Thursday, April 23, 2026

The House met at 0900.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Good morning, everyone. Let us pray.

Official source

Prayers / Prières.

Official source

Hon. Steve Clark

I’d like to thank the opposition members for collapsing the budget debate last night, and because of that, I would like to announce that this evening’s night sitting has been cancelled.

Official source

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 22, 2026, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Official source

Bill 105, An Act to enact the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 105, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 visant à renforcer la réglementation des agences artistiques et modifiant diverses lois.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Further debate?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

I think I was halfway through a word yesterday when that was it, the session was ended and it was time to pass to something different. I’m happy to be here this morning to continue my remarks about Bill 105, the Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act. I had gone through some of the 170 pages of this bill and made comments. I won’t repeat what I already talked about about this bill, but I will move on. I want to talk about WSIB benefits ending at 65 and few people would be allowed to continue to have benefits past 65. As you know, Speaker, I worked in rehab for a long period of time and dealt with a lot of injured workers, mainly miners because of where I live, and a lot of them get seriously injured when very young—seriously injured where they will be in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives; seriously injured where they will be severely handicapped for the rest of their lives. How does a 25-year-old worker who gets seriously injured at work prove to WSIB that they had the intention to work past 65? The bar is set so that it’s a step forward, but a step forward that won’t be accessible to so, so many seriously injured workers who need money—we all do—who need to continue to have access to the health care benefits that are covered by WSIB, which they continue to use for the rest of their lives. They continue to need special equipment to be able to live independently. An electric wheelchair is very expensive. Lots of things we use in rehab are partially covered or not covered at all. It’s the same thing with amputees. If you get seriously injured at work, you lose a leg—I don’t wish that upon anybody, but I’ve worked with many people who have, unfortunately, faced that. WSIB pays for different prostheses so that they can bike, they can run, they can just do what they need to do. Now all of this disappears at age 65. They no longer are covered. They no longer have access to the health benefits that come with being covered by WSIB unless they prove that they had intention to work past 65. So a step in the right direction, Speaker, but that will still leave a lot of workers who did nothing wrong—they got injured at work. They deserve to be supported. This is what WSIB was meant to do. But at age 65, we push them out the door and they’re left on their own. This is wrong. The small step will do some but not enough. Restoring the earnings: It was Mike Harris, the last Conservative government, who took the earnings from 90% to 85%. I’m quite happy that the earnings will be back up to 90%. That’s something that should have come years ago. And I’m out of time, which is too bad.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Questions?

Official source

M. Anthony Leardi

J’aimerais poser cette question à la députée de Nickel Belt. Nous avons eu une discussion sur le prochain ombudsman et, dans le projet de loi devant nous, il y a la proposition que le prochain ombudsman soit bilingue en anglais et en français. J’invite la députée à offrir son opinion sur cette proposition.

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

Speaker, let’s put things into perspective: This government decided to cancel the French-language commissioner and move his office under the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has been there—Paul Dubé, who was a bilingual man, has been there. The transition was tough. Now an ad went to recruit a new Ombudsman that says bilingualism is an asset. The recruitment has been done. The date to apply is past. Now, in 10 years from now, when we recruit a new Ombudsman, we will make sure that that position is filled by a bilingual person. Is it a good step? Yes, but way too late. Nobody thought about this when the ad went out just before Christmas, that the ad should have said mandatory bilingual? You are in charge of the French-language commissioner. You are in charge of a French department, and nobody thought of making it mandatory until it went into the papers, until it went into the media because I complained about it. Is it a good idea? Yes, absolutely. But it shows one more time how low this government cares about francophones, that they do this, but it won’t come into effect for another 10 years.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

I want to congratulate the member for Nickel Belt on her remarks. Recently, the Workers Action Centre did a report called The Crisis of Wage Theft in Ontario. They reported that, over the last 10 years, $200 million has been stolen from workers’ wages because of the lack of enforcement and other measures to protect workers from wage theft. This bill provides or requires employers to pay for the uniforms of some employees in the province. Do you think Ontario workers would rather be protected from having their wages stolen by their employer or their uniforms paid for?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

