who are fleeing MAGA and Donald Trump. These are professionals. Can we at least agree on the fact that 2.5 million Ontarians who do not have family doctors deserve a fighting chance to access the medical care system? Because doctors still are the gatekeepers to the medical system. These doctors came in under this program and they are being shut down right now. It’s such an epic failure to acknowledge the talent that we need as a province.

I will say that this government is very, very good at creating these points of tension within themselves. I think, personally, it’s because they don’t really know who they are. Are they Liberals? Are they Conservatives? Are they progressive? I think on the last point we can all agree they are not progressive, because housing starts are at the lowest levels, 2.5 million Ontarians do not have doctors, the public education system, which is challenged right now on all fronts—on talent retention, on mental health issues, on the influx of social media—

Interjections.

1540

Ms. Catherine Fife: Hey, I’m speaking over here.

Things are not going in the right direction here in the province of Ontario, and yet the government brings forward “protect Ontario by cutting red tape”? We need legislation to protect Ontario from this government. That’s what we need, Madam Speaker.

I have talked about this in the House before: I chair the leader’s advisory council on tariff response. Listen, the work there is so productive. We actually entered into this agreement, and the leader said, “We want to be propositional. We want to help people in Ontario. We want to find solutions on forestry, on auto, on steel.” And at every turn, even though the stakeholders have proposed solutions to us, particularly on forestry—listen, the forestry sector needs a procurement strategy. We need homes. People need jobs. Let’s get it done. It doesn’t have to be mired in the red tape that this particular government is so fond of.

You create barriers to innovation and to economic prosperity in the province of Ontario, and there’s no better example than the fact that there are new immigrants on our front lawn at Queen’s Park saying, “We want to be part of this ecosystem, we want to be part of the solution,” and you have turned your back on them. The Ontario Construction Secretariat, I will say, is really fighting for a pre-qualification framework for procurement.

Why this government is so resistant to doing work, I don’t understand. We’re called to serve here. We take an oath to serve. We’re supposed to be upholding democratic principles and morals, we’re supposed to be working together, and yet the government brings forward a red tape bill even while you create more red tape. It is disappointing. It does not meet the moment that Ontario needs.

We will continue to uphold our values over here, as the official opposition, on democratic values and strengthening the economic ecosystem.

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

Mr. Ted Hsu: It’s a privilege to be able to rise here at third reading to talk about Bill 46. I’m going to be addressing two schedules in this bill, schedule 5 and schedule 8.

Let me start by saying things this way: Did you know that in schedule 5 of this bill that we’re debating, the government is making it possible to take away your reward points—Optimum points, Scene points, Air Miles points? It used to be that they couldn’t just expire when time passed, but now the government is changing this law so that it is now possible to take away those points.

Now, when we ask the government, they say, “Oh, no, no, no, we’re not going to do that.” To test this, my colleague MPP Stephen Blais, the MPP for Orléans, put some amendments in committee. Let me tell you about these amendments. He tested the government. He put forward some amendments to guarantee that these reward points would not be taken away or be allowed to expire just because time passed. He put forward some amendments, and these amendments were voted down by the PC MPPs. They voted down a guarantee to protect your reward points.

Number one, the government created this bill, which allows them to have reward points—Optimum points, Air Miles points, Scene points. They’re going to change the law so that these points can expire with the passage of time. They say they’re not going to do that. They say they’re going to put something in the regulations to not have that happen, but we tested them. The MPP for Orléans tested the government, the PC MPPs, in committee by putting forward an amendment to say, “No, no, no. We’re not going to allow those points to expire.” That amendment was voted down by the PC MPPs, so they weren’t willing to protect your reward points. Let me just discuss this in detail, Speaker.

The first amendment that my colleague the MPP for Orléans made was to strike out this phrase: “except in accordance with the regulations.” What happens here? There is a place in schedule 5—it’s section 1—where section 41.7 of the Consumer Protection Act is amended. The bill says a “consumer agreement under which rewards points are provided shall not provide for the expiry, cancellation or suspension of rewards points.”

Then it says, “except in accordance with the regulations.” This is where the government says, “We can’t allow rewards points to expire, be cancelled or be suspended—oh, except when we make a regulation to do so.” What does that mean? It means, “Come to our fundraiser, and let’s talk about it. Maybe we’ll put in a regulation to somehow allow these points to expire.”

Consumers have saved up these points; it’s like money. With Scene points, you go to FreshCo or something, and you can use those points. I can go shopping—in fact, I do. If I take my mother grocery shopping and we buy $70-something, $75 worth of groceries. I give her my Scene card, and—oh—it’s only $5 because we saved up those points.

My colleague the MPP for Orléans moved an amendment to strike out where it says “except in accordance with the regulations”—let’s not allow this government to make regulations where reward points could expire—but it was voted down by the PC MPPs.

In fact, in the bill, if you look at the amendment to section 47.1 of the Consumer Protection Act, subsection (10)(d) allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations “governing the expiry, cancellation or suspension of rewards points.”

So another test: My colleague the MPP for Orléans put forward an amendment to add the following thing. It’s subsection (10.1) to that same piece of the Consumer Protection Act: “A regulation made under clause 10(d)”—that’s the new piece of the bill which allows regulations covering rewards points—“shall not permit the expiry, cancellation or suspension of rewards points due to the passage of time alone.” Let’s just ask the government if they will allow an amendment to the bill to prevent them from doing what they claim they will not do. It’s a test for the government.

This government did not pass the test. The PC MPPs on the committee voted against this amendment, so they’re unwilling to guarantee what they say they won’t do. It’s very strange why the government, for some reason, has to change the legislation and provide a way now for rewards points to expire with the passage of time.

One of the dangers here—and this connects with what happens in schedule 8—is that this government is giving itself more and more power in regulations. They pass these bills that have very general language, that do not have high-level guidelines, but allow them to make the real rules that matter in regulation outside of this chamber, outside of the scrutiny of the representatives who were elected by the people. I think this is an affront to democracy. It’s an affront to accountable government.

1550

If I could just go to schedule 8 now: Schedule 8 modifies the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. I think the idea makes sense. If you’re going to harvest a forest, you need to get a permit. If you need to cut down a few trees to put in a power line or an access road or something, you’re not harvesting the forest, so maybe there’s an easier way. There should be an easier way for you to cut down some trees, and let’s not worry about who owns the trees. Go ahead and use that lumber; don’t let it go to waste. I think that’s the idea of schedule 8 in Bill 46.

But what happens: The government has decided to do this by saying, “Okay, we’ll just make some regulations to say how this is going to be done,” in this bill, without giving any high-level guidelines. When we’re debating this bill, we should be able to say, “Here are some guiding principles that the government will use to write these regulations to allow for cutting a few trees, to do some projects that’s not related to a forestry company.” Maybe it has to do with building something for a community or for a mine or something.

Why aren’t there just some high-level guidelines for the regulation, so that we know what kind of power we’re giving to the government? If we’re just giving them a carte blanche, it means the details will be settled at a PC fundraiser. The details will be settled in a PC backroom. There needs to be some high-level guidelines.

This government is now in the habit of passing very general legislation, without legislators knowing, really, what constraints there are on the power that they’re giving this government.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s an honour to rise today to speak to Bill 46. I’m going to be focusing my comments on schedule 8. I know my colleague from Kitchener Centre will be raising some concerns of other schedules in the bill later in debate.

Speaker, I’m deeply concerned that schedule 8 will hurt Ontario’s forestry sector by undermining the Ontario forestry sector’s long-standing reputation for sustainable forestry practices, which are vital to maintaining consumer confidence in Ontario forestry products and to securing more diversified markets, especially as we deal with the US tariff threat.

The last time I brought up my concerns about how this government is undermining sustainable forestry management, the Minister of Natural Resources pulled me aside and said, “You know Ontario’s forest are some of the most sustainably managed in the world.” And I’m like, “Yes. I’m working hard over here to try to keep it that way.” We want to keep it that way because we want to maintain the reputation we have and the certification standards we have in Ontario’s forestry sector, especially if we want to access markets in the EU, for example, as we deal with US trade threats.

Bill 46 will hand cabinet new regulatory authority that will allow non-forestry companies to cut trees without needing a permit under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act’s enforcement of industry sustainability rules. As a previous member noted, and I agree, there are no guidelines, no principles, no guarantees of sustainability in the allowance of harvesting those forestry products by non-forestry companies and industries. That creates serious concern about sustainability and viability in the long-term management of our forests; in short, exempting mining, aggregate and utility companies from the safeguards that the forestry companies must follow.

And you know what? There might be some instances where some minor work doesn’t threaten the sustainability of our forests. But, boy, that should be outlined—or at least some principles around that outlined in the legislation, rather than left to regulations and the kind of wealthy, well-connected insider conversations that oftentimes follow that approach.

This deregulation has the potential to harm northern communities, Indigenous rights, the long-term health of Ontario’s forests and the reputation of Ontario’s forestry companies and products. Forest-management plans must meet the Crown Forest Sustainability Act requirements for healthy forests through replanting that regenerates our forest, along with maintaining sustainable ecosystems, incorporating Indigenous, public and stakeholder input. To exempt companies from that just isn’t fair, and it’s not right.

The forest industry has made it clear: They don’t want to exempt roads and mines and aggregates and utility corridors that have a significant impact on the sustainability of our forests from stewardship plans, because it risks things like their forest stewardship certification. And I tell you what, Ontario’s forests are known for FSC certification. It’s actually one of the things that separates us and gives Ontario forestry products a competitive advantage in markets here at home, in the US and abroad.

While we need to unite across party lines and across jurisdictional lines to push back against the US tariff threats and tariffs that are on our forestry products—I’m 100% ready to do that—we also need to diversify our markets. I think we’ve all talked about this. Every party in the House has talked about this. An FSC certification and the reputation of our forestry industry is critically important as we look to diversify markets, especially in the EU.

So I just want to say to the members opposite: I know you’re likely going to pass this bill, but when you bring these regulations in, you have to take into account the reputation of our forestry sector, the ability to get FSC certification and how critically important that is to building consumer confidence and diversifying our markets so we can continue to create good-paying jobs in Ontario’s forestry sector and we can continue to enhance that through mass timber buildings, a biomass strategy and more value-added production in our forestry sector. Keep that in mind as we move forward with this bill.

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

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: It’s a pleasure to rise here and speak on behalf of the great people of Wellington–Halton Hills in support of Bill 46.

I want to begin by thanking Minister Khanjin, the member from Barrie–Innisfil, for her leadership in cutting red tape and bringing this forward and making sure that our province is the best place to invest in the G7. I also want to thank my colleague the member from Markham–Thornhill for his advocacy in cutting red tape alongside me with the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction.

Speaker, I like to rise often in this place and point out the disastrous record of the previous Liberal government when it comes to cutting red tape—when it comes down to a C-minus grade from the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, to over 386,000 regulatory compliance requirements, which was twice as many as the closest province to that.

But Speaker, every government adds regulations, in fairness, every party. As our world becomes more complicated, you need to find solutions to those things. We understand that. I saw that when I was a councillor; you’re always adding and adding and adding. But Speaker, I am proud to be a part of a government that is not satisfied with that status quo, that takes a look at the red tape that exists, the regulations that are always adding. We ask ourselves, is this still necessary? Is this still relevant in 2025? Speaker, that’s what we’re doing through Bill 46.

When I talk to business owners, farmers, constituents at the door in my riding and talk to them about cutting red tape, they’re excited, they’re eager—exuberant, even—at the idea of cutting red tape. Both they and myself—we say it’s not about cutting corners. It’s about modernizing: Again, is this relevant to today? Does this still provide the purpose? Rather than just simply adding and adding all the time, we need to take a look at these things.

1600

When I speak to them and try to get their creative juices going on what sort of things could be red tape, things that we could take a look at, I encourage them: “Nothing is too small.” It doesn’t have to be a big flashy issue.

The minister mentioned earlier in her speech about the snowmobiler clubs and the regulation that existed previously, where only one machine could be used in the province of Ontario to maintain those trails. By getting rid of that regulation, to allow modernization—new tools, different types of trails in different parts of the province—we can save those clubs time and money, making them more viable. Those are the kinds of small things that we need to look at. They have an impact. They’re not flashy. There’s probably not going to be an article in the Toronto Star tomorrow—the fact that we’re doing this for snowmobilers—but they’re important.

When you look at our government’s record since 2018, we have removed 14,000 unnecessary regulatory compliance requirements. Annually, we are saving the people of this province $1.2 billion and 1.8 million hours, and that’s as a result of, again, this Bill 46—over 50 items in this bill—building on the work that we have done since 2018.

Speaker, we need to look at these small things—and it all adds up; it has an impact—so we can save my constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills time, money, effort, so people and businesses, farmers can focus on building their lives, running their businesses and growing their crops. No one should be held back by outdated rules or bureaucratic friction.

I want a future in Ontario where opportunity flows freely, where common sense prevails and where government works for the people, not against them.

That’s why I support this bill, and I hope every member in this place will join me.

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

M^me France Gélinas: Speaker, I will try to be as brief as I can, because there’s lots to say about this bill.

The first part of the bill that I would like to talk about is schedule 8, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. First, I want to talk to you about a beautiful, beautiful part just to the east of my riding called Wolf Lake. Wolf Lake is just beautiful. It is the largest old-growth red pine forest on earth. You can go anywhere that grows red pine—and we used to have tons of red pine forests in northern Ontario. They all got logged, but not at Wolf Lake. Wolf Lake has the largest remaining old-growth red pine forest on earth. Some of the pines are 300 to 400 years old, and they are just beautiful.

To go there is a little bit of a trek, but it is well worth it. It’s on one of the canoe routes that used to be used by Indigenous, First Nations, people to go, but the mining rights have been given to a mining company. So now, when we go to Wolf Lake, when you walk amongst those 300-, 400-year-old red pines, there is—how can I say it—it’s just disgusting. The holes that they use for drilling are there; you see garbage all over the place; you see oil on the side of the water; you see trails that—you did not have to cut this beautiful 400-year-old red pine to get to where you were going, but they do anyway.

When people of my riding read schedule 8, where the Crown Forest Sustainability Act—it looks like the act would allow, basically, the Mining Act to take over the protection of an area of Ontario that is like no other on earth. A lot of what’s in schedule 8 is actually left to regulation.

But I can tell you that Wahnapitae First Nation, who are on the west side of Lake Wanapitei—Wolf Lake and the old-growth forest are on the east side of Wahnapitae. There’s a huge mountain. There’s a snowmobile trail that goes there, and I will talk a bit about the snowmobile changes in the act. The trail brings you all the way to the top of the mountain. You have a beautiful view, and in the winter, when they are covered with snow, it is just like a postcard out of heaven. It is just beautiful. But as soon as you go back down the mountain and you start to look at the damage left behind, it is just heartbreaking.

Wahnapitae First Nation has agreed to be stewards of the land, to make sure that we protect this old-growth forest. But when the mining claims came up for review, the people of Sudbury, the people of Timiskaming and the people all around who know this area, who have seen it, all said, “No, do not renew the mining permits for those.” It hadn’t been active for 30 years, so they did not have to renew it, but it got renewed and now the new company that has the mining claim is coming through the old-growth forest, is making a mess, and people are not happy. When this bill came out, cutting red tape—on the surface, who wants red tape? Nobody wants this, but when you start to look at what’s included in this, it made people really, really nervous.

As I said, Wahnapitae First Nation sent some of their young workers to clean up all of the mess that had been left behind by the mining explorations that took place in the old-growth forest, and basically made it clear that this is part of their traditional territory and that the last red pine old-growth forest left on earth is worth protecting. Wouldn’t we all agree? Come see it and you will see for yourself that it is worth protecting. It is just beautiful. But no, the government gave the permit to a new exploration mining company and tensions are growing.

When we see discretion for the permitting to be subject to regulation, at the discretion of the ministry, to remove forestry products and potentially clear-cut for the purpose of allowing activities to be carried out without getting a separate forestry licence under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, those are all parts of the bill that make people really nervous, and that makes me really nervous.

Do we support mining? Yes, absolutely. There are more mines in Nickel Belt than there is in any other riding. We know how to mine in a way that is respectful of the First Nations, respectful of the environment and respectful of the workers. We know how to do this in Nickel Belt. We opened up a new gold mine with Iamgold. Did you know that Iamgold had to drain a lake to get there? The environmental work that they had to do is tremendous, but it worked. They got the support of Mattagami First Nation. They got the support of the Métis, because they took the time to engage with them, to talk to them.

But when you open up and give the minister 100% of the power to make decisions where the minister may not know anything about the old-growth forest that exists there—because I can guarantee you that it’s not the mining company who is going to go out and brag, “We’re about to cut down the last old-growth red pine forest in order to get to the minerals that are there.” It makes us worry, Speaker. It makes us very worried.

1610

There were quite a few other things that I wanted to talk about, but I realize that I don’t have much time.

There are some good parts in the bill. Everybody knows that I’m a big fan of snowmobiling. The snowmobile clubs are having a tough time right now. They got a little bit of money from the government to keep some of the trails open, but I can tell you that in Algoma, in Nickel Belt, in all of the northeast, there are a lot of trails that are not going to be maintained this year because the snowmobile clubs don’t have the money.

Two years ago, they were not able to open just because of the way the winter came and they were not able to stake the lakes. So the number of people who bought snowmobile permits really decreased. I was one of the ones who bought a permit and never got to use the snowmobile. We used it once. The trail was awful; we came back home. That was it. So, a lot of people did not renew. They need support from the government.

I see that the changes for snowmobiles will be good changes. The changes in schedule 8—remember the oldest red pine old-growth forest left on earth is right there; it needs to be protected.

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

Ms. Lee Fairclough: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 46, the Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, 2025. I will note that, once again, we find ourselves in time allocation, Speaker, where we’re going to be moving through a piece of legislation without the full opportunity for debate or to think about what some appropriate amendments might be.

The other thing that I find interesting about this piece of legislation is it actually affects 22 pieces of legislation. We’ve seen this as well, time and time again. I talk to people in my community about this a lot, Speaker, and they’re surprised at just how unrelated everything is in some of the bills that we actually talk about here.

For example, there are some sections of this particular bill that I would support. Schedule 3, which talks about a sex offender registry, I think is something important that we would support. And then, schedule 4, which actually is the City of Toronto Act, really is just making amendments so that they can post their financial statements on their website versus in a newspaper—again, completely unrelated. There are so many different schedules like this, Speaker. What I thought I would do is talk about just a few that I think are pretty important.

The first is schedule 5. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands and, of course, the MPP for Orléans have talked about this quite a lot. It relates to the consumer protections on points. These are points that we might collect when we’re shopping at Shoppers Drug Mart and we want to use those points to pay as we’re checking out. It’s really about the consumer protections on those points.

I think what’s really important in schedule 5 of the Consumer Protection Act is—it says right in the document, Speaker, that the schedule proposes that reward points would not be able to expire, be cancelled or suspended “except in accordance with the regulations.” As has been talked about previously in this Legislature, we actually tried to make sure we put forward some motions in other pieces of legislation to try to be sure that that would not happen, that we would ensure they were never allowed to expire, because we don’t know what these regulations would say. Those were all voted down too.

I think we’re not feeling all that assured that people’s points are protected. We’ve certainly said, “Boy, that’s a Grinch move during the holiday season,” to think about compromising that, but that’s the decision of this government. They’re going to be Grinches this Christmas.

Another issue that really did capture my attention—because I’ve seen this on other bills as well, Speaker, and it relates to protecting people’s privacy. If you look at schedule 16 and schedule 20—I have with me, actually, a letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. There are a few important things to read out here, I think.

The first that I’ve highlighted in the very first paragraph: “I am writing today to express my significant concerns about the potential impacts Bill 46 will have on these rights, in particular” in these two schedules.

In schedule 16, it is authorizing the “Minister of Red Tape Reduction to collect, use and disclose any personal information for the purpose of facilitating public consultations with respect to burdens or proposed instruments governed by the act.”

Again, in this same section, the IPC goes on to say, “I have made multiple public submissions about the concerning trend of” this government “creating such broadly worded statutory authorities to collect personal information....”

Further in the same letter: “Despite my ongoing warnings to cease this practice, such provisions have been adopted without amendment, and similar legislative proposals continue to appear before the Legislature with increasing regularity.”

I remember another bill that we debated in the last session, which was Bill 11, schedule 6, which was actually focused on your personal health data and the ways that that was going to be used to digitally connect our records. In that too, we saw multiple letters from the Information and Privacy Commissioner on that act. And here we are again: the same concerns, no response, no regard for people’s privacy. Speaker, I am legitimately worried.

In my last few minutes, I will also just mention that schedule 8 is going to allow the minister to create regulations permitting unsustainable deforestation of Ontario’s crown lands. I think there are so many of these lands that we want to be sure we can protect in Ontario. I have to say, the most obvious example of deforestation that I can see for my own riding has been the deforestation of Ontario Place. I think, in all seriousness, this is really weakening protections more generally and I’m quite concerned about it.

I will stop there to leave time for my other colleagues, but I really hope that the government will consider especially some of these privacy concerns.

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

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I do also have to echo a lot of what people have said: that there’s so much good in this bill, it’s too bad that we don’t have a willing conversation to make sure we can make amendments to improve the bill to make sure it does no harm. In social work, we say, “First, do no harm,” and I think we have to be critical of this bill to make sure we don’t do harm.

One thing that we will be doing harm is by creating more lax regulations and rules around recycling. We’ve really taken a back step. I was optimistic when we looked at producer responsibility. This is a program that’s being offered throughout the country to hold producers accountable for the waste that they create. However, we see backsliding, backsliding, backsliding. We’re delaying goals till 2031, 2032. We’re still not covering schools and other parts of our society—long-term-care homes.

We know that we only have 12 years left in our landfills, and that’s if we don’t keep adding garbage. These provisions will add more garbage to our landfill sites, so that 12 years will get cut. That will be cut to nine, to eight. And that doesn’t even take into consideration the fact that Michigan today could say, “I don’t want your garbage anymore. I’ll make my money another way.”

We are in a battle right now with the Americans. We send so much garbage to the United States, it’s unbelievable. We’re lucky that they take our trash, because we don’t have room for it here. So while it might make people money to expand landfills, it takes 10 years to build a new landfill—we have 12 max, and that’s if we don’t make things worse.

We are laggards in the country when it comes to recycling. Every province in the whole nation does deposit return except Manitoba and Ontario. All the other provinces have amazing recycling rates—85%, 80% and beyond. We are getting to be less than 50%, taking back the whole national average. Canada is going down and it’s because of us, because we’re not recycling things. We know that glass and aluminum and other things that we’re throwing into the landfill could be repurposed into new materials. It is a source of income, and deposit return creates jobs. Even the Canadian Beverage Association is calling on us to institute that program here. It is well-liked.

I’m from Waterloo region, the home of the blue bin. And I was proud to be part of a community that created robust recycling. But I overheard in my greasy spoon the other day elderly folks being aghast at the fact that they throw stuff in the recycling bin and it gets put in the garbage. We are not holding these producers accountable, and we are wasting economic opportunity by not having a robust system.

1620

So I call on you to push our producers to do the right thing and do the heavy lifting to put in deposit return because it is a beautiful bill that keeps garbage out—if you were ever a city councillor, it keeps litter out of our parks. It repurposes materials to create new economic opportunities. It creates jobs and income for very low-income people. It’s a good thing, and we have to do it. We have no choice but to save ourselves from our landfill disaster.

Next, I’d like to talk about sexual abuse. Right now, we’re saying we are going to put a list of sexual offenders up online and claim that that is going to protect Ontario. I’m a social worker. I have walked with people who survived childhood sexual abuse. We should be following the evidence. We should be following the data. We should be funding those supports appropriately. I can’t tell you how many of my colleagues who are experts, amazing trailblazers in their field, have walked away from the not-for-profit sector because they’re not getting paid appropriately. They are actually having their services shut down.

There was a program in Burlington that was helping sexual abuse survivors and also young people with sexualized behaviours to get the care they need so they don’t reoffend. They shut their doors; all those clinicians went to the private sector. Some supports went to another service. And now we face extreme wait times. Circles of Support, three programs that take people who are leaving jail who are pedophiles and make sure that they don’t reoffend—closing their doors.

I have to say, we need to listen to the survivors. I had a letter from a survivor in my riding who was very concerned about this measure because she would like to see things change, to make sure that there’s justice in our legal system. Right now, I know the MPP for Waterloo talks about how many cases—I think it was over a thousand last year—just checked out because they didn’t have a timely trial.

We have to call on the Attorney General to make sure we properly fund our court system so that every survivor has their day in court, and we need to improve our jail system because so many who commit egregious crimes are getting their convictions cut in half, and they’re getting out early because of the conditions in our jail system.

So if we truly want to protect the public, if we want to make sure there’s accountability for folks who are committing egregious crimes, we need to improve our justice system; we have to be transparent.

That transparency is a factor throughout all this. I didn’t mention that part of this bill says we can’t do an FOI on waste management. I don’t know who’s asked for you to make sure that we can hide the realities of our waste management programs, but that’s a big issue.

I also want to talk about gaming. I know that we are facing an unprecedented increase of folks with pornography addictions, gambling addictions, and I tell you, from my community, as a former social worker, we are ill-equipped. The gaps are canyons in our communities on having the supports we need to not only educate young people so they do not get misled—so they look at the warning signs, they identify those warning signs, so they don’t end up with problematic addictions and their lives ruined—but so we also have really good people who are trained, that we retain them, we recruit them, so that when folks end up with addictions or sexualized behaviours or recovering from sexual abuse—we need those experts there in the not-for-profit sector. They are leaving, and we don’t have the expertise. So I ask you, if you really care about preventing sexual assault, let’s make sure these programs are properly funded and we have protections in place in our society.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I’m pleased to rise for the third reading of Bill 46, the Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, 2025.

First, thank you to Minister Khanjin for her passion, leadership and tireless work for this bill. As I often say, she doesn’t feel like it’s work in this ministry because she put effort and her heart into this bill—not only this bill but many bills. I would also like to thank hard-working PA Racinsky for outlining key messages earlier.

Madam Speaker, as global uncertainty grows, Ontario cannot afford to stand still. Delay and unnecessary bureaucracy cost time, money and opportunity. But Bill 46 delivers a practical, targeted response. Speaker, since 2018, we have taken 650 actions, reduced compliance burden by 6% and saved businesses $1.2 billion annually. This bill built on that success and if this bill passes, it will save an additional $5.8 million every year.

Cutting red tape is not just streamlining; it is an economic strategy. It means housing gets built faster, businesses can spend less time on paperwork and families see better services. This legislation sends a clear message: Ontario is open for business and committed to common-sense solutions.

Let me highlight a few key messages.

Modernizing municipal transparency: Current laws require municipalities to publish audited financial statements in newspapers. It’s an old-day style, a rule that no longer reflects the current reality. We are amending the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, so statements can be posted online or provided at no cost. This has improved transparency and reduced unnecessary costs.

Another example: efficiency in the court system. Most Divisional Court cases require three judges, even when one would suffice. We are giving the Chief Justice more discretion to assign a single judge where appropriate. This will free up the resources and make justice faster and more accessible.

Another example: smarter health care processes. The Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act covers X-ray machines, but its processes are outdated. Inspectors still use carbon copy paper. We are moving to electronic reports and introducing CC pay for online payment, saving time, reducing errors and improving efficiency for health care professionals.

Streamlined policing grant program: The Ministry of the Solicitor General manages over 20 separate grant programs, creating multiple applications and deadlines. We are reviewing these programs to consolidate and simplify funding and reduce administrative burden, helping policing focus on front-line safety.

Madam Speaker, reducing red tape is not about cutting corners; it is about cutting delays, cutting costs and cutting confusion. Every time we remove unnecessary barriers, we give Ontarians something truly valuable: time—time to grow a business, care for loved ones and build stronger communities.

This bill reflects a vision to protect Ontario workers, communities and the public service. I have to borrow the minister’s word. She said it clearly and loudly: Ontario was a regulatory capital in the world, so it is about making government work better, smarter and faster for everyone. Good government doesn’t have to be complicated; it just has to work.

Ontario is a national leader in red tape reduction, and we are not slowing down. Bill 46 and the spring 2025 package show our commitment to real, meaningful change; building a province that is easier to do business with and better to live in; a province ready for today and prepared for tomorrow. That is our government’s commitment and that is the future we are building together.

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

1630

MPP Lise Vaugeois: There are interesting, probably constructive things in the bill, but there are also some pretty serious things that are not positive in the bill. Some of these, I spoke to before, during second reading. The fact that you’ve got different rules for forestry companies than you have when dealing with forests for mining companies—we heard from the member from Nickel Belt about how this puts pristine, beautiful old-growth forests at risk that can suddenly be cut down if a mine is involved.

We’ve seen that also in Caledon, where there’s a whole beautiful area that apparently is at risk of being completely mowed down right up to the Credit River for an aggregate company—no rules—rules for forestry companies, but no rules for other businesses. That’s simply unjust, and it’s not environmentally sound.

There’s a section in this bill about reducing access to records on long-term care. That is creating red tape for the families who are looking for information about long-term-care homes so that they can make informed decisions about where their loved ones will go. In addition, the Ministry of Long-Term Care and other long-term-care homes continue to bind families in red tape by abusing the Trespass to Property Act and preventing people from being able to visit their family members. The reason they do that is because there are no consequences to the homes when they misuse that act.

What particularly distresses me about all of it is that the former Minister of Long-Term Care asserted that this would no longer be a problem after 2021. Yet it is the long-term-care ministry itself that is putting out false information, the Ontario Patient Ombudsman that is putting out incorrect information and binding family members with red tape with the improper use of the Trespass to Property Act and forcing them to go to court and pay thousands of dollars just to get permission to see their loved ones in long-term care. That is red tape in its worst form.

I also want to note that we’re talking about the importance of recycling. What I actually know in Thunder Bay is that there are legitimate recyclers who pick up recycling and there are other recyclers who cost less and take the recycling to the dump; it’s not going to be recycled. That needs to be stopped, but if we can’t do an FOI on waste management, how do we track them down? I’ve got word of mouth on this. I actually have a company that’s got photographs of the so-called recycling trucks going to the dump. I would like to see something that actually addresses that abuse.

I’m going to spend most of my time talking about what’s going on with the conservation authorities and the amalgamation of 36 authorities into seven, all but eliminating local knowledge and local voices, a very undemocratic move by the government. It’s undemocratic, but it’s also anti-science and shows absolutely no common sense. What we heard earlier from the Minister of Long-Term Care is that this bill is all about common sense—well, there are many things here that are not common sense.

Certainly, what’s going on with the conservation authorities is not common sense. It is as if they’ve never flipped over the map of Ontario. They don’t realize that the scale of distances when you flip that map over is completely different from the underside. It takes twice as long to go from one side of the map when you flip it over as it does on the underside. So if you take four hours here and consider the same distance on the other side of the map, it’s actually eight hours. That’s a really critical thing.

Then you have the idea of merging the Lake Superior watershed with the Lake Huron watershed and then merging it with 82 or so other municipalities. It’s bizarre. Honestly, it defies geographic reality.

We know that the Lakehead and district conservation authority does a fantastic job. They’re very efficient. They’ve got an excellent board. The thing is that they process development applications in under a week. So what’s the problem? There is no problem. So that is a conservation authority that should stand alone. It already covers an enormous geographical area, and it’s particular to that area. We know that each region of the province has very different growth patterns, different flood patterns. You rely on that local knowledge to protect people from flooding, to protect people from landslides, from a mistaken use of land.

But since 2018, we’ve seen a consistent undermining of conservation authorities by this government, for example, reducing the parts of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act—no, that’s the wrong one; it’s this one. But in 2018:

—reducing the influence and scope of conservation authorities, restricting them in their ability to oppose development in sensitive areas like wetlands and flood plains, even if public safety is at risk;

—weakened protections: The changes weaken conservation authorities’ ability to protect water quality and wetlands, shifting the focus toward facilitating housing development, rather than environmental protection;

—increased ministerial authority: The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry now has the power to issue development permits without a conservation authority’s review, centralizing decision-making and potentially bypassing local expertise;

—funding cuts in 2019: cut funding for flood management programs, which critics warned would have immediate impacts on smaller, rural conservation authorities.

And now, of course, this consolidation—clearly, what this is all about is making it easier for chosen developers, friends of this Conservative government, friends of the Premier, perhaps people he owes favours to because of having to pull back on the greenbelt bonanza. What is happening here is opening up space for those prized, preferred developers to get access to prime parkland. That’s what this is about: prime parkland. We’re building on places that really should not be built on. Frankly, we’ve seen this in Thunder Bay; it’s not the first time that we’ve seen an entire development put on a swamp.

In fact, my own house—as I discovered after the fact—was also built on a swamp, and that’s why we all have sump pumps running 24 hours a day. I have to say, if I’d known, I would not have gone there.

But the point is that the conservation authorities have very important roles. They have very important knowledge. What we are seeing is an entanglement in red tape—incompetence, I’m going to say, because anybody who suggests merging Lake Superior with Lake Huron and being able to manage it—it’s just bizarre. I don’t know what else to call it, because it makes no sense whatsoever. If you’ve ever spent time in any of those areas, you would think, “Whose idea was this, anyway?” It doesn’t make sense.

What you’re doing is consolidating a whole bunch of geographical areas under one set of rules. Frankly, we’ve got rules that are working really well, and the government has been so persistent about removing protections that were built in there. I can tell you, the fear is that this is just a step on the way of eliminating conservation authorities altogether and free rein for whomever is in the government’s favour at the moment.

I will end my review there.

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

MPP Stephanie Smyth: I am happy to speak to Bill 46 today—which may look like a harmless administrative omnibus update, but like many bills from this government, buried within it are changes that are hard to interpret as anything other than what could be harmful to Ontarians.

On that note, I want to start on schedule 5, and yes, it’s about the loyalty reward points which we’ve heard much about. We’ve been much maligned for voicing our concern about what’s going to happen with loyalty points, but the more we talk about it, the more, maybe, people will understand that the devil is in the details here in this bill with what’s going to happen with these reward points.

And we can’t always be sure to take this government at its word when it comes to brushing aside our concerns, like, “Oh, don’t be crazy; we’re not going to touch that at all.” There’s some explaining to do to help us understand why this bill is written the way it is and why some elements are in legislation, yet not regulation, right?

Reward points aren’t some cute little bonus at the checkout. They are the thing that does help many, many people cover their groceries when prices are spiking.

1640

As we’ve been seeing, there’s this affordability crisis that we’re dealing with, and in my riding, Toronto–St. Paul’s, we see so much concern about affordability. We have seniors stretched, not only with their rent and the fear about AGIs, above-guideline increases, for renters; there are concerns about—they’re on fixed incomes, and these points mean something. They’re also what families might use. Collect the points to the end of the year, then use them for Christmas, when you want to buy that turkey and all the trimmings for the meals or the holiday parties that you might have with family. They might help buy a holiday gift or offset some other costs. For many, loyalty points have become a lifeline, and this government wants to loosen the rules that protect them.

For years, Ontarians were protected from having their points vanish simply because time had passed. There was no more watching points getting wiped out because you didn’t spend them fast enough. There was no sudden zeroing out on those balances. Their protections were hard won because we knew companies had abused the power to strip people of that benefit before. And now, Bill 46 quietly sweeps those protections aside. But the government keeps telling us, “Don’t worry. The details will come later in regulations.” Well, Speaker, the public can’t read regulations that don’t exist. They can’t debate rules that haven’t been written, and they don’t, and can’t, hold anyone accountable for decisions that are made behind closed doors. That’s really the heart of this issue here, is that it’s not just loyalty points but it’s a methodology that this government uses that not only avoids accountability, but it runs away from it at absolutely every turn.

If the government truly has no intention of allowing points to expire again, they would say so. They would put that protection in the law, not in regulation. They had many opportunities to agree to amendments that were offered that said exactly that: Keep the protection. Keep expiry bans. Make sure the points can’t disappear simply because the clock kept ticking. And what was the government’s response? A big Grinchy no—not “let’s discuss,” not “let’s find balance,” just no. I mean, the heart is two sizes too small, don’t you think?

So if you won’t say in law that points can’t expire with time, then what you’re really saying is that you’re perfectly comfortable letting that happen later when nobody is looking, when the public isn’t paying attention and when it can be done with a stroke of a pen in a regulation meeting. Ontarians know how that story goes. We’ve seen it before: points drained, value reduced, balance wiped out, companies quietly changing the rules, consumers left holding the bag.

This bill gives the government the power to open that door again—maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but eventually. And the government refuses to put a lock on that door. Why? They can’t explain why.

You don’t refuse to put protections in law if you intend to protect people. You refuse because you want the flexibility not to have to protect people. This is what this bill is about. It’s about keeping those options open for those corporate friends at the expense of people who earn those points penny by penny, grocery run after grocery run.

And loyalty points: We have to realize that are not just perks anymore for people. They are part of how people cope right now with the rising cost of living. This government is playing games with them.

We’ve tried to protect consumers. The Liberals proposed limits that would keep points from expiring just because of time. That effort: waved away. That tells Ontarians everything they need to know. If the government really stood with consumers, they would have accepted at least one of the amendments proposed. They didn’t, and their refusal answers a question they won’t say out loud, and that is they want the power to let the points expire again.

People are tired; they really are. They’re stretched thin. The cost of living is crushing them. The very last thing they need is to wake up in the morning and find their loyalty points wiped out because of a rule change made in regulation that none of us ever got to debate. Let me tell you, they’re not waking up keeping an eye on what’s happening with those regulations. What have they done? It’s our responsibility to shine the light on this and let people know that this is a problem.

Again, it’s a methodology. It’s emblematic of everything that is happening with this government right now: the devil in those little, little details, the poison pills that we’ve always got to watch out for with these bills.

This bill gives too much power to do the wrong thing and absolutely no guarantee of doing the right one. People earn these points, they depend on these points and they deserve a bill that doesn’t put them at risk. They don’t deserve a bill that gets Grinchy and takes away what they’ve been collecting and relying upon and looking to use, many times at the end of the year.

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

Ms. Doly Begum: It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Southwest to debate any legislation, and I’m glad to be able to say a few words on Bill 46.

I’ve been listening to the debates throughout the session, both from our colleagues here on this side and the other side. It’s been really interesting because one of the fascinating things that we’ve seen throughout this session, more so than I think ever before with this government, is how fast all of these bills have been passed, without any committee hearings—sometimes no committee hearing at all. And if there were any in the previous sessions, it was very minimal already.

This bill, I think—what was it called?—is an amalgamation of a lot of different things. The government keeps dropping these bills that cover a lot of things that are necessary to be looked into in this province. It does a very on-the-surface job of fixing any problems. But this one, specifically, is to address red tape.

When we look at that, I’m always interested in debating and making sure that we’re able to support anything that provides that kind of—really reduces red tape, because we have a lot of red tape across the province, whether we’re talking about forestry, whether we’re talking about liquor licensing, small businesses, any of those things. This bill touches on almost all of those things. It’s just fascinating how it doesn’t really look into one thing particularly. There are sections on children’s law reform to sex offenders to city of Toronto to consumer protection to funeral services to succession of probates; there is a long-term-care act in there—everything. I just wonder if the government took the time to actually go back to the community and ask, “What do we really need to fix all of those things?”

I listened to my colleague who highlighted what it does with the forestry industry and how the minister himself did not really understand the conflict with agriculture and forestry and what the impact would be when it comes to, for example, lumber.

I also listened to some of my other colleagues speak to how this bill does some good things about making sure that we have a strong registry for sex offenders and making sure that we don’t allow for individuals such as those to be out there without any repercussions.

It also touches other sections that I think I can actually support, and I hope that the government understands that because I always want to be proposing ideas and supporting those that we appreciate. But there are a few that I just don’t understand why the government is kind of just brushing over and has not given any real thought to.

What makes it even worse, Speaker, is that there is no committee hearing on any of these schedules. It makes it really hard because, whether we’re talking about small businesses who were completely shut out of the of the new circular recycling program, it’s such an oversight of this government. We have seen time and time again how this government has completely overlooked the needs of small businesses. We’re hoping that the bill fixes it, but the schedule is so light that we don’t even know if it’s actually going to be doing that work.

Well, there are some other pieces in this bill, and if you’re going to have an omnibus bill that touches on all of those things, I wish—there are a few things that are very current, very problematic at this very moment in this province that the government took the time to address. This bill would have been perfect to actually add all of those things because you already have a dump of different issues. But let’s look at what is actually happening right now that is true red tape when it comes to the progress and the growth of our province.

1650

I have spoken in this House many, many times about the red tape that we have when it comes to recognizing foreign credentials. A lot of Canadians, a lot of Ontarians who live here, who have made their lives here, who contribute to this economy, who contribute to different sectors are not able to get their credentials recognized because of red tape. They are not able to get their experience, their education recognized. Unfortunately, not only does it stop them from having a good income, having a livelihood that will be sufficient to provide for their family—not only that: for their mental health, for their families’ well-being. But also, this province—it would be incredible to have doctors, for example, have an easier pathway so that they can actually contribute to our health care sector. Unfortunately, we don’t see that red tape reduction in any of the legislation that the government brings forward.

In fact, not only do they not address it; they actually bring in more red tape. We recently saw the government actually put in red tape all around when it comes to IMGs, who are now required to have two years of high school education before getting their first-year residency spot, which is ridiculous. I know members on the other side know this problem, really well understand this issue, but I just don’t understand why the government has not done enough. In fact, the court had to come in, and there is a legal team that was fighting the battle. There is an injunction that was put in to actually allow for these applications to go through. It’s a temporary solution, and unfortunately that’s what it has led to, because this government continues to put red tape in the progress of this province.

Another thing that we could have done in terms of eliminating red tape is, if you go outside of Queen’s Park right now, go to the lawn, you will see all these incredible workers who are on the OINP program. It’s so heartbreaking because, for weeks, we are seeing these young people on the lawn in the cold, through the storm, because they have completely lost their livelihood. The government completely shut off. They have cancelled their applications, assuming that they’re fraud—complete disrespect to these workers, these individuals who have been given hope to come here, who have been working here. And then, all of a sudden, while their application is being processed, the government just said, “No. We’re going to just return all these applications, and we just won’t process them.” We’re talking about over a thousand workers who are now facing red tape because of this government and their refusal to even have a conversation with these workers.

We’ve had the minister who, at first, showed some interest. Now, the Premier has gone above that and said this is a federal responsibility, even though you know very well it is a provincial responsibility. The OINP is within the provincial jurisdiction. It is the Ontario nominee program. You have the ability to eliminate that red tape and help every single employee who is standing outside and all of those who are affected by this red tape.

We have seen red tape when it comes to our tribunals—the delays in the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Social Benefits Tribunal, for example. It’s just incredible how the government failed for years to address the delays that we have seen within the LTB, especially after what landlords, especially small landlords, and a lot of tenants across the province have gone through and the stories that we’ve shared of their sufferings. They’ve not eliminated that red tape on that as well.

When it comes to red tape in accessing mental health support—in this province, you have to wait for months to get mental health support.

I’m running out of time, and I’ve got a big list of things that we could have done to actually eliminate red tape.

Not enough committee hearings results in this kind of lack of oversight, and I just want to say I wish the government would listen to the community, listen to the needs of this province and the people and understand what kind of red tape you have created and how to eliminate it. Clearly, this kind of omnibus bill fails to do that job.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate? I recognize the member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s great to see you in the chair. I hope you’re doing well.

You’ll have to endure 13 minutes; I’m sorry. I’ll go the full time. I know everybody wants to go and you’ve had enough, but it’s Christmas. It’s Christmas—

Ms. Catherine Fife: Give us a gift.

Mr. John Fraser: You’re getting a gift. It’s coming.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Oh, good, the House leader is here. It’s so good to see him. It feels like old times except roles reversed, but I’m not here to talk about time allocation.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much.

But I want to talk about points. And it’s not about scoring points, folks, because I’m not trying to score points right now. But I want to talk to you about points.

So, Bill 46: There is a little line in Bill 46. My colleague from Orléans, who was being very keen at the time and thoroughly reading things, because most of us missed it, pointed out the line that literally changes a law that happened in 2016—Arthur Potts was the member at the time—that said your points will never expire solely because of time. It can’t happen. Fair rule, right? Everybody knows the rule of the game. In the bill it says your points will never expire due to the passage of time except—and we’ll tell you later.

So it doesn’t give me any confidence. Probably all of you have PC Optimum points, because you’re all PCs and you probably all shop at Loblaws because Galen’s got you all in tow—sorry, Galen.

Anyhow, here’s the thing: Why would you do that? Take the front bench out of it—that would be great—and go—

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: You guys, a couple of rows back—okay.

So why would you do that? Why would you want to do that? Why would you change something that protected people, that said they can’t take your points away; they’re yours? They can’t take your points away if, in good faith, you just had them for a long time. Why would you do that?

Well, that’s because somebody asked you to do it. Because otherwise, you wouldn’t have thought it up and gone like, “I think we really need to do this because I think we should change the rules, and maybe there is a reason we can let points expire because of the passage of time.” That’s not what you thought. I don’t know who came to ask about it.

Ms. Doly Begum: Give the man his points.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m trying to make a point about points, okay?

So, it’s who talked to who, right? Who talked to who in the front bench? Why did it happen? I see the Minister of Red Tape Reduction; there’s no response to this. If she can explain to me why—and I know it’s not her. I know it’s actually Max that’s responsible for it because the Grinch is his boss. Get that image in your head.

Who asked the Premier, or Max, to do this? Why? Here’s the thing: These points in all these big companies are liabilities. They’ve got to keep them on the books. And if you’re a big company and you’ve got a liability and you want to make your bottom line better, is there a better way of doing that than reducing your liabilities? So any opportunity you have to reduce your liabilities, especially if the government can pass a bill that would allow you to do that, would be good for your company. It would be lousy for your constituents, everyday people who have tons and tons of points.

Why would you do it? It’s not because you thought this is what people really need. It’s because somebody came to you and said, “I really need this. I really need to have the ability to reduce my liability to improve my bottom line.” And this isn’t the mom-and-pop corner store, right? It’s not the ski shop down the way or your little hardware store. These are the big corporations.

This is not in this bill, and I know the minister has been trying to say, “We’re doing it because we’re going to protect people.” No, you’re not. When you say, “They’ll be able to sue these big companies”—just think about that. I heard that in a response: “They’ll be able to sue these big companies for $300 worth of points.” Come on. How can somebody stand up and say that with a straight face? You’re going to sue Air Miles because they took 50,000 Air Miles away from you? Do you have the time to do that?

M^me Lucille Collard: And the money.

Mr. John Fraser: And the money? Guys, just take it out of the bill. I know the member for Orléans gave you five different opportunities to either take it out, fix it or put some guardrails around it, but it was “No, no, no, no.”

1700

I don’t think that you on the other side that I see here right now, with the exception—well, not everybody is here right now. I withdraw if I have to; I don’t know. I said something that might not have been okay, but I’ll just withdraw it and get ahead of it.

I don’t think anybody over there wants to take any points away from anybody due to the passage of time, because you all probably have points and you’re good people. You’re good people, so what I would ask you to do—because we’re going to vote on this. When are we voting on this? Are we voting on this right after this? Oh, you have a chance to actually make Christmas better for people. Don’t steal their points. Don’t be the Grinch. Think of all the Whos in Whoville. Come on, really. I’m going to devolve into Dr. Seuss rhymes pretty soon.

Seriously, why would you want to write this law when there was a law that protected people’s points? It was simple. It was straightforward. Your constituents weren’t calling and emailing you and saying, “Can you do more to protect my points?” Everything was good the way that it was working. You could have added something to that instead of taking it out and saying, “Your points will never expire due to the passage of time, except—and we’ll tell you later.”

I don’t think any of you here would accept that, whether it was about points or anything else. So why are we doing it? You’re going to have a chance to save Christmas—save Christmas points. Think of all the points that people are going to gain over Christmas that could pass away due to the passage of time.

If you want to make sure that Galen Weston and the shareholders of Air Miles, of all the big companies, are able to reduce their liabilities by writing off people’s points, then vote for the bill. If you’re for the big corporations, if they’re the people who matter most to you, then vote for the bill. But if you care about the people out there who are protected right now, then you can’t vote for it.

It’s too bad because there’s probably some other good things in the bill, and maybe that’s what you try to do is bury this little—I’ll say sneaky—thing inside the bill and hopefully none of us would notice it. Now, unfortunately, my colleague from Orléans noticed it and I’m sure that the member from Waterloo probably noticed it—she goes through things pretty thoroughly—and maybe the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

I’m sure, actually, some of you that have had the opportunity to read the bill would have spotted that, too. A lot of you are pretty sharp.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Oh, thank you.

Mr. John Fraser: No, you are, and when I say that, I am now puzzled. Since you’re all so sharp, why are you doing this? Why? You’ve got to know that the only reason it’s happening is, the big corporations said, “We’ve got all these liabilities. We don’t want to have all these liabilities. We want to be able to improve our bottom line. We need to make more money.” Not that the grocery stores aren’t charging enough for food these days, but now I guess we’ll let people’s points expire, that they want to save up and use them for Christmas next year or the year after that.

It’s wrong, what you’re doing. I really do believe that you’re all good people, with good intentions, but you know what road is paved with good intentions.

I implore you—I beg you—not to let people’s points expire by the passage of time. Send it back to the drawing board. Get the thing out of the bill. Don’t enact it; you have that opportunity. Tell the Premier, “Yes, we’ll vote for this, but you can’t do this thing. You can never let this thing that’s in the bill happen.” That way, you’ll be protecting people, because that’s what we’re here to do.

I’m just going to say it again. You’re literally changing a law that said, “Your points can never expire due to the passage of time,” and you put a line that says, almost verbatim, “Your points can never expire due to the passage of time, except”—and we’ll tell you what that “except” is later. None of you would accept that in any other way. That’s what’s in the bill.

I encourage you: Send a message to the powers that be. Say, “We’re not for the big corporations. We’re not for the big grocery stores. We’re not for the big chains. We’re not for Walmart. We’re not for Costco.” Protect people’s points. That’s what you should be doing. That’s our job.

I’ll leave a couple of minutes on the clock and spare you any more of me. Thank you.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 24, 2025, I am now required to put the question. Ms. Khanjin has moved third reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend various Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Orders of the day.

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, if you seek it, you’ll find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Agreed? Agreed.

Report continues in volume B.