Thursday, October 29, 2026

The House met at 0900.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Good morning, everyone.

Official source

Prières / Prayers.

Official source

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 28, 2026, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Official source

Bill 140, An Act to enact two Acts and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 140, Loi édictant deux lois et modifiant diverses lois.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Further debate?

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Good morning. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. I am very happy to be able to rise in my place, after 21 weeks, to bring the voice of my constituents of Ottawa West–Nepean to the Legislature. I had been meeting with constituents, of course, all summer, especially in the wake of the flooding. As I’ve been out and about at events for the past few weeks in the fall, when we would normally be sitting—and constituents kept asking me, “When are you going back to the Legislature?” They just really could not believe it, every time I told them that we weren’t coming back until October 27 and that the Legislature was shuttered for 21 weeks, especially after the summer and fall that my constituents had, with, not least, the impact of the flooding on so many of them; but also the cuts to nurses and health care workers at the Queensway Carleton Hospital, when wait times are already incredibly long in the emergency department and for treatments and surgeries; the cost of groceries and food, which has been skyrocketing when people are already having difficulty making ends meet; and then the impact of new tariffs and the breakdown in trade talks. My constituents just couldn’t believe that this government would refuse to call back the Legislature and actually put forward solutions to these significant challenges that people are facing and answer questions on their record. So I’m very happy to finally be here to participate in debate, to bring forward their voices, to call for the solutions that we desperately need and to be able to pose questions to the government on why they haven’t reacted to these major challenges that people are experiencing. Here we are, after 21 weeks, and the first thing that the government did is a return to form—tabling an omnibus bill with 23 schedules on things so disparate as blue box recycling, hydro utility governance, Highway 69, bees, archaeological activity, Metrolinx, and labour mobility. And not only is this a 23-schedule bill that covers all these things that don’t actually have anything to do with each other—and it’s fascinating that members opposite think it is really hilarious that the government has done this—but less than 24 hours after the government tabled this bill, we started debating it. So there was barely enough time to even read this 263-page bill, and definitely not enough time to actually consult with our constituents and hear what their thoughts and perspectives were on the bill. And that is, once again, part of a pattern by this government, Speaker, that they just really do not care about what the people of Ontario think about anything. It’s one of a long list of omnibus bills that this government has tabled, and one of a number of bills that actually impacts the rights that people of Ontario have, which is perhaps why they are so eager to rush it through without time to actually consult with our constituents, because they don’t want people to have time to even understand what is happening, much less react before it happens. Just in the last year, we saw Bill 5, which trampled on Indigenous rights to consultation over what is happening on their lands, despite the fact that they have constitutional rights and rights under the treaties that we have signed; Bill 33 and Bill 101, which had a major impact on the rights of parents and communities to participate in the decisions affecting our local schools; Bill 60, which negatively impacts the rights of tenants; and Bill 100 on electoral rights, which took away the right of people to choose who represents them and who is making significant decisions within their communities. What we see in this 263-page bill are more attacks on the rights of people to have a say on the decisions that affect them. There are several different areas where the government is doing that, and I’m just going to focus on some of the most glaring this morning, starting with gutting the Environmental Bill of Rights. For 30 years, the Environmental Bill of Rights has given the people of Ontario a say in major government decisions that affect our environment. So whenever policies or bills impact Ontario’s air, water, land or wildlife, the public has a right to be informed and consulted before those changes are made. What we see in this bill is that they’ve taken away that right. There’s no statutory requirement for the government to give people notice about the fact that they are proposing changes that will impact the environment that we live in, and zero requirement for consultation. So the people of Ontario have effectively lost their voice, and it won’t actually speed up a single permit, it won’t speed up approval, it won’t make them cheaper, but it does remove transparency and accountability for decisions that are being made, and it takes away public participation in major decisions. This really matters, Speaker, because environmental protection doesn’t just protect the earth and the animals and plants, the air, water, it protects us. There are so many ways in which the environment in which we live impacts our health, our financial stability, the food that we eat, the water that we drink. You just have to look at what’s happened with air quality in the past few years, the impact of wildfires that are happening due to climate change and the capacity for people to protect themselves against this air quality, the impact that it has on health systemically, the impact on pollinators, which are incredibly important for growing the food that we all depend on to live, the contamination of groundwater, which again introduces toxic elements into the water that we drink, but also the homes that we live in. When we focus on building fast and gutting environmental protections just so that we can build them, that might seem like a great idea when we need housing, but we’re actually talking about creating housing that people might not be able to live in long-term, or they’re going to finally be able to invest in buying a home, and then they’re going to see that asset devalued. They’re going to have to put thousands of dollars into remediating it because of what is happening due to the loss of environmental protections. I just want to give an example of this, which is that in my riding, there are multiple communities that are built on the flood plains of creeks: Graham Creek, Stillwater Creek, Pinecrest Creek. For 60 years, these communities have lived on these flood plains and there has not been flooding in these homes. So it might seem like no big deal that we built on a flood plain, and then this summer, we had a major storm, a severe storm of the kind we haven’t seen before, due to climate change, and many of these homes on these flood plains flooded. We saw the same impact on the infrastructure with the LRT station at Moodie being flooded, needing to be gutted and completely renewed. Now it has delayed access to the LRT because we don’t have an opening date because they have to rebuild a station entirely. All of this is having an impact on people’s daily lives: their finances, whether or not their home is safe and healthy, their access to public transportation. So it’s important that we actually take time to consider the environmental impact of our decisions over the long term. That means that we have to be willing to listen to the voices of the communities that are affected. There is a similar theme in schedule 7, which scraps the municipal veto over new landfill sites that require comprehensive environmental assessment. We’ve already seen the government do this to Dresden, breaking an electoral promise, and so I think it’s fair for communities to wonder if they will be next. My brother and sister-in-law live just down the road from the Beachville quarry. It’s a limestone quarry. As we know, limestone is porous. The community has already successfully fought off an attempt to turn it into a landfill, and the member for Oxford was a key part of that. Now the government could turn that into a landfill after all, and the people of Oxford would have no say in that. My brother and his family could be drinking toxic, contaminated water and they would have no right to even participate in the decision or receive notice about it before it happened. Schedule 9: The government is giving fast-track approval for garbage incinerators. They’re using the same process under the Green Energy Act that they screamed bloody murder about when it was used to fast-track solar and wind power. They didn’t like solar and wind power—

Official source

Ms. Sandy Shaw

They like burning garbage.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Yes, burning garbage—and I’m not a scientist, but solar and wind don’t emit toxic pollutants. But incinerators spew massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And when we’ve seen the summer we just had, of wildfires and intense storms, flooding in Nickel Belt, Ottawa, St. Catharines, you would think we would want to be taking action to prevent climate change from becoming any worse. But this is just going to spew additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which means we’re going to be contributing to making the planet warmer, which will put people’s lives at risk. I’ll leave it there, Speaker. But there are really significant concerns in this bill, again, just trampling on the rights of people and shutting out the right to participate in the decisions that affect them.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

I recognize the member for St. Catharines.

Official source

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens

I rise today to speak to Bill 140, the Building Ontario Faster Act. Speaker, I believe Ontario needs to build. We need better highways, reliable public transit, affordable housing and infrastructure that meets the needs of our growing communities and supports new housing projects. But building faster cannot mean eliminating environmental protections, shutting communities out of decisions or giving this government more authority without accountability. That is exactly what we are seeing in this bill, Bill 140, and that’s a huge, huge problem. This is another massive omnibus bill that bundles together completely unrelated legislative changes. We are debating highway construction, environmental protections, landfill approvals, regional transportation planning, hydro utilities, recycling and many, many more—all under one piece of legislation. Some of these changes are more reasonable, others you can raise an eyebrow at, and some are undeniably a direct attack on the rights of Ontarians. I want to begin with schedule 4, which deals with Highway 69. Speaker, my colleagues have raised this and have been calling for the completion of the four-laning of Highway 69 for years. Northern Ontario residents have waited far too long for this important infrastructure project. They deserve safer roads, reliable connections between communities and a government that treats northern infrastructure as a priority. This is why our party has brought forward amendments in Bill 212, two years ago, that would have designated Highway 69 a priority highway project. We supported this priority, and what happened? Yes, the Conservative government once again voted down those amendments—that included the member opposite who is now the Minister of Transportation. Now, two years later, the government has decided that accelerating Highway 69 is suddenly a priority. And their big idea—they seem to think it’s their big idea—is buried amongst 22 schedules of patchwork policy. Speaker, we welcome that decision—absolutely. But northern families shouldn’t have had to wait two years for this government to change its mind and finally realize that infrastructure that connects communities is a goal we should be working toward. Important to note, too, is that schedule 4 would exempt the highway project from the Environmental Assessment Act and establish a separate assessment process, including provisions for Indigenous consultation, which I want to point out is what should be happening. Our support for completing Highway 69 has always been conditional on the support and consent of affected First Nations communities. The government cannot use the need for infrastructure as an excuse to disregard Indigenous rights or environmental responsibilities. We can move projects forward efficiently while ensuring proper consultation, environmental safeguards and meaningful consent, and making sure these safeguards remain in place, because they are part of building infrastructure responsibly. Speaker, I feel like I’m having déjà vu when discussing the environmental safeguards. This isn’t the first time, not the second time, and not even the third time that this government has used omnibus bills to remove protections that are there for a reason and were put in place for a reason. Moving to schedule 7: This schedule would eliminate the municipal veto for new landfill sites requiring a comprehensive environmental assessment. Think about what that means. Municipalities that currently have the authority to reject certain new landfill proposals would lose that protection completely. What’s remarkably ironic is that this very government introduced that protection in 2020. When the Ford government brought forward Bill 197, their own environment minister at the time said that landfills should only be located in communities willing to host them. That was the government’s position—a position that made sense, a decision that protected and supported local autonomy. Six years later, apparently, local consent is no longer important. So what changed over those six years? Did municipalities suddenly become incapable of making decisions about their own communities, or has their right to say no simply become inconvenient for this government, as another barrier to their takeover attempt on municipal operations? Speaker, landfills have consequences for the people living around them. Residents have legitimate concerns about groundwater, traffic, odours, property values and the long-term environmental impacts of waste and disposal. Municipal governments understand those concerns because they’re accountable to the people who live in the municipalities and the communities. And now this government is proposing to take away an important part of that local decision-making authority. We have already seen its approach in Dresden. The Ford government promised a full environmental assessment of the proposed York1 landfill, only to subsequently exempt that project from the Environmental Assessment Act through Bill 5. Now it wants to remove the municipal veto more broadly. That raises a serious, serious question about whether this government respects local democracy when communities disagree with its plans. Representing a riding in the Niagara region, I know all too well that this government does not respect local democracy. We are witnessing it first-hand with the totally undemocratic appointment of our next regional chair. But that’s another discussion on another day. Speaker, schedule 8 is perhaps the most troubling part of the legislation. It proposes sweeping changes to Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights. This legislation was introduced by the NDP government in 1994 to give Ontario residents meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions affecting their environment. For more than 30 years, it has provided important protections for people’s public notice, consultation and government accountability—not hiding behind closed doors. Speaker, schedule 8 would strip away much of that framework. It would eliminate existing requirements for public notice and consultation and environmentally significant bills that are being proposed, along with regulations and policy, replacing them with much weaker provisions under the Modernizing Ontario for People and Businesses Act, 2020. Unlike the Environmental Bill of Rights, this new amendment would not require public consultation—again, swept behind closed doors, non-transparent. How are we once again going backwards in this House? This is taking away the public’s right to participate or even to have a say, Speaker. But it doesn’t stop there. Schedule 8 would also repeal requirements for this ministry to maintain statements of environmental values. It would eliminate the public’s ability to apply for reviews of environmental laws and policies and to request investigations into suspected environmental violations. It would also remove the Environmental Bill of Rights provision allowing residents to pursue legal action for breaking certain environmental laws. These are substantial changes to the rights and protections available to Ontario residents. But let’s be clear: What these changes do is make it easier for this government to develop environmental policies without having to hear from the people of Ontario or the people it affects. Speaker, that matters enormously to communities like mine, St. Catharines. We know how important environmental oversight is when dealing with contaminated industrial properties like our former GM brownfields or stormwater management. This government has to stand up and make it right.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Mr. Logan Kanapathi

Thank you to the member opposite for that presentation and her remarks. I have always had a lot of respect for the member opposite. Madam Speaker, this legislation is about ensuring Ontario remains the most competitive place in the G7 nations to invest, build and create jobs and grow business. Today’s economy moves quickly, technology advances rapidly, the supply chain changes and trade agreements evolve. Important investment decisions have been made every day, Madam Speaker. As a government, the process must keep pace with that. We are facing a lot of economic challenges each and every day. Ontario is in the middle of a trade war. Our jobs and our economy are attacked. We must protect our Ontario. My question to the member opposite: Does the member agree with that?

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Taking away people’s right to have a say in decisions that affect them doesn’t actually do anything to make us the best place in the G7 to invest. But you know what would make a significant difference in making us a great province to invest in and a province to which people would want to move and build a life here? It would be addressing the cost of living, making sure that people can actually afford to buy groceries. It would be fixing our health care system so that people would be able to go to the ER without waiting for 12 hours to receive care, or that they wouldn’t have to wait over a year to have surgeries scheduled. It would be fixing our schools so that people would know that their kids would have a world-class education when they move to Ontario. Those are all things that would make our province the best place to live and invest, and instead of doing that, the government has chosen once again to trample on the rights of people to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Ms. Sandy Shaw

I’ve talked many times in this House about the GFL dump in Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and the stench that emits from that. Let me just say that the Minister of the Environment did nothing to protect that community from seven years of this toxic smell. In fact, the city of Hamilton had to pass numerous motions demanding binding veto power, and when the minister again refused to do his job, the city of Hamilton was forced to take GFL to court looking for a temporary closure of this toxic dump. In fact, it was so bad that a planned school in that neighbourhood was cancelled because it was impossible to teach in an environment like that. So, my question is, why would anyone believe this minister when he says there will be environmental protections and municipalities will have a say in what goes on?

Official source

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens

Thank you to my colleague. I can answer that we have no faith in this government to do any environmental oversight. I’m from St. Catharines, and as I was getting to in my speaking notes, we have contaminated land at General Motors that is leaking PCBs into our water streams, and this government has sat on their hands and not done anything to help the community of St. Catharines or the residents that live around that contaminated site. Inside the fencing is so much contamination that we know is there, and we are asking this government to get on GM and hold them accountable, just like GFL should be held accountable. If we go behind closed doors—

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Response?

Official source

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens

If we continue to let this government go behind closed doors and not let the communities that are affected in the decision-making, this is what we’re going to end up with all over Ontario.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Thank you for the presenters from Ottawa West–Nepean and St. Catharines. I think you’ve raised some interesting points, and as we learn more about this bill as the time goes, what we are seeing is that the bill is maybe providing faster access to certain procedures and administrative processes, but what it’s also doing is reducing environmental protection. Environmental protection has definitely taken a back seat in the last few years in the name of economic uncertainty. But we have to think about our future as well. I mean, you have kids. What does it mean if we are starting to ignore the environmental protection? What kind of impact are we considering—any one of you who wants to answer?

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Thank you to the member for Ottawa–Vanier for that great question. We’ve seen in the past what happens when toxins are allowed to be in our environment without any kind of limitations, the lifelong health impacts that that can have. I don’t think we want this generation of children to grow up with contaminated water, to have pollutants in the air, to potentially lose access to our pollinators. There is lifelong impact for this. As I mentioned, we already saw in Ottawa this summer the financial implications of not addressing environmental concerns. This has lifelong impacts for people as well. There are so many ways in which failing to address environmental concerns has negative impacts on people’s lives. But also, the government in downtown Toronto at Queen’s Park doesn’t know the reality on the ground across the province, and that’s why it’s incredibly important that the people who live there, who do know the reality, who are being affected, have a chance to have their say.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Ms. Aislinn Clancy

We keep hearing from the government that they have no choice. We’ve known for years about the lifespan of our landfills. Ontario has the worst recycling rates in the country. We keep telling people that when they recycle, they’re doing the right thing, let alone—now, we’re going to just burn it all. When we talk about choices, can you speak a little bit about what choices the government actually has and how they might be misleading the public by saying they have no choice but to burn all of our recycling?

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Before I go to response, I would ask the member to withdraw.

Official source

Ms. Aislinn Clancy

Withdraw.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

The member for St. Catharines.

Official source

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens

Thank you to the member for that question. Yes, once again, we’re moving backwards here in Ontario. My predecessor MPP Bradley was the Minister of the Environment, and he brought in the recycling program, which was a very, very small step towards moving Ontario forward. I feel that this is what’s happening here in this Bill 140. When they say building Ontario faster, they’re just moving omnibus bills faster and faster and faster through this House with no consultation. And then they’re going to be bringing these environment assessment acts through as well, faster and faster and faster, so that they can just hide it from Ontarians and go behind closed doors and make these decisions that are actually going to hurt our younger generations to come. We have recycling programs in place. We have these laws and policies in place that have been from people that have brought it—

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Thank you. Further questions?

Official source

Hon. Graydon Smith

My question is for the member from St. Catharines. You talked a lot about Highway 69 in your remarks, and I am grateful that contained within this bill are provisions to speed up the process for Highway 69. It is unquestionably something that we all know we want to get done. I was proud to stand at an announcement last week with the Minister of Transportation along with First Nation chiefs to talk about the opportunities we have before us to get this highway done. The measures to expedite this highway are critical measures to get it done faster and sooner and ensure the safety and protection for people that travel that highway. So the question, through you, Speaker, is simple to the member: Are you going to support this bill? Are you going to support the building of Highway 69?

Official source

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens

I believe I was in the House the other day when the member from Sudbury brought this to the government’s attention. This omnibus bill has so many things that we cannot support, but Highway 69—take it out of the bill, let us vote on Highway 69 and let us have the comments and let the people of northern Ontario—something they’ve been waiting for for years. I said it in my speaking that they’ve been waiting for this expansion. People have died on that highway. They call it the ghost highway of the north. If you would pull that out of this omnibus bill, we will definitely sit in on—and we’ll get it on record that we support the expansion and building it faster is a good thing. But I will say, what I don’t see in this bill, to the member opposite, is the two-way GO to St. Catharines and Niagara. I don’t see that. That’s building communities faster. And I don’t see the—

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Thank you. Further debate?

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

I will start by indicating that I will be sharing my time with the great member from Kanata–Carleton. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to take my turn today to speak about Bill 140, that is titled the Building Ontario Faster Act, 2026. I’m just going to start by saying something that everybody can agree with: Ontario needs to get things done faster. Yes, we need more housing, better roads and public transit, modern infrastructure, investment in good jobs. With the economic uncertainty we’re facing, no, we cannot afford delays that are not necessary. So when the government says it wants to cut red tape and make Ontario more competitive, I’m in. I support that objective. But after reviewing this legislation with the limited time that I had and the government’s technical briefing that was provided yesterday, I keep coming back to one fundamental question, and that question is, are we removing unnecessary bureaucracy, or are we removing protections that exist for a very good reason? Because there is a significant difference. We’ve seen this government’s approach before. They come up with legislation that has great titles like building Ontario faster, cutting red tape, making Ontario more competitive, and who could disagree? But when we examine the details—and that’s what concerns me—not everything that the government calls red tape is actually red tape. Some of those rules are there for a reason, either for the protection of our communities, to give people a voice or to hold the government accountable. I’m going to start by indicating what makes sense in the bill. There are measures in this package that appear to be practical improvements. For example, the government proposes creating a digital map of underground infrastructure, and I think that makes sense. Right now, the information about where electrical cables, telecommunication lines or the pipes are located are maybe held by different organizations in different formats, so that’s not very practical. A digital map would be useful in preventing costly mistakes, improving safety and reducing delays. I have to say, in Ottawa–Vanier, with our older neighbourhoods and aging infrastructure, I certainly see the value of that. Another thing that makes sense is that the government is proposing simplifying how people initiate civil court proceedings. As a lawyer, I do welcome changes that make our justice system easier to navigate, particularly when it comes to people who are self-represented, because access to justice should not depend on someone’s ability to understand complicated paperwork. So these are examples of modernization without sacrificing important protections. Let’s turn now to some of the changes that may need clarifications if we are to accept that there are good ones. One proposal in the bill that concerned me is what the government calls a “shot clock.” That’s a deadline that is established for deciding on certain permit applications. If that deadline passes without a decision, then the permit can be automatically approved. I understand the intent; businesses should not have to wait indefinitely for government decisions, but what happens if the government doesn’t have enough staff to complete its review before the deadline? And shortages of staff in government services is certainly a common thing these days. So should a permit automatically be approved because the government failed to do its job? What if environmental or safety concerns remain unresolved? The government says stronger oversight will remain for higher-risk activities, but the available information doesn’t clearly explain how those risks will be classified. Automatically approving a routine administrative request is very different from approving an activity that could affect public safety or the environment. The government’s inefficiency should not become the public’s responsibility. If government cannot meet its deadline, then perhaps the answer is to improve its capacity rather than approve applications by default. There was something in the technical briefing that was quite impressive. The government claims its permit transformation initiative could eliminate almost 220,000 days of processing time—that sounds impressive, okay. But the technical briefing explains that this represents projected reductions across some 375 permits; it doesn’t mean that a project will be completed 220,000 days sooner. So the real question, really, is whether businesses actually will save time, projects will move faster and public protections remain intact. One of my greatest concerns involves proposed changes to Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, and I think we’ve heard other people being concerned about that too. The government is moving to remove some of the processes, and it concerns me because those processes are there for a reason. It gives people a voice to contest or to challenge some of the decisions that the government has made. That also is very concerning. The government also proposed removing certain rarely used mechanisms for challenging environmental decisions, and the justification is that they are rarely used. Speaker, since when do we measure the importance of a right by how often people exercise it? I’ll just give the quick example, like the habeas corpus, which is the right to challenge unlawful decisions. Most Ontarians will never need it, but we would never argue that it should disappear because it’s rarely exercised. Of course, constitutional rights and statutory environmental protections are not legally equivalent, but the principle remains. There are also, in the technical briefing, some changes that are affecting industrial emissions, and I hope that the government will be very careful in applying that, because it’s lowering the standard for the emission of sulphur dioxide, which is a very dangerous air pollutant. I understand there are 240 jobs attached to these facilities, but we need to take public safety very seriously. The government says Ontario is running out of landfill capacity and relies on the United States to manage approximately 40% of its commercial waste. Well, we clearly need a long-term strategy, and we’ve known that for a very long time. But accelerating approvals for landfill and waste-to-energy facilities raises legitimate questions. Residents near a proposed landfill will want to know about groundwater, odours, truck traffic and monitoring, and those are questions that are usually dealt with or addressed during an environmental assessment, so I think that we need to be careful with that too. I also want to emphasize that municipalities must be partners to all these changes and approvals that are contained in the bill. In Ottawa–Vanier, housing developments and intensification are very real issues. Neighbourhoods like Vanier, Sandy Hill, Lowertown and Overbrook need more housing, for sure, including affordable housing, rentals and homes suitable for families and seniors. But development also places demands on infrastructure and public services, which require the municipalities to be involved because they know the local needs. Speaker, I want to take a moment to talk about schedule 8, which deals with labour mobility, and I do welcome the government’s intention to make this easier for qualified professionals from other Canadian provinces to work in Ontario. We do need people in various skilled trades, like education, health care and other essential services. But I would like the government to take this principle one step further because in communities like Ottawa–Vanier, we also have internationally trained professionals who possess valuable skills and experience but face significant obstacles in having their qualifications recognized, and that’s something I’ve been advocating for for a very long time. We need the recognition of foreign credentials, and we need a bridging program to allow them to have access to the profession and fill those gaps that we have in our system. I’m getting close to the end of my remarks, but I want to join my colleagues in saying that bringing forward omnibus legislation is problematic. Bill 140 changes numerous laws at once—24 of them—that deal with various areas and subject matters that could use their own bill. That’s the problem with omnibus legislation. We may agree with some of, or even most of, the measures proposed, but if there’s something that we can’t agree with, then we’re not able to support the bill. Speaker, I support making government more efficient. I support reducing unnecessary paperwork and finding better ways to build the housing and infrastructure Ontario needs, and several measures in the legislation could move us in the right direction. But environment protection, access to justice, Indigenous consultation and the public’s right to be heard are not obstacles to progress. I will end by saying that Ontario deserves a government that gets things done but also gets things right.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

I recognize the member for Kanata–Carleton.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

I rise today to speak to Bill 140, but before I address the details of the legislation, I want to address something even more fundamental. I want to talk about democracy and I want to talk about respect for this Legislature, respect for the people who elected us, respect for the democratic institutions that generations of Ontarians have worked to build and protect, because, Speaker, what we’re witnessing today raises serious questions about this government’s respect for the people of Ontario. Let us consider what has happened. The Ontario Legislature rose for the summer on June 3, did not return until October 27. For almost five months, the people’s Legislature was not sitting. For almost five months, elected representatives were denied the regular opportunity to question ministers in this chamber, debate legislation and to hold the government publicly accountable through the proceedings of this House. And throughout those months, Queen’s Park, a magnificent building that houses one of the most important democratic institutions in our province, sat empty of regular proceedings of this Legislature. According to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario’s official website, the Ontario Legislature employs more than 500 non-partisan staff—a building and staff funded by the Ontario taxpayers, a place that exists for one fundamental purpose: to serve the people of Ontario through representative democracy. And yet, for almost five months, this government chose not to bring the Legislature back to conduct its regular business. Then, on October 27, we returned, and what happened? Day two, October 28, Bill 140 was tabled. Today, October 29, we begin debate. The government introduced a massive piece of omnibus legislation containing 23 separate and disparate schedules, amending laws that touch almost every corner of life in this province. And just one day later, here we are debating it. Five months without regular legislative sittings and one day to prepare to debate 23 schedules—Speaker, how can a government possibly defend that timetable as a demonstration of respect for parliamentary democracy and for the people of Ontario? This is not simply a question of scheduling; it is a question of democratic accountability. I believe this approach represents an assault on the principles that make parliamentary democracy meaningful. Speaker, this Legislature is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for decisions already made behind closed doors, it’s not supposed to be an inconvenience that the government must manage and it’s certainly not supposed to be a place where members are presented with sweeping legislative changes and expected to accept them before they have had a reasonable opportunity to understand their impact and consequences. We are elected to represent our constituents. We are elected to examine legislation. We are elected to ask difficult questions, identify unintended consequences, propose improvements and hold the executive branch of government accountable. That is not obstruction; that is our job. It is a job that matters regardless of which party forms government. Yes, government has the right to advance its legislative agenda, but a government does not have a monopoly on wisdom. Winning an election does not mean that every government proposal is perfect. It does not mean that every concern raised by the opposition is illegitimate and it certainly does not mean that the government should be immune from careful parliamentary scrutiny. Democracy is not simply about who has the most votes in this chamber; it is also about the processes that ensure those votes are exercised responsibly, transparently and with proper consideration of the public interest. But, Speaker, we’ve seen this before. What does this government do when they are losing the public relations war due to mounting scandals—gravy plane, freedom of information, skills development, OSAP and private colleges, taxpayer-paid ads? What does this government do when crises are also mounting that it would rather not address because failure of the public systems is a deliberate choice? Deflect, distract, divert, divide, disguise—no notice for 23 schedules, significant changes with significant impact. It was Machiavelli who said, “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” Now, it’s time for this government to stop playing these games. Yes, there are some legitimate pieces of this legislation. There are some things that we all want to see happen. But it’s like a poison pill: If you want this one good thing, you have to accept all these other things that are unacceptable. Well, it’s not going to serve the people of Ontario. It may serve the political will of the government, but it is an assault on our democracy. It is an assault on the people of Ontario. If we’re going to continue to go in this direction, this government will lose the complete trust of the people of Ontario. It’s happening already, or else you wouldn’t have to do this. The tactics of deflection and distraction and diversion, division and disguising wouldn’t have to happen if you weren’t losing the trust of the people of Ontario. This is an example of what happens when a government loses its way and loses touch with the people it was sent here to serve.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Ms. Aislinn Clancy

I just want to ask, when you go back to your communities and you ask your communities if they want an expanded or a new incinerator in your community, what do you think they’re going to say? And when you tell them there will be no ERO for them to know that it’s happening or to have feedback, what do you think your community members will say?

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

I thank the honourable member for this question. I know what my constituents are going to say, because they care very deeply about their environment and they care very deeply about the environment for their children. They want to know what’s happening. They want to know what’s going on. They want to know that all of the safeguards that are put in place to protect the environment for the future are in place, and right now, they’re not going to know. If this piece of legislation—the facts—that things are going to be hidden, and they won’t take it kindly. Thank you for the question.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mme Dawn Gallagher Murphy

Ma question est pour la députée d’Ottawa–Vanier. Notre gouvernement a supprimé plus de 14 000 exigences réglementaires, allégeant ainsi le fardeau administratif en Ontario de près de 6 %. Cela a permis, en particulier, aux entreprises d’économiser plus de 1,3 milliard de dollars et près de 1,9 million d’heures. Alors, madame la Présidente, qu’est-ce que tous ces nombres veulent dire? Ça veut dire créer des emplois et aussi des investissements en Ontario. Grâce à ce progrès, l’Ontario a obtenu, pour la première fois, la note « A » de la part de la fédération canadienne d’entreprise. Ma question à la députée en face : appuiera-t-elle ce projet de loi afin de poursuivre sur cette lancée?

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Merci à la députée de Newmarket–Aurora d’utiliser la langue de Molière pour échanger dans cette Chambre. C’est toujours important et je l’apprécie énormément. Évidemment, la question est relativement à mon approbation, mon appréciation du projet de loi avec les bénéfices que ça peut apporter. Je pense que je l’ai exprimé durant mes remarques : il y a de très bonnes mesures dans le projet de loi qu’on peut très bien supporter. La préoccupation que nous avons—en tout cas, que j’ai exprimée—c’est face aux protections environnementales qui vont disparaître avec ces nouvelles mesures-là. Alors c’est très difficile de supporter un projet de loi, même s’il y a beaucoup de bonnes mesures, quand il y a des mesures qui vont vraiment à l’encontre des principes fondamentaux dans lesquels on croit, comme les protections environnementales.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

As you know, the member from Sudbury and I have worked really hard to amplify the voices of the people of northeastern Ontario who want Highway 69 to be four-lane. Schedule 4 will allow this project to go faster. Anything that brings attention to Highway 69 is something that we truly support. I wanted to ask, what do you think of a government who puts something as important as the four-laning of Highway 69 for the Patel family who lost their mom and dad, for the family of Cody, who died, and then play political games to say the NDP voted against a bill that included schedule 4 for the four-laning of Highway 69? What kind of respect for the people of northern Ontario do you see in a government who does that kind of thing? I’m curious to see what they think.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Thank you to the member for Nickel Belt, and I know this is an issue that is very important in the north. We’ve heard a lot about it, and the consequences of not addressing the issue is breaking lives in families, and obviously we need to address that. And I feel the same way. There is legislation we’ll be voting on soon where there are measures that are very important to me that I won’t be able to support because they are included in a larger bill that actually has issues for me that are so important that I can’t support. We are put in those dire situations because the government is using those omnibus bills to include in them some measures that they know we would be forced to vote for. And then, I guess, they are hoping we’ll all swallow the poison pill or be tagged with voting against good legislation.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

MPP George Darouze

My question will be to the member from Kanata–Carleton. She’s talking about our Bill 140, but if you look at the city of Ottawa climate master plan that they’ve been working on in the last six, seven years, we’re talking about options because our landfills really are coming to capacity. People in Ottawa do need an option, and our city council and the cities, they are looking for options. Not necessarily that’s the option, but at least working with the municipality and our government to make sure they facilitate those. I’m not sure why you’re not supporting some of those initiatives in that bill.

Official source

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon

I appreciate the question, and you’re right. I think municipalities across Ontario are looking for ways forward, ways to solve serious problems. But what this piece of legislation actually does is take away their ability to scrutinize those options. I know the Minister of the Environment said no municipality will be forced to do anything, but that’s not what the legislation says. The legislation says that they can be forced to do what they don’t want to do. So, if Ottawa wants to make a decision, they will live with the consequences. It has to be Ottawa’s decision. This piece of legislation takes that decision-making power away from Ottawa and brings it here to Toronto.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Speaker, through you, following up on my colleague’s question, the member from Nickel Belt. She’s heard the member from Nickel Belt and the member from Sudbury talking passionately about Highway 69 and the need to get that moving. We’ve offered to pull this out of the omnibus bill, get it moving and make sure the right highway is built as quickly as possible. Would her and her caucus support pulling this out of the bill so we can get that highway moving quickly?

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Of course, we would like to be able to dismantle some omnibus bills to put them in different bills so that we could debate them thoroughly, address them thoroughly, and really resolve the issues with everybody having a chance to speak meaningfully about such an important issue as fixing Highway 69. I would agree; I’ve never seen a government do that, though. I would be very surprised if this government would actually even consider such a proposal, even if, legislatively and democratically, it would be a very good idea. Because again, this kind of issue deserves the whole attention of this House with a separate bill. Thank you for your question.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

We have time for a very quick question and response.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Very quickly: I think we need to make sure that we are reducing, ultimately, the amount of waste we’re producing. I know in my community, because of the recycling changes, we’re actually able to recycle more things than we were able to under the previous system. But my question to the members is very simple: Do they support shipping our garbage to the United States of America, paying that extra fine now because of President Trump?

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Just a quick response, given the time. We have to move away from depending on the United States; that’s very clear to everyone, and everybody supports that. But approving new landfill or waste-to-energy facilities should not be done lightly. It needs scrutiny, it needs consultation and it needs proper environmental assessment.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Further debate?

Official source

Ms. Aislinn Clancy

I’m pleased to be here to represent the constituents of Kitchener Centre, accompanied by my colleague from Guelph. I come from the Waterloo region, which is the home of the blue box. We are very proud of the part we’ve played in the legacy of recycling. I recently went to an Emterra facility where we got to see the new investments in producer responsibility. They believe in deposit return. They know that there are many, many choices we have on how to deal with our waste, and they are ready to commit to help us on this journey. The government might say, “We don’t have a choice; we have to burn garbage.” Actually, they’ll call it waste to energy. It’s not incineration; it’s waste to energy. But no matter how you dress it, we have lots of choices in Ontario and we can be more responsible with how we deal with it. We are trashing Ontario right now. Recycling rates have gone down. We’re less than 50%, whereas other provinces that have programs, like deposit return, are closer or over 80% recycling rates. We know there’s a better way in Canada. We see entrepreneurs and innovators in Ontario, right now, ready to jump into solutions that work to reduce our garbage and make sure that any waste does not have to pollute our land, our air and our water. Look at The Beer Store—another example of how we have created more garbage in Ontario. We should be ashamed of how much garbage we produce, and we should also be ashamed of the ways we’ve destroyed good ways to recycle. The deposit return program at The Beer Store was one of the most successful programs in Canada, with way over 90% of diversion from landfill. We see Beer Stores across Ontario closing, and more and more beverage containers ending up in recycling bins. And now, we will be burning them more often than we already are. This is a false choice. We do not have to burn garbage. This is not the only way forward to deal with our waste. I disagree with expanding incineration. This is the most expensive and most toxic way to deal with our waste. You talk about being fiscal managers and prudent with taxpayer dollars, but this is more expensive than the alternatives of recycling, of dealing with organics, of diverting and reusing and reducing. Instead, we look at the incinerators in Brampton. We believe Emerald—the owners of the incinerator—that this can be done well, it can be done healthy, it can be done positively, instead of listening to Peel Public Health. Peel Public Health does not want Brampton to have the biggest incinerator in all of Canada, because there are health consequences. This is environmental racism. That’s right: It is an example of environmental racism because we are taking something that the public does not want—something toxic and unhealthy—and putting it in one of the most racialized communities in Ontario. It is making people sick. There is evidence that it causes more cancer, it causes more asthma and this is the legacy that we will be leaving our kids if we continue to invest in expanding incineration in Ontario. I want to thank John Moore. He had a program on today on NewsTalk 1010. He said that we don’t need to make so much garbage. Just like the cheapest way to invest in energy is to just use less energy, the cheapest way to invest in waste is to create less waste. We can reduce the amount of garbage we create. In Guelph, there is a Fortune 500 company—Forbes recognized these young female leaders as one of the best entrepreneurs in Canada. They have a company called Friendlier, and they have diverted 1 million to 1.5 million containers from landfills because they do not believe in single-use plastic. We have alternatives; we could use them here. It is expanding all across the country, and Ontario could invest in this way forward of reusing our containers from takeouts like Tim Hortons. They’re using them at the zoo; they’re using them at colleges and universities—far more in my community are using them. It’s happening everywhere, and this is a solution to encourage and enrich our local entrepreneurs and build a positive economy while also doing environmentally friendly things. It is not a binary. We can have a healthy economy, and we can invest in things that are sustainable and positive. Finally, I want to ask, who is benefiting? Who is benefiting from the expansion of landfills? We see what happens at the Dresden dump. PC donors, again and again, are benefiting from this government’s failure when it comes to reducing our waste and increasing the rates of recycling. This is broken trust. There was a campaign run on not expanding and putting a landfill there—a moment later, in a blue riding. So we should all be careful about blue ridings; those seats might not be so safe anymore if we blindly put landfills and incinerators in people’s backyards without their consultation and without seriously investing in alternatives. These are who will benefit, these big private companies. It’s another example of how this government puts the needs of the ultra-rich and wealthy ahead of everyday Ontarians. We know that deposit returns create far more jobs and have much better benefits to the population than any of these solutions that they’re putting forward. We should look at BC. When I went to BC, I looked at the Reuse it! program. It has helped lift people out of poverty. It’s addressing food insecurity. It has created small-to-medium businesses all across the province, and it’s reducing their reliance on landfills and incineration. I want to thank our ancestors because we have to go back to the way they did things. Right now is canning season. I’m picking up a mason jar, I’m putting in a cucumber, and I’m making sure that it lasts a year. That reduces food waste. That mason jar gets washed and used again. And I want to thank our agricultural communities that have been repairing and reusing for generations. I want to thank our Indigenous communities that have always known that we use and take only what we need, and that we are grateful to the soil, we are grateful to the air and we are grateful to the water. We are stewards of those natural resources because our planet is not single-use. There is no Planet B, and if we keep trashing it, that is the legacy that we leave our kids. I think we need to teach our kids better. We need to build trust with them and be honest with them about what legacy we’re leaving them. There is no magic in this. We don’t burn the garbage, walk away, and nothing is left. No, we have toxic sludge now that we have to bury. We have kids who can’t play soccer. We have air quality controls that will be happening now that prevent people from going outside. That is a COVID-19 trauma that we are now going to be expanding across Ontario. I do not agree with shipping our garbage elsewhere. I think we have to look that garbage in the face and make sure we don’t keep making a mess in Ontario. I do not trust this government, and I think the removal of the ERO goes another step further. We just saw all the FOI bill repeals, taking away the FOI, so pretty much every MPP and their staff never have to be open, honest and transparent about what is going on in their offices. This is a big betrayal to the public. Now we’re taking away EROs. We are going to be able to put incineration expansion and landfills and people’s garbage in their backyards without telling them what’s happening, without giving them a voice and making sure that this level of accountability is still accessible to the public. I think one of the recent EROs that went forward had 62,000 responses. That’s the best form of civic engagement we have right now. While I appreciate that the Premier says that you can just call him, that is not serious public engagement; the ERO is serious public engagement. That is why we did not expand the Billy Bishop airport, because the federal government did serious public engagement. They got tens of thousands of responses. People did not want that in their backyard. And the federal government listened. Instead of asking the question, instead of listening to the people, we’re just going to take away the opportunity for them to know what’s happening in their communities, to have any say at all. That is a huge betrayal of trust. It is a huge betrayal to our kids, who have to inherit a world where we continue to produce more toxic garbage. And now we are going to let more of that toxicity enter the air and enter the water. I don’t believe that’s responsible. The people of Canada believe in nature. They want us to have a safe, healthy, clean environment, and that is going to be compromised by this bill. So I push back against this bill, and I beg the government to put people ahead of profits.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Hon. Mike Harris

Scandinavian countries incinerate garbage. Would you say that they are not one of the most environmentally conscious jurisdictions in the world? The green bastion of British Columbia incinerates garbage. Why is it good enough for BC; why is it good enough for Scandinavia; why is it good enough for Germany; why is it good enough for France; why is it good enough for parts all across Europe, but it’s not good enough for Ontario?

Official source

Ms. Aislinn Clancy

Well, for one, this government, since they were elected in 2018, has removed literally every environmental protection that I can think of. I should have known there was more—there was another rock that didn’t get unturned. Other jurisdictions do have better environmental protections—they 100% do. But I do not agree with any expansion of incineration, whether it’s in Scandinavia or BC, and I don’t think they do either. They are taking incredible steps—or at least they were until the Conservative government was elected in BC recently. They were making an effort to improve and protect their environment. So it is not good enough for Ontario. And I think if you asked Ontarians, they would agree that it is not good enough for Ontario. We can do better. Interjections.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

The House will come to order. Members have the opportunity to have questions and comments. And the heckling—no. Further questions?

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

The people of Hamilton know all too well how terrible it can be when environmental regulations are not enforced by the Ministry of the Environment. Over the summer and for the past two decades, we have had countless reports of black soot falling over Hamilton and Hamilton Centre, where I am. Also, I’m increasingly hearing from constituents in Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton East–Stoney Creek who are so frustrated with the lack of intervention from the Minister of the Environment to actually protect our air quality and to ensure that people’s homes and their children’s hands and their pets’ feet aren’t coated in black grime each and every single day. So I would ask the member opposite, how can we trust the Minister of the Environment to protect us when they are already failing in their responsibilities to enforce environmental regulations in Hamilton each and every single day?

Official source

Ms. Aislinn Clancy

I would say that they can’t trust this government, especially when it comes to the environment. I worry about the impact of that black soot on the people of Hamilton, and the health consequences. I hope that people who are citizen scientists start putting sensors up all over Ontario, because we cannot trust these billion-dollar corporations to be honest with us, to care about our neighbourhoods—because they do not live there. Let me tell you, they do not live where that black soot is falling, and they only extract dollars from this government—putting tax dollars into the pockets of big corporations while also doing harm to our communities. So, no, you can’t trust them. I think we have to start looking at who owns the landfills, who owns the incinerators, and how much they are donating to the PC Party.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Seeing the time on the clock, it is now time for members’ statements.

Official source

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

Today I rise to recognize a meaningful new addition to the community of Thamesville that serves as a lasting tribute to the brave men and women who have served our country. Recently, Royal Canadian Legion Branch 367 in Thamesville unveiled the mural on their building to honour our veterans. The mural depicts soldiers looking towards the sunrise over a field of poppies, with a boat and an aircraft, representing service by land, sea and air. A Canadian flag fades into the sun on the horizon, symbolizing hope, remembrance and the enduring legacy of those who served. This project was brought to light through the vision of Darren Carther, alongside Legion president, Bobby Wooldridge; former president Ian Davis; and the many volunteers who contributed their time and effort, including members of the Thamesville fire department, Thamesville Sertoma Club, Legion members and Thamesville residents. Their collective efforts have created something truly special for Thamesville: a powerful reminder of the courage, sacrifice and service of our veterans. This mural will stand as a permanent reminder for generations to come, ensuring the stories of our veterans remain visible and their sacrifices are never forgotten. Congratulations to all those involved, and thank you for this wonderful addition to our community.

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

Today I want people to know about the bad services that my constituents are receiving from LifeLabs. Last January, LifeLabs announced that they would be closing their Sudbury lab and start shipping lab tests to southern Ontario. As I just found out, some of the tests are actually shipped across the border to labs in the US. But if that’s not bad enough, let me give you an example: My constituent Chris lives about an hour drive away from the closest LifeLabs location. He booked an appointment, went to the LifeLabs to get his blood work done and was turned away—not once, not twice, but on three occasions—because they were short-staffed. Chris is a senior with cancer. His doctor wants the test to be done on a fixed schedule, but—not available. The government’s increasing reliance on for-profit health care services means operators cut corners to make a buck, but for every corner cut there is a reduction in patient care. The Minister of Health must act now to ensure lab services are focused on quality patient care, not on maximizing financial returns for a US corporation. We deserve better, Speaker.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

Good morning. I want to begin by congratulating newly elected and re-elected school board trustees across Orléans and Ottawa. Félicitations à mes amis Marc Roy, Musset Pierre-Jérôme et Mathieu Fleury pour leur élection, et à Dan Boudria et Johanne Lacombe, qui ont été élus par acclamation. And congratulations to Rick Bédard, Bob Rainboth and Cathy Varrette on their election victories this week. Thank you for stepping up to serve our community, support students and advocate for the resources our schools need. I wish you all the best, and I look forward to working with you. Now, Madam Speaker, Ottawa’s municipal election cost taxpayers an estimated $9.3 million. At the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, only one of the previous trustees was re-elected this week. Ottawa voters have chosen new trustees, and they deserve the opportunity to do the jobs they were elected to do. Yet this minister says he won’t restore the elected board’s authority, leaving the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board under provincial control. For more than a year, families and students across Ottawa have been left without locally elected trustees to advocate on their behalf. Parents and students deserve to know that their votes count and that their hard-earned tax dollars belong in the classroom and not in a costly supervisor’s paycheque. This government must respect Ottawa voters, Madam Speaker. The minister must end provincial supervision and return control of the school board to its new duly elected trustees.

Official source

Mr. Aris Babikian

Throughout the summer break, I had the pleasure of visiting businesses across Scarborough–Agincourt and meeting with constituents. Throughout the break, I had the honour of attending over 276 community events, galas, announcements and meetings with residents across the community. I was particularly delighted to join the Scarborough Centre for Healthy Communities at the opening of their new primary care clinic in Bridlewood Mall, alongside my Scarborough MPP colleagues. This project is supported by a $3.94-million investment by our government, which will continue to connect up to 9,600 people to primary care as part of our government’s primary care action plan. Working in partnership with Scarborough Health Network, SCHC will identify and support individuals with unmet health needs, facilitate attachment to primary care providers, and provide access to integrated health and community supports for residents across Scarborough. This work includes SCHC opening new primary care clinics at Scarborough’s Bridlewood Mall, Shepherd Village and Agincourt Mall. These investments are strengthening health care capacity across Scarborough and ensuring residents have access to the care they need, close to home.

Official source

MPP Alexa Gilmour

Can you feel a chill in the air? Halloween is Saturday, and Parkdale–High Park does not do Halloween halfway. Lavinia, Pacific and Glenlake all welcome hundreds of kids for tricks, treats and truly horrifying lawn ornaments. But lately, the scariest things in Ontario are not on anyone’s porch. They are the grocery bills. They are the rent, the ER wait time. And this government is way more trick than treat. It let a few bad-actor career colleges run monstrously wild, and then it pulled OSAP from every career college student in the province. Now, Mary Shelley fans will remind you that Frankenstein was the doctor, not the monster. So when the monster goes loose, Speaker, look at who was in the lab. The government drops a 71-page bill with 23 schedules on the table Tuesday afternoon and gives the opposition less than 24 hours before debating it. That is not a fair debate schedule. That is a jump scare. A minister resigns in July, and then by fall, he’s back with a new title and a $22,000 raise. In this government, well, friends, even resignations rise up from the dead. The Premier says he’s ending hallway medicine while hospitals cut hundreds of registered nurses in London, in Hamilton and across the province. That is not a cure, Speaker. That is a curse. Happy Halloween. I hope this government hands out a few more treats this time.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Beattie

First, briefly, a congratulations to the incoming mayor and councillors recently elected during the recent municipal election in the city of Hamilton—a mix of new and familiar faces, and I look forward to working together with them on our important, shared priorities. Housing is one of those priorities, Speaker, and our government has already followed through with an investment of over half a billion dollars through the DC relief program to support new infrastructure projects both in Hamilton East–Stoney Creek and throughout the city of Hamilton. This, along with the recent HST cut, will help Hamiltonians finally get into the housing market instead of having to leave our communities and live elsewhere. Another shared priority, Speaker, is to support our steel producers and steel processors, our advanced manufacturing industries and auto parts makers in Hamilton during this unjustified trade war. I toured many of these businesses recently with Minister Rae, and I can tell you that our industries are ready to roll up their sleeves and do what is necessary to emerge stronger, more resilient and to support good-paying jobs within our community. I know that we won’t back down. I know that we’ll get the job done, and I look forward to continuing to work hard for good-paying jobs in our community.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

This government shut down the Legislature for five months and spent $117 million on ads telling Ontario everything is just fine, but the reality tells a very different story. Every day, 2,088 people wait in hallways for hospital care, up 52% since the PCs took office in 2018. The Auditor General said more investment in urgent care centres is needed to reduce ER wait times, yet in my riding, hours at Fort Erie urgent care centre are being cut. More than 600 hospital jobs have been cut in Hamilton and Niagara. MRI wait times are increasing in Niagara’s public hospitals, with machines sitting idly because of lack of funding, while this government hands $155 million to private, for-profit clinics. Our education system is in crisis, with overcrowded classrooms and rising violence. Poverty levels and food bank use are at historic highs. In Niagara alone, nearly 40,000 residents, including more than 14,000 children and 2,200 seniors, visited food banks last year according to Feed Ontario. Imagine what $117 million could do if invested in health care, education, affordable housing and homelessness supports. This is about priorities. Ontario needs a government focused on delivering the services that people depend on, not spending billions promoting itself. Families are struggling for care, education, the support they deserve and to even feed themselves.

Official source

Ms. Natalie Pierre

Good morning, colleagues. I am pleased to rise today to share with the House a wonderful community event that I recently hosted in my riding of Burlington. Last weekend, on October 24, I welcomed Burlington residents to Pumpkins, Crafts and Chats, a fun fall gathering that brought together families, friends and neighbours for an afternoon of connection and conversation. The event featured mini pumpkin decorating, face painting, treats and plenty of opportunities for families to enjoy the season together. Most importantly, it provided a chance for me to meet with constituents in a relaxed setting and hear directly from them about the issues that matter most in their daily lives. One of the greatest privileges of serving as Burlington’s MPP is the opportunity to connect with residents, to listen to their ideas and learn more about the priorities that shape our community. I would like to thank everyone who attended and helped to make the event such a success. Burlington continues to be a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family, and I look forward to many, many more opportunities to connect with residents in the days and months ahead.

Official source

MPP Billy Denault

Last month, we unveiled the revitalized Nick Smith Centre arena in Arnprior. It was a privilege to join town staff and council to celebrate a generational project that holds a special place in my heart. I grew up at the Nick Smith Centre, volunteering at Camp Wanago, working as a lifeguard and summer student with the town’s recreation department. It was a second home to me and the opportunities I was given there helped shape who I am today. In 2024, while serving as a councillor, Mayor McGee, members of council and I attended the delegation at ROMA with my predecessor, MPP Yakabuski, to discuss provincial partnerships, including the Nick Smith Centre arena. That work helped point us towards the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund. Through continued advocacy, I was proud to announce a $1-million provincial investment last summer to support this project alongside the town. I want to give a special thank you to Graeme Ivory, Patrick Foley and all town staff, past and present, who have helped bring this project to life, as well as the many people who made a difference in my own life during my years with the town. This project reminds us what public service is all about: working together to build something that will serve generations to come and giving back to the communities that helped shape us. Congratulations again to the town of Arnprior. I’m proud to have played a part in this project, and I look forward to continuing to work with communities across Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke to deliver results for the people who call them home.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Members, the government House leader is seeking unanimous—I’m going to recognize the government House leader.

Official source

Hon. Steve Clark

If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for two minutes to be allotted to the independent members as a group to respond to the Minister of Finance’s fall economic statement during ministerial statements today.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

I can also finish his sentences. The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent for two minutes to be allotted to the independent members as a group to respond to the Minister of Finance’s fall economic statement during ministerial statements today. Agreed? Agreed.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Please join me in welcoming a visitor to the Clerk’s table today: visiting from the Parliament of Victoria in Australia, Vaughn Koops, the Deputy Clerk. Vaughn is with the Office of the Assembly for a two-day visit. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Also visiting us today is my sister Sharon, my nephew Drew and my niece Fallon Kolohon, who are visiting all the way from Guelph. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Also visiting us today in the Speaker’s gallery is a person who you will remember, Monique Taylor, the former member for Hamilton Mountain for the 40th, 41st, 42nd and 43rd Parliaments. Welcome back.

Official source

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens

I also want to welcome a good friend and now a new staff member to my team who is going to be joining my Team Stevens, Monique Taylor. Thank you for coming today.

Official source

Hon. Graydon Smith

I’m pleased to introduce Todd Lewin, president of Muskoka Brewery, from my great hometown of Bracebridge. Todd, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I want to wish my son a very happy birthday. Happy birthday, Mr. Sam.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Happy birthday, Jamie’s son.

Official source

MPP George Darouze

Good morning, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today to welcome Lauren Weldon-Vaughn from Munster in my riding of Carleton. Lauren serves as director of external affairs for the Carleton University Conservatives and is visiting Queen’s Park as a participant in the Ontario parliamentary forum, proudly representing Carleton. Please join me in extending a warm welcome to Lauren. Welcome to your House, Lauren. Thank you.

Official sourceWatch video

Ms. Marit Stiles

I believe they’re arriving shortly, but in the gallery today, we are so happy to have CUPE Ontario president Yolanda McClean, joined by CUPE child care workers who have been locked out by their employers since October 5. Welcome to your House.

Official sourceWatch video

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

We do not make political statements during introduction of visitors. Can we withdraw that statement, please?

Official sourceWatch video

Ms. Marit Stiles

May I make one additional announcement today? I would like to congratulate and wish best wishes to the opposition whip, MPP for London West, Peggy Sattler. It’s her birthday today. Singing of Happy Birthday.

Official sourceWatch video

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

You can start the clock.

Official sourceWatch video

Mr. Lorne Coe

I would like to welcome to the Legislative Assembly Jeff Talmey. He’s the president of Town Brewery from Whitby, and he’s here with the Ontario Craft Brewers association. Thank you.

Official sourceWatch video

Mr. Dave Smith

Also from the Ontario Craft Brewers association: Scott Simmons, the president; Natasha Fritzley, president of Cowbell Brewing; Josh McJanett, president of Dominion City Brewing; Greg Taylor from Steam Whistle Brewing—Jeff has already been announced by Lorne Coe—Mandie Murphy from Left Field Brewery; Troy Burtch from Great Lakes Brewery; Ryan Cole, Policy Concepts; and Jonathan Rose, Policy Concepts as well.

Official sourceWatch video

Hon. Stephen Crawford

I’m proud to welcome the page captain today, Shreya Bapatla from Oakville, and her family who are here in the gallery: father Satya, mother Swarpa, sister Sravpa. I would also like to give a welcome to some of my staff: Zahra Javaid, Mark Rizzotto, Eric Punzalan and Rejaa Khalid. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official sourceWatch video

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome some beautiful Beaches–East Yorkers. Arjun Prajapati, at just five years of age, is already a member of esteemed high-IQ societies Mensa Canada and Intertel. Maybe we need him down here. He is here with his parents, Dr. Vishal Prajapati and Mahita Thota, and his awesome sister, Aadya. Welcome to your House.

Official sourceWatch video

Mr. Sol Mamakwa

Good morning. ᒥᓄᑭᔐᐸᔭ It’s always an honour to be able to welcome people from Kiiwetinoong, especially from the town of Sioux Lookout. Laura Lilly, Carmelia Augustin, Bill George, Maria George, Matt Stewardson, Annette Berry and Randi Dogget. Meegwetch for coming.

Official sourceWatch video

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I would like to welcome Virginia Burton, a service animal advocate from York South–Weston, and her beautiful service animal, Pockets.

Official sourceWatch video

Mr. Chris Glover

I just want to add to the welcome for the Ontario Craft Brewers association, including Mandie Murphy, who runs the Left Field Brewery in the fabulous riding of Spadina–Fort York.

Official sourceWatch video

Hon. Stephen Lecce

I want to welcome the incredible Canada Powered by Women, the leaders who are with us, including Tracey Bodnarchuk and her entire board of directors. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official sourceWatch video

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Yesterday, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party each filed notices of opposition day motions for consideration next week. I have selected the notice standing in the name of the leader of the official opposition to be debated. The third party’s notice will be removed from the orders and notices paper.

Official sourceWatch video

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

On Tuesday, October 27, 2026, the member for Kingston and the Islands rose on a question of privilege to express concerns about remarks made by the Premier on August 24, 2026, while the House stood adjourned. According to the member, the Premier’s remarks to the media diminished the authority and dignity of the House and therefore constituted contempt of the Legislature. I have had the opportunity to review the Premier’s remarks; Tuesday’s Hansard; the written submissions from the member for Kingston and the Islands and the House leaders for the government and the official opposition; as well as the relevant precedents, practices and authorities, and I am now prepared to rule on this matter. I would like to first note that in raising the question of privilege, the member for Kingston and the Islands correctly identified the underlying issue as relating to contempt rather than parliamentary privilege. Privilege exists as a defined set of rights and immunities, but there are many potential offences that would obstruct or undermine the functions of the Legislature that cannot be categorized as breaches of privilege. Any action or conduct, including words, against the authority or dignity of the Legislature is considered contempt. In the Canadian House of Commons on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser explained the difference between privilege and contempt in the following terms, at page 4,459 of the Hansard for that day: “All breaches of privileges are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege. A contempt may be an act or an omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results. Matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.” Let me now turn to the substance of this matter. During a press conference, the Premier was asked whether he would consider the official opposition’s request for a recall of the House in order to deal with matters relating to the imposition of tariffs. The Premier’s response to these questions included, among other statements, use of the term “gutter politics” and a comment that, “If they have suggestions, call me up. Everyone else calls me up.” In his remarks in the House and his written submission, the member for Kingston and the Islands shared his interpretation of these comments. He contends that the Premier equated the request for the House to be recalled so that members may perform their parliamentary functions to “gutter politics.” Additionally, the member advances that the Premier’s suggestion to “call him up” was offered as an acceptable alternative to parliamentary proceedings and a reduction of the role of the Legislative Assembly to a means of communicating suggestions to the executive. The member for Kingston and the Islands submits that these statements amount to contempt because they diminish the authority and dignity of this House and its proceedings. If the Premier did in fact degrade the proceedings of the House and undermine its functions, it would raise grave concerns. It is well established that an attack on the dignity or authority of the institution of Parliament can constitute a contempt. As the member highlighted in his submission, my predecessors in the Speaker’s chair have found prima facie cases of contempt on those grounds. The government House leader, in his submission, offers another interpretation. In his view, the Premier’s statement was not that phone calls should replace parliamentary proceedings but rather provide an additional opportunity to make suggestions, akin to the meetings that all members regularly conduct with constituents and stakeholders. He claimed that the phrase “gutter politics” was used in reference to the actions of political opponents, not the Legislature itself. The government House leader also noted that in his comments, the Premier referenced the return of the House and requested support for the government’s proposals upon that return. I have reviewed the video of the Premier’s press conference, and I do not know, with any degree of certainty, what his intention was in making those statements. The Speaker’s role in ruling on questions of privilege and contempt is to determine whether a prima facie case of privilege or contempt exists. The second edition of Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada provides the following explanation at page 221: “A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter.” In the present case, although I do not know precisely what the Premier intended, my own genuine interpretation of his comments is that they do not directly challenge the dignity or authority of the Legislature. All members are honourable, and in the absence of sufficiently strong evidence to the contrary, I am reluctant to attribute negative motives to any member. My ruling is that the comments made by the Premier on August 24 do not amount to a prima facie case of contempt. I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Official sourceWatch video

Ms. Marit Stiles

Families in our province can’t find a family doctor or afford groceries, but if you’ve got the right lobbyist and some cash to spare, the doors of Queen’s Park swing wide open. John Mutton, the now-banned greenbelt lobbyist, who the former Integrity Commissioner referred to as “Mr. X,” needed a special favour for his client. The MPP from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, a member across the aisle, was ready to help, with one condition: selling some tickets to the infamous PC leaders’ dinner so that she could meet her quota. This is a question to the Premier: Is the Premier promising favours to lobbyists provided they max out donations to the PC Party?

Official sourceWatch video

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

I recognize the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Official sourceWatch video

Hon. Graydon Smith

Let me just say that our government recognizes the importance of clear and transparent rules to ensure public confidence regarding MZO tools. It’s why our ministry introduced zoning order frameworks, which ensure that all orders made meet a high standard. The framework is publicly available to see right now online so the public is aware of any process behind a decision. Under this framework, MZOs must advance a provincial priority or have local support, and we invite public consultation. Let’s be clear on what MZOs do. They get critical infrastructure built, they get homes started, they advance long-term care and many more things that are beneficial to our communities in Ontario. They help build our province. The opposition can continue to look to the past. Our government is looking to the future to continue to build Ontario.

Official sourceWatch video

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Supplementary?

Official sourceWatch video

Ms. Marit Stiles

All right. I don’t really think that answered the question. Anyway, Ontarians are paying more—and we know that—for absolutely everything, while the Premier’s friends get into the fast lane. You don’t have to take it from me. You can take it from the Integrity Commissioner’s report into Mr. Mutton’s lobbying, which he determined to be illegal, which was released today by the Trillium. Here’s what the MPP’s text messages say—I’m going to read it: “Do you think you could get a couple of your people especially the ones we just helped to buy a few tickets for (the) March 2nd event? They have to go thru my portal so I get credit.” That is what the member wrote in a text message to John Mutton on February 2, 2023. Right. They closed the deal, and she’s saying, “Pony up. I’ve got to meet my quota.” So, back to the Premier: Are you directing your MPPs to trade government decisions for political donations?

Official sourceWatch video