Trouvez ce que fait le gouvernement.

At an Indigenous public safety conference in Saskatoon, the Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency highlighted its work with the Prince Albert Grand Council and Meadow Lake Tribal Council on wildfire readiness. A memorandum of understanding signed earlier this year sets a framework for First Nations knowledge and leadership to inform wildfire planning and response in Saskatchewan.

My name is Victoria Creese and I am co-chair of GASP, Grand(m)others Act to Save the Planet, a grassroots climate action and advocacy group with more than 170 members across Ontario. We are committed to creating a sustainable environment for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on Bill 109. My remarks will focus specifically on schedule 3, the Farmland Security Act. Farmland is a non-renewable resource that forms the foundation of Ontario’s food security. It supports rural economies, sustains biodiversity and strengthens environmental resilience. As climate change, population growth and global supply chain disruptions place increasing pressure on food production, protecting Ontario’s most productive farmland has never been more important. Every acre of farmland permanently lost today reduces the province’s ability to feed future generations. There is broad agreement that Ontario is losing farmland at an alarming rate. According to figures based on the 2021 census of agriculture, an average of 319 acres is lost every day. That is a staggering number and one that demands meaningful action. We commend the government for recognizing this issue as schedule 3 provides the framework to regulate foreign and other designated persons from speculating on Ontario farmland. However, the proposed legislation does not go far enough. If the objective of Bill 109 is to protect Ontario’s food independence, it should address all major sources of speculative pressure, not only foreign ownership. GASP therefore recommends that both foreign and domestic speculators be explicitly identified as designated persons in the act itself rather than left to future regulation. Doing so would provide greater transparency, permanence and certainty. Much of the farmland being removed from agriculture production is owned by domestic investors and developers who purchase land for speculation rather than farming. The Ontario Farmland Trust has identified domestic speculation as a growing threat to the long-term viability of Ontario’s agricultural sector. Speculative purchasing inflates farmland prices beyond what working farmers can afford, making it increasingly difficult for the next generation of farmers to acquire land. The limitations to schedule 3 become clear when we consider farmland that is already under threat from domestic speculation and development decisions. An example is the proposed Highway 413 corridor and the lands adjacent to it. In anticipation of the highway and the development opportunities it is expected to create, developers have purchased large areas of farmland, all of it class 1 and class 2, with the expectation that it will eventually be rezoned for development. The highway itself is projected to pave over 2,000 acres of prime farmland. This raises an important public policy question: How do we balance the need for transportation infrastructure and housing with the equally essential need to protect prime farmland and ensure long-term food security? Research has consistently shown that Ontario can build the affordable homes it needs within existing urban boundaries through more efficient land use and higher-density development. Protecting farmland and meeting housing needs are not mutually exclusive goals. Similarly, in the case of the 413, multiple transportation experts, including the government’s own analysis, call into question whether the highway will provide meaningful long-term congestion relief. Fortunately, alternatives to Highway 413 exist, such as making greater use of the 407 for truck traffic and investing in public transit. Thus, the permanent loss of Ontario’s best farmland can be avoided. When alternates to development exist, protecting prime agricultural land must take precedence over decisions that would result in its irreversible loss. Bill 109 provides an opportunity to ensure that future decisions better protect Ontario’s farmland, regardless of whether pressures come from foreign ownership, domestic speculation or infrastructure development. The decision to build Highway 413 should be reviewed through the same lens to ensure it aligns with the act’s objectives of safeguarding Ontario’s agricultural land for future generations. It is not too late to change course on this highway, as the design phase has not yet been completed and federal permits have not been granted. GASP respectfully recommends that schedule 3 be amended to include the following additional protections: —introduce stronger protections within the act itself against all speculative pressures, both foreign and domestic; —require a transparent and fully accountable agricultural impact assessment process before any farmland is removed for development or infrastructure projects; and —require an assessment of alternatives to determine whether the proposed project can be delivered in a way that avoids the loss of agricultural land. As a long-term solution, GASP supports the creation of a food belt as proposed in Bill 21, introduced by MPPs Mike Schreiner and Bobbi Ann Brady. Ontario’s farmland is not just land—it is our food, our resilience against climate change, our legacy for upcoming generations. Once it is paved over, it is gone forever.

[Inaudible] and I’m also an asparagus and watermelon farmer near Tillsonburg, Ontario. The Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, or OFVGA represents approximately 3,500 growers across the province. Together our members farm approximately 225,000 acres of highly productive farmland and generate about $4.2 billion in farm cash receipts. I’d like to begin by providing some context on the current environment facing Ontario’s fruit and vegetable growers. Our sector is facing unprecedented and increasing pressures. The cost of producing food has risen dramatically. For example, compared to 2025 levels, diesel costs are more than 50% higher and fertilizer costs have increased by approximatively 30%. At the same time, growers are facing significant marketplace pressures. Competition continues to increase, returns remain stagnant and farm margins continue to shrink. Ontario growers are also competing in a global marketplace where the playing field is not always level. Especially crop growers in the United States have received significant government support, including ad hoc cash upfront subsidy programs in 2025 and 2026 totalling more than C$5 billion. If a similar acreage-based payment program were applied in Ontario, it would represent an estimated investment of more than $55 million for Ontario fruit and vegetable growers alone. Consumers are understandably frustrated when they see food prices increase and may assume that farmers are benefiting from those higher prices. However, the reality is that in a global marketplace with significant cost pressures and uneven competition, Ontario growers are not seeing those increased grocery prices flow back to the farm gate in a way that covers rising production costs. I share this context because it is important to understand the challenges facing our sector as we discuss the importance of protecting Ontario’s food independence. The OFVGA appreciates and supports the efforts of Minister Jones, the Premier and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness in recognizing the need to protect Ontario’s ability to produce food. A key part of that discussion is access to productive farmland. Fruit and vegetable growers are especially aware of the pressure around land availability, especially for crops that depend on farmland with unique characteristics including specific soil types, topography, climate conditions and reliable access to water for irrigation. Competition for farmland comes from many sources. It includes other, more profitable agricultural sectors, development pressures and purchases by third parties, including foreign and domestic investment firms and pension funds. These pressures have increased land values and, in some cases, make it more difficult to maintain farmland in its most productive agricultural use. It is important that Ontario farmland remains available for the production of fruits and vegetables and other agricultural products. Bill 109 represents a proactive step by the government to consider how best to protect this valuable resource. At the same time, it is equally important that any legislation, including the proposed Farmland Security Act, be implemented carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Today’s farms are complex businesses. Many fruits and vegetables operations have become highly capital-intensive enterprises with sophisticated ownership and investment structures. This is particularly true in greenhouse production, which my colleague Steve Peters will speak about in greater detail, but it also applies to some fruit and vegetable farms as well. OFVGA wants to ensure this legislation does not unintentionally restrict a farm’s ability to access investment needed to expand operations, create value-added opportunities, improve efficiency or support effective succession planning. A key consideration will be how foreign land ownership is defined within the broader context of a modern agricultural business. It will be important to consider not only the physical land base but also the other assets that are essential to a farm operation including buildings, equipment, brands and other intangible assets. As the government moves forward with developing regulations under this proposed legislation, we believe it will be important for the agricultural sector to remain closely engaged. OFVGA would welcome the opportunity to continue working with the government to ensure the final approach protects Ontario farmland while supporting the strength and competitiveness of Ontario farms. I would also like to comment on another important aspect of Bill 109: the proposed amendments related to the Ontario Food Terminal. OFVGA appreciates the continued recognition by the province of the importance of this critical piece of agricultural infrastructure. While the Ontario Food Terminal is only one part of the supply chain that moves fruits and vegetables and other horticulture products across the province and into the greater Toronto area, it remains a significant marketplace for Ontario growers. More than two billion pounds of produce is moved through the facility each year. Allowing the terminal to establish a capital fund to support future improvements will help ensure its long-term sustainability and maintain its role as an important market for Ontario growers, particularly in a time where grocery supply chains are becoming increasingly concentrated. To conclude, the sector appreciates the government’s efforts to strengthen and protect Ontario’s agricultural sector through the measures outlined in Bill 109. As I mentioned at the beginning, Ontario’s fruit and vegetable growers are facing growing competitiveness challenges. We know the province is aware of these issues and remains engaged in addressing them. OFVGA continues to work with both provincial and federal governments on improving business risk management programs, including through the Next Policy Framework. These programs will require continued commitment and collaboration from governments to ensure they reflect the reality and challenges facing today’s growers. I thank you again for your time and the committee’s work in reviewing this important legislation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective, and we look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you.

Just a quick question—well, I don’t know if it will be quick—to the panel: If you can share some examples of ways that Ontario has encouraged decarbonization in the province’s industrial sector by working with industry, not against them, both to protect jobs and the environment.

Thank you for the question. The question of modelling and the modelling framework that we use has been discussed already a bit, but I’ll endeavour to get deeper into your question by providing a bit more information on that. We follow best practices and will continue to employ those best practices in our GHG emission projection analysis. As I mentioned earlier, we are committed to continuous improvement to ensure modelling remains robust. MECP continues to assess and refine the approaches, tools and processes used to develop GHG emissions projections as new information becomes available. We, as a matter of business, have a subscription access—and the deputy mentioned this earlier—to basically Canada’s leading energy environment model, run by an organization called Navius Research. It is a peer-reviewed energy economy macroeconomic model that is used by most governments across Canada, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, British Columbia and Alberta. It has also been commissioned by respected third-party institutions such as the Canadian Climate Institute, Clean Prosperity, the Public Policy Forum and Clean Energy Canada. Our teams continue to collaborate with Navius and to follow best practices to regularly update that model and to reflect the latest emissions data, economic trends and policy developments. To get specific, we use the following approach to modelling updates: Most updates involve calibration of the model undertaken by Navius using publicly available data to reflect historical trends across all sectors of Ontario’s economy. So in this case, we use the National Inventory Report, the National Energy Use Database and related reports, Statistics Canada’s report on energy and supply and demand; macroeconomic projections; electricity sector data; and trends from the Independent Electricity System Operator, including energy supply and demand and energy conservation management frameworks—all inputs that go into that basic framework that we use. At least annually, or as new policies are proposed, MECP collaborates with the leads on MECP initiatives to reflect updates to policies such as the Emissions Performance Standards Program, whenever amendments are made to that program; changes to the cleaner transportation fuels, which I’ve already mentioned; and then food and organic waste policy statement changes as well. We also utilize annual federal consultation processes to track updates to relevant Ontario policies. These are exercises and reports issued by the federal government, such as the biennial transparency report, the emissions projections and the national inventory report, which I also mentioned. Finally, policies and commitments announced in Ontario and in federal budgets, or updates to the federal emissions reduction plan itself, are reviewed for new developments on an ongoing basis. MECP collaborates with Navius, the model provider, to make any necessary policy updates. We also attend regular federal webinars on new climate policies to stay abreast of policy understanding. If a policy is unclear, MECP would follow up with other ministries to clarify or rely on the expertise of the service provider. Again, all of that to underline the work that goes into the model, that is itself the basis by which we generate and issue the emissions forecast, is an ongoing work in progress, constantly being calibrated, constantly being updated with up-to-date assumptions. Thanks for your question.

Sure. Alex Wood, I’m the assistant deputy minister for the climate change and resiliency division in the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Thank you. I’m John Kelly, deputy minister for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness. Thank you to the committee members for inviting me today. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to talk about our ministry’s efforts regarding environmental stewardship and stewardship activities that Ontario supports in greenhouse gas reductions. I’d also like to thank Deputy Harrison for her ministry’s leadership on this important work. Environmental stewardship is a significant priority for Ontario farmers and agribusinesses. OMAFA supports stewardship initiatives that help farmers and agribusinesses adapt to a changing climate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While many of these programs are voluntary, in many cases, sustainable practices, in addition to being beneficial to the environment, also have economic benefits to farmers. This supports broad interest and uptake of our stewardship programs. The sector benefits from the Sustainable Canadian Agriculture Partnership, or SCAP for short, which is a five-year, federal-provincial-territorial investment to strengthen the sector’s competitiveness, innovation and resiliency. The current agreement, in place from 2023 to 2028, has identified tackling climate change and environmental protection as one of five priority areas. By the end of the current agreement, the federal-provincial-territorial partners have agreed to contribute towards reducing Canada’s greenhouse emissions by three to five megatonnes. In Ontario alone, a total of $65.8 million in combined provincial and federal SCAP funding is earmarked to be spent on activities that can reduce emissions or sequester carbon. SCAP funding currently supports multiple programs and initiatives that are directly helping Ontario farmers reduce emissions and sequester carbon, with more than 1,500 projects approved to date. One great example is the Resilient Agriculture Landscape Program, or RALP. This program supports farmers in undertaking projects that science and research have shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon, like reducing tillage and planting trees. The short- and long-term economic benefits that come from sustainable practices, like reduced input costs and increased productivity, profitability and resiliency, incentivize uptake of these and other voluntary programs. The ministry also provides environmental stewardship education and outreach to farmers and to agribusinesses. This ranges from directly connecting with farmers by attending farm shows and supporting workshops across Ontario to providing free online decision-making tools any farmer can access and use to help inform on-farm production decisions. Farmers can even get access to online greenhouse gas decision support tools. I would note that while OMAFA does not directly measure or report on greenhouse gas emissions, we do share program information with the federal government to support their responsibilities for national reporting on greenhouse gases. Once again, thanks for the opportunity to speak with you today. I’ll now turn it back to Deputy Harrison.

Sarah Harrison, Deputy Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Chair and members, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, or MECP for short, is committed to transparency and accountability to the people of Ontario as we work to deliver on our vision of an Ontario with clean and safe air, land and water that leads to healthier communities and economic prosperity. I’m happy to address the Auditor General’s recommendations in the 2025 Report on Progress to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, because the effort to reduce GHGs is a shared responsibility across government. I’m joined today by my counterparts at the Ministries of Transportation, Energy and Mines and Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness. I’m also joined by my colleagues from MECP, who will help answer any questions that you may have. Ontario’s climate change policies and programs are working to reduce and prevent greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience to the impacts of a changing climate, and we have made significant progress. Since 2005, our reductions of 43.7 megatonnes of GHGs have surpassed those of any other province or territory. That’s a reduction by Ontario of 21.6%, with Canada’s overall reduction at 8.5%. It’s fair to say, then, that we are leaders in GHG reductions in Canada. While Ontario makes up about 39% of Canada’s population and GDP, our emissions in 2023 accounted for only 23% of Canada’s total emissions. We have achieved those reductions while also growing the economy over the same time frame, with Ontario’s real GDP growing by 34%. I’d now like to briefly respond to each of the Auditor General’s recommendations. The auditor’s first recommendation was, “In accordance with the act’s requirement to set targets,” the auditor recommends “that MECP propose additional targets for adoption by the province that provide a goal for continued GHG emissions reductions beyond 2030.” The ministry does not support the recommendation. The global economy is vastly different today than it was just a year ago, with the uncertainty and upheaval caused by President Trump’s tariffs. This has meant that the government must focus on protecting the province by creating a more competitive, resilient and self-reliant economy. Ontario’s decision to amend the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act related to this recommendation, as well as recommendations 2 and 3, is about ensuring that climate policy remains effective, flexible and aligned with the province’s broader goals. Ontario remains committed to long-term decarbonization, and this ministry will continue to evaluate, consider and advise on approaches to reducing GHG emissions beyond 2030. The second recommendation of the auditor was to: “—prepare and consult … on an updated climate change plan that outlines … plans to meet … current, and any future, targets to reduce GHG emissions; “—following consultation, publish an approved, finalized climate change plan; and “—regularly review and update the plan to … reflect any changes to planned initiatives….” The ministry does not support the recommendation. Due to the current global economic situation, the province cannot strictly adhere to a path or actions that do not account for current, future and unknown economic opportunities and challenges facing Ontario—including those related to the province’s long-term decarbonization objectives. Ontario will remain committed to its adaptable and agile approach that is responsive to the opportunities, needs and circumstances of Ontario’s economy and job creators. This ministry remains committed to adhering to public consultation requirements and will remain transparent in respect of its approach to fighting climate change. The auditor’s third recommendation is MECP should “report annually to the public on progress made to reduce GHG emissions in Ontario....” This would include “updates on the implementation of initiatives taken to reduce GHG emissions and the status of Ontario’s GHG emissions.” The ministry does not support this recommendation and remains committed to transparency in its approach to fighting climate change. Annual public information on Ontario’s progress in reducing emissions is already available through the national inventory report and emissions projections, which are published yearly by the federal government. And finally, the fourth recommendation of the auditor was that “MECP request yearly updates from each body responsible for any federal or provincial initiative included in a GHG emissions projection to confirm the validity and accuracy of all policy assumptions whenever making a new projection.” The ministry supports the recommendation. To this end, MECP will continue to employ best practices in its GHG emissions projection analysis. It will evaluate and update GHG emissions projections based on the most recent data and information available, informed by internal and external experts. MECP already utilizes the Navius Research Inc.’s peer-reviewed energy economy macroeconomic model called gTech and follows best practices to regularly update the model and reflect the latest emission data, economic trends and policy developments. We also review new MECP initiatives to update projections on at least an annual basis, as well as for policies, commitments announced in Ontario and federal budgets, or updates to the federal emissions reduction plan. To summarize, Ontario will continue to take an adaptable and agile approach to reducing GHGs that is responsive to the needs of our economy. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks will continue to focus on achieving our climate change objectives while we prioritize the needs arising out of the economic uncertainty facing the province. As we work on long-term decarbonization, we will continue to evaluate and consider best approaches reducing GHGs beyond 2030. I’d like to thank the committee for their time and now pass it to my colleague, Deputy Minister Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, to explain how the Ministry of Energy and Mines is reducing GHG emissions in Ontario.

Thank you, member, for the question. I’m happy to begin this. There was quite a lot wrapped into your question. I would say that what you have seen is the Ministry of the Environment, along with colleague ministries, make a number of investments in Ontario’s economy that have led to the reduction that we’ve seen in GHG reductions, and the government is proud of that reduction. But the government is not prepared at this point to commit to a climate plan that would preclude us from having the agility that we are looking for and the adaptability that we’re looking for with so many of the uncertainties that are ahead. The government remains committed, the ministry remains committed to working with our partners, but at this point, having a plan that prescribes targets or prescribes the path to it actually is not helpful because it means that we’re making decisions about uncertainties that we can’t be clear about now. I think it’s more transparent, I think it’s more flexible to report on our reductions. We do that annually through the federal report and continue to make the policy commitments and the investments in the economy that we have. A number of my colleagues, I’m sure, would like to contribute to that, to speak even more in detail about some of the investments that we’ve seen on the ground. But the government is not committed at this time to a climate change plan.

Thank you for the question. Ontario is taking a number of actions to position itself as a leader to support the growth of a clean economy. We continue to focus on achieving our climate change objectives while prioritizing needs arising out of the economic uncertainty facing the province. Ontario is committed to long-term decarbonization, and our province will continue to evaluate and consider approaches to reducing greenhouse gases beyond 2030. The investments Ontario is making in its electricity system, in its transportation system and in industry are helping Ontario build a competitive low-carbon economy while protecting communities and the environment. In terms of the specific, I will point to the fact that we are developing a carbon management framework. I mentioned this a little earlier. That framework would help accelerate the use of new technologies and support the growth of a strong carbon management sector. It would build on the government’s efforts to enable geological carbon storage and would open the door to new export markets and attract investment while reducing industry’s carbon footprint. We are also supporting clean steel investment that will fundamentally reduce the environmental impact of clean steelmaking and deliver low-carbon materials throughout Ontario’s automotive and manufacturing supply chain and work to establish Ontario as a global player in steel production. We are making gasoline cleaner and reducing emissions through the cleaner transportation fuels regulation, which requires fuel suppliers to gradually increase renewable content, such as ethanol, in regular gasoline to 15% by 2030. The regulation is expected to have an annual reduction of up to one megatonne of greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road. We are also supporting our clean fuels industry through domestic content requirements, ensuring that GHG reductions are achieved using made-in-Canada clean fuels. I already mentioned and discussed the Emissions Performance Program. We are returning, through the Emissions Performance Program, proceeds raised through the EPS Program that we have, to help sectors of the economy make transformational investments that lower their emissions and help make them more competitive. Funded projects included energy-efficiency, electrification, waste water energy recovery and waste heat recovery projects—and I mentioned projects like the Algoma project as well, as a recipient of our Emissions Performance Program. Finally, I’ll just mention the release of Ontario’s first-ever Critical Minerals Strategy and the launch, in November 2022, of the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund. These initiatives are designed to help Ontario businesses thrive and tap into new and growing markets, securing Ontario’s future and our place in the global supply chain. I believe Deputy Laaksonen-Craig would like to add as well.

From your perspective, how has the government’s failure to invest adequately in marine infrastructure limited Ontario’s ability to shift goods from trucks to low-carbon shipping, which is important for our environment?

Good morning, committee and Chair. Thank you for having me today. My name is Lindsay Koch. I’m a councillor in the city of Kenora. Thanks also for travelling up to the great northwest of our province for this work. I’m truly sorry I’m not able to be there in person today. I’m here as a growing movement of Ontarians and the Women of Ontario Say No who are deeply concerned about misconduct in municipal government and the urgent need to address gaps in accountability, transparency and safety. Bill 9 is a promising and necessary step forward. Thank you to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and others for hearing our calls for action on this issue. It touches on two essential areas: municipal codes of conduct and occupational health and safety. These are not abstract issues; these are matters that shape the integrity of our local democracies and the well-being of our municipal employees, many of whom are women and who have experienced harm or who have been silenced under threat of retaliation. We have seen too many recent examples of councillor misconduct across Ontario just in my term of council: from Norfolk, where a councillor made inappropriate comments to a staff member; to Brant county, where staff endured a toxic work environment stemming from council disfunction. The situation became so unmanageable that the CAO and several senior staff left the municipality, citing a complete breakdown in governance and personal harassment. In Brampton, we’ve seen investigations, lawsuits and accusations of retaliation tied to allegations of harassment, abuse and power. These issues weren’t just about personality conflicts; they created a workplace culture where professional staff feared speaking up. And we can’t forget the years-long saga in Ottawa where all allegations faced by former councillor Rick Chiarelli of sexual harassment from staff and job applicants were substantiated. Despite damning findings by the integrity commissioner with only brief suspensions in pay, he was able to remain in office until the end of his term. These are not isolated bad apples; they are warning signs that current mechanisms are not working. And further, I want to emphasize that this is not about dissenting opinions. Healthy debate is a recognized part of the job. I want to speak directly to the section of the act what would allow a council to remove a sitting member found in breach of their code of conduct by a unanimous vote. While well-intentioned, we must ask, is a unanimous vote realistic or fair? In many cases, misconduct is not addressed because personal alliances, political debts or social pressures get in the way. A councillor may not be a lone wolf; their actions may be known, tolerated or even supported by others. Expecting a unanimous vote in such a climate creates a high bar that may never be met, no matter how serious the misconduct. With this in mind, I urge the committee to amend Bill 9 to require a super majority—two thirds of council—rather than a unanimous vote. This maintains democratic oversight but reduces the risk of gridlock due to internal relationships or retaliation fears. Better yet, an independent panel of provincial Integrity Commissioners should be tasked with determining the most severe sanctions. Removing that decision from council altogether eliminates the internal politics that often shield offenders. Second, Bill 9 must ensure that any member of council who is charged with assault, harassment or other egregious criminal acts is placed on automatic leave, pending resolution in the courts. Just as other professionals such as teachers, police officers and health workers face automatic leaves in such situations, so too should elected officials whose actions carry serious public consequences, and if convicted, automatic removal from office should apply. No more passing the buck. No more waiting for victims to go public before action is taken. We need clear, legislated consequences, which leads to my third point. I will urge the committee—and I think maybe that you are considering consequences for substantiated breaches of conduct that fall short of removal. Not every offence warrants ousting a councillor, but every offence warrants consequences on some level, with options including: —mandatory integrity commissioner training or other remedial action; —public apologies with an accountability plan; —temporary suspension of committee appointments or voting privileges; and —what is currently in place: financial penalties or salary withholding. These measures, when applied transparently, will reinforce that misconduct has consequences without relying only on the extreme of removal. Let’s also remember that these breaches occur not just among council members but often involve municipal staff, particularly women, younger workers and racialized employees, who must feel safe bringing forward concerns without fear of reprisal. This bill must ensure whistle-blower protections for staff, confidential reporting pathways and safeguards for their employment and mental health, because ultimately this is about safety—emotional, psychological and professional safety in the workplace. Council chambers are workplaces, and they must be held to the same occupational health and safety standards as any other. Staff should not have to choose between silence and survival. Council members should not operate in a consequence-free zone whether they are working in chambers, while appointed to local boards and committees or attending community events in their capacity as council members. Women of Ontario Say No has gathered thousands of signatures and hundreds of resolutions passed by municipal councils calling for greater municipal accountability, and their voices must be reflected in this legislation. Their central message is clear: Public office is not a right; it’s a responsibility. In closing, I thank the committee again for considering Bill 9. I urge you to strengthen it to reflect the real challenges facing our communities. Let’s ensure the tools that we provide to municipalities are not just symbolic but practical, enforceable and just—and opportunities to restore public confidence in our local democratic institutions. Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

At a November 1–4 meeting in St. John’s, Commonwealth leaders issued a communiqué setting priorities for cooperation on climate finance, renewable energy, trade, digital access and education. They also reaffirmed commitments to democracy and human rights, stronger health systems, and support for vulnerable countries, including small island states.

Saskatchewan selected Saskatoon-based PathoScan to adapt its rapid testing platform to detect zebra mussels in water samples from watercraft, roadside inspection stations and other high-risk locations. The company will receive $30,000 and work with the Ministry of Environment for 16 weeks to validate the technology, which could help inspectors identify contamination sooner than current physical inspections and lab testing allow.

As I thought about how to talk about the fall economic statement and Bill 143, it was very hard to avoid thinking about the election in the United States today. It is very consequential, and what’s happening in the United States has influenced much of the policy focus that we’ve been talking about in the last while here in Ontario. I just wanted to take a moment to remember that we do have some allies in the United States who share our values, and many are working hard at this very moment on getting out the vote today, and I want to salute them. We are at a critical time, Speaker, because of this global situation, and yet I find that this government doesn’t have a long-term plan or a broad vision for this province. I know that we’re just talking about an update in the fall economic statement, but we are now, since the budget, in a full-blown tariff war with the United States. As a nation, Canada is standing up to Donald Trump and taking the pain instead of going down this slippery slope of doing another deal. The fall economic statement was an opportunity to lay out this longer-term plan and a broader vision. I’m going to point out a bit later some ways in which we missed an opportunity to do that, but first I want to talk about some policy changes in the fall economic statement—some I will call technical corrections. But I want to acknowledge them before I talk about this government’s lack of broader vision, because there are some things that I agree about. There were more details for the reporting of beneficial ownership in the fall economic statement. Historically, that’s been weak in Ontario and in Canada. It’s hard to trace the ultimate owner if you want to root out conflicts of interest or people trying to hide behind this complicated “companies owning companies owning companies.” I know that the government wants to make sure that we have some sort of control over foreign ownership of agricultural land, so these kinds of improved reporting requirements are going to be needed. I think that’s a good idea. The development of a standardized truck driver training curriculum, I think, is important. It’s welcome as a part of reform in the training and regulation of truck drivers. I’ve heard complaints about that as much as I’ve heard complaints about the need to upgrade the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario. More regulation is therefore welcome. I just want to mention that in October 2025, the chairman of the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario told the House of Commons that certain carriers have bought or influenced schools to fast-track them through bare-bones programs, undermined the provincial licensing standards and shift the training liability away from those carriers. So more training to make our roads safer is always a good thing. I will likely support schedule 2 of the bill. This is an educational property tax exemption for university student housing. I definitely think that’s something we need more help with. Next week, I’m going to attend a session at an open house at Queen’s University to ask—you know, we’re creating some extra STEM seats in universities, but I want to ask where they are going to live, because that’s an ongoing issue in Kingston. Buy Ontario: I think it’s a good thing to think about. That’s going to be extended to municipal procurement, fleet vehicles and how we design infrastructure projects. I will just mention one thing, which is that we are not succeeding in getting companies who use cold-rolled aluminum to use cold-rolled aluminum that’s made in Canada. They buy it from the United States. They buy it from China. Hopefully there will be some measures to encourage—I don’t want to force companies to do something that will increase costs by too much, but I do hope that there will be some measures to incentivize companies to diversify their supply chains in cold-rolled aluminum, because we do make it in Canada, but a lot of consumers do not buy it from a Canadian source. I do agree with the changes in the Ontario Electricity Rebate. Starting in May of next year, the Ontario Electricity Rebate will be limited to the first 1,200 kilowatt hours consumed monthly, and farms and small businesses are going to be excluded. This is what costs $3 billion in subsidies every year. I had an exchange with the Minister of Energy in committee at the estimates, and I think we both agree that it’s not sustainable. I asked in estimates about means testing, like, “Why do wealthy people need this Ontario Electricity Rebate, this subsidy?” I know it’s hard, because introducing figuring out what people’s wealth or income is and then coordinating that with the utility bill can be hard. So I’m glad to see this 1,200 kilowatt-hour cap in the Ontario Electricity Rebate. I think it’s a good proxy because it’s simple for a means-tested rebate. I think it’s good to try it. Now, one thing that is not explained—that I can’t find the explanation for yet—is how multi-unit dwellings without individual metering will be treated. That is still to come. Maybe it’s 1,200 kilowatt hours multiplied by the number of units, but I’d like to see that stated very clearly. Another thing that happened in the fall economic statement is something that seems to happen over and over again with this government. I’ll just give you some numbers, Speaker. In the 2023 Ontario budget, they had a projected year of budget balance of 2024-25. In the budget the next year, the 2024 Ontario budget, this was pushed back to 2026-27. In the 2025 Ontario budget, the projected year of budget balance was pushed back again to 2027-28. And in 2026, the next budget, that projected year of balance was pushed back yet another year to 2028-29. And in the fall economic statement we just got, the year of budget balance was pushed back yet another year to 2029-30. This is a pattern I just want to point out for the people of Ontario: The government seems to have this phantom, ephemeral projection of budget balance, because they never reach it. It keeps going back further—in fact, it goes further into the future faster than we’re going further into the future. We have to watch out for that. The biggest policy change in the budget, I would say, is that the province is following the lead of the federal government in introducing this so-called productivity mega deduction. I think this is a good idea to try out, because Canada, historically, has been a laggard in what’s called business expenditure on research and development. It’s a statistic that’s compiled by StatsCan, and it’s something where Canada is a laggard compared to other countries. It’s a key reason why the productivity of our workers has lagged behind those of other countries, and that’s directly connected to long-term affordability, cost of living and standard of living. It’s a key ingredient of productivity growth and long-term economic and social benefits. One thing that’s missing, I would say, in this government’s way of looking at things is how to have an overall strategy. The funding for graduate programs in STEM is still far below what was recommended by this government’s own blue-ribbon panel. I know that they’ve created some STEM seats, but that actually doesn’t affect the funding for graduate programs. What that means is the key people that you often need to turn business investment in equipment or buildings, to turn that into what we really want, which is innovation, competitiveness, entry into new markets, increased sales, profits and good jobs for Ontarians—often you need those key people to turn money into the final success. You have to have a strategy, and I think the strategy should include making sure that we are producing those key people in Canada to turn business expenditure in research and development into a stronger economy. This is something that is an example of how the province doesn’t have a clear strategy. I want to talk now about what a vision for Ontario could be based on, and I want to look at it from the point of view of young people, which is something I would recommend to this government. I was very fortunate to grow up in the 1960s and 1970s, a time of great prosperity in Canada. I had many opportunities. It’s like saying previous generations, like my generation, we got a ladder. There were ladders all over the place. We had a lot of opportunities. Today, young people don’t seem to have a ladder. What they’re being handed is the bill for everything that we’ve accumulated, a lot of debts that we’ve accumulated—financial, environmental, social. So today there’s a lot of intergenerational unfairness, and it’s very much related to the economic and social challenges we are facing. I believe that the government should be targeting a plan for Ontario, a vision which makes us stronger and addresses the unfairness to younger Ontarians. What sort of things does that entail? Young people’s education was disrupted by the pandemic. We should be making sure that we have a world-class education system, but this doesn’t seem to be a priority of this government. The first rung of the employment ladder, that first job that gets you into the workforce, is getting hard to reach. Youth unemployment still hasn’t recovered to what it was before the pandemic. Housing costs aren’t merely preventing home ownership; they’re delaying independence. So 40% of young adults between the ages of 20 and 34 in Ontario were still living with at least one parent after the pandemic. Today, the economy is facing a big transition with artificial intelligence and automation, and young people are bearing most of the risk of these technological changes. AI and automation may ultimately boost productivity, but right now, if you are an entry-level worker lacking experience, lacking training, you’re not going to benefit from AI and automation; you can’t make use of it. If you’re an experienced worker, an established worker in whatever place you work, you’re in a really good position to make use of AI and automation to increase your own productivity first. So a lot of entry-level jobs are at risk, and that’s what young people are facing. We have record historical levels of debt-to-GDP, so young people will inherit less fiscal flexibility to solve their problems. Young people are inheriting an environment where inflation is back like it was in the 1970s. Young people are also inheriting a big public infrastructure deficit that will require an enormous catch-up investment that they will have to pay for during their working lives: everything from housing infrastructure, roads, bridges, transit, hospitals—which we just talked about in this debate—schools, electricity infrastructure and climate adaptation. All of these things young people have to pay for, but we should be thinking about them in a long-term plan and a broader vision for Ontario. Young people are not only facing climate change, but the world they are inheriting is less safe. They are coming of age in an era when liberal democratic institutions around the world have been damaged. Autocratic governments are rising, and this long period after World War II of relative peace, international co-operation and shared prosperity seems to be coming to an end. I believe that we owe it to young people to make the sacrifices so that they can have opportunities equal to what we, the older generations, were able to have decades ago. I want to turn now to the bill, Bill 143, and I’m just going to talk about some of the schedules. It’s got a lot of schedules, so I can’t talk about all of them, but I’ll talk about a couple that I wanted to draw the attention of this House to. Schedule 23, the Securities Act: I agree with this schedule. Canada has provincial and territorial securities regulators, a whole bunch of them rather than a single national securities regulator.

At a Commonwealth leaders’ meeting in Antigua and Barbuda, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced more than $70 million in new investments to strengthen resilience across Commonwealth countries, including the Caribbean. The investments will support infrastructure, emergency preparedness, forest restoration and faster emergency relief, while Canada and Caribbean leaders discussed cooperation on climate impacts, energy, food security and other shared priorities.

The Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency has received a Q400MRE aircraft that can fight wildfires and be reconfigured for passenger, cargo, evacuation or medical transport missions. It must complete induction, training and certification before service; one CV580 airtanker will be retired as part of the fleet transition.

Prime Minister Mark Carney met Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in St. John’s. They discussed shared priorities and agreed to deepen bilateral dialogue and stay in close contact.