I really don’t understand why the Ontario government would subsidize companies like EllisDon that made $5.6 billion in Canada; 50% to 70% of this comes from Ontario. We will subsidize the uniforms of those workers. But for all the gig economy, for all of the precariously employed people who are the main victim of salary theft by their employers, very, very little is done. Those employees are vulnerable. They need government protection. We are in a position where we can help them, where we can enforce some of the laws that we have and make laws to make sure that, if the gig economy is to continue, we protect those workers and we protect the meagre salaries that they get, but none of that is in the bill. Instead, we’re going to give money to EllisDon so maybe they’ll make a $6-billion profit next year.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Ms. Natalie Pierre

Thank you to the member from Nickel Belt for her remarks this morning. My question is around the current CaRMS system, the residency matching system. In my riding of Burlington, there are a large number of students who have gone abroad—specifically, it seems to be Ireland—to study medicine. As part of this legislation, we’re looking at tweaking the CaRMS system so that students like the ones in my riding who grew up in Ontario, went to Ontario universities, their families paid taxes here in the province of Ontario, want to come home and practice here. Part of this legislation is about prioritizing Ontario-connected international medical graduates. I just wanted to understand the member from Nickel Belt’s position on what we can do or their thoughts on the proposed legislation about bringing Ontario international medical graduates—

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Thank you. Response?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

One of the main reasons Ontario’s health care system is as good as it is, that we have tertiary care system programs that only exist in Ontario, is because of the talents of the physicians and everybody else who works within the system. I want a system where the brightest minds who want to come and work in Ontario get selected. When hospitals and different people select who they want as an intern, they look at those people. They look at how successful they are, how bright they are, how dedicated they are, how they are going to help our system in time. If this person is an international medical graduate, they should be welcome in Ontario. We want the brightest to be at the top of the list of who gets an internship in Ontario.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Thank you for your presentation. You spoke a lot about WSIB and injured workers. I’ve probably spoken about this now for 10 or 12 years. The biggest issue facing injured workers is that they go to work, they get paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work and they get hurt on the job. Then, WSIB decides to deem them, which means that they say you can do this phantom job over here and then they reduce their benefits. My question to you is: Why would we have seven Working for Workers bills and at no time have they ever addressed the issue of deeming, which forces injured workers into poverty?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

It is incomprehensible that we still haven’t fixed that. WSIB was put in place so that you didn’t have to hire a lawyer and go against your employer and prove that—all of this is meaningless if you’re forced to live in poverty. Nobody chooses to become paraplegic at work and live the rest of their life in a wheelchair. If you were a miner, you worked underground, you made $130,000 a year, and now they say, “Oh, you could answer calls. You can’t walk anymore, but you’re able to answer calls at $18 an hour.” No. This is not what WSIB was supposed to do, but this is what they do: They deem you fit for a job that pays barely over minimum wage. This is wrong. Everybody in the NDP has spoken out against this. When are we going to be respectful of those workers and pay them what they’re worth?

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

M. Anthony Leardi

Vu que dans le Nord c’est un peu plus difficile d’attirer des gens pour travailler dans le monde de la santé et d’attirer des médecins, est-ce que ça serait une bonne idée, comme prévu dans le projet de loi, de donner un peu d’effort et de « recognition » à ceux qui ont un lien fort avec l’Ontario pour, peut-être, garantir que ces gens-là vont rester dans le Nord et devenir des médecins pour le Nord. Que pense-t-elle, la députée, de cette question?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

Je dois dire que dans le nord de l’Ontario, la discrimination, ça n’existe pas. Dans plusieurs des petites communautés que je représente, une personne de race noire, on l’appelle docteur. Pour nous, on veut les personnes les plus qualifiées choisies pour travailler dans le nord de l’Ontario. Est-ce qu’on a des problèmes de recrutement? Oui. Est-ce que le gouvernement pourrait en faire plus pour nous aider avec nos problèmes de recrutement? Absolument. De nous faire dire le 16 juin qu’on a de l’argent pour embaucher des « locums » pour l’été—le 16 juin, tout le monde sait déjà ce qui va se passer pour tout l’été. Il y a beaucoup de choses qu’on pourrait faire, mais de bloquer les gens à l’international de venir en Ontario, ça, ce n’est pas une bonne solution.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Further debate?

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

Good morning, everyone. It’s nice to see you. This is truly getting old, this bill. I’m rising again to speak to yet another omnibus bill with some really great sections woven in to some sincerely horrendous ones, and that seems to be classic with this government. But I am an eternal optimist, so I’m going to kick it off with the good: schedules 1 and 5, the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, respectively. Most notably, these schedules ban employers from requiring that employees pay for their uniforms as part of mandatory equipment for the job. These are great provisions. Ontario has dangerously high unemployment numbers, especially for youth. We know that. We had an opposition day motion on that to help youth, which unfortunately this government chose not to support. Ontarians already expend so many resources to find a job: travel time, money, effort spent drafting résumés, cover letters, preparing for interviews, background checks, obtaining certifications. Simultaneously, the affordability crisis rages on. So, for an often-expensive uniform and/or safety equipment that cannot be repurposed or reused—which actually, as a side note, would contribute more textile waste to our already overflowing landfills. You know I have a private member’s bill that I already introduced—you were captivated with it—on textile waste, and I’m sure you’re worried about our landfills reaching capacity, especially Green Lane, which is Toronto’s landfill, by 2034. I’m sure that keeps you up at night and you have a solid plan for waste diversion. But uniforms—why community members cannot continue forward in their employment is unfathomable and inequitable—and that this government is doing something to make employment more accessible. I would like to take this opportunity, while we are on the subject, to discuss the ways we can bolster these provisions. The train of thought that resulted in these adjustments is a good one. Thinking intersectionally, extending consideration beyond the obvious processes around gaining employment to look at how we ensure one maintains employment and that their work environment is safe and fair. Let’s take it a step further. I encourage this government to examine how they can further support people seeking employment and current employees through building better and more affordable connected transit to get people where they need to be: offering bike-share that is informed by an understanding of the first and last miles—and, of course, we need physically separated bike lanes to keep people safe, if that’s is how they choose to commute to their employment; instituting more transparent job postings; jobs that actually pay a living wage; jobs with child care options and with opportunities to upskill. Schedule 8: the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act. I know that the Minister of Labour was mentioning that ACTRA was here the other day supporting this, so that’s great. In the same vein of addressing unemployment and maintaining employment in safe and fair working conditions, I’m thrilled that entertainment workers will be more protected and experience more stability and predictability in their work, specifically pay schedules and set fees. Ontario has some of the most talented performers in the world. In and around my riding of beautiful Beaches–East York is a hub for talent with many theatre companies like the Coal Mine Theatre; the Second City comedy club; collectives like East End Arts, Beach Chorale, Beaches Art and Crafts, Sing!, the Beach Guild of Fine Art and venues. We also have major events with the Fox Theatre, History—which is the Live Nation facility that I happened to help put in back in the day—Woodbine Park, and of course our famous Beaches Jazz Festival. Anything we can do to support artists is a good thing. It is imperative that these communities to are able to produce their arts. Rest assured their rights will be protected. Schedule 9: the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Building on the importance of workplace safety and fairness, this schedule permits workers to receive loss-of-earnings payment beyond the previous cut-off at 65 years of age, increases the WSIB loss-of-earnings benefit rate and mandates WSIB coverage for all residential care facilities and group homes, whether they are private or public. In an affordability crisis, people are forced to work longer just to afford living expenses, and they should not be penalized or left unprotected for this. Schedule 2—now we’re not going to be positive: the Environmental Assessment Act. I’m sure that when you decided to include this schedule, you knew you would be hearing from me. Just when I thought there was nothing left to kill on an environmental protection front, you’ve already picked all the meat off the bones and now, I don’t know, you are crushing the bones or pulling out the marrow. You are just desecrating any type of environmental oversight. This schedule empowers the government to prescribe a new class of environmental assessments, which would excuse a whole slew of projects, including highways, railways and energy transmission lines, from comprehensive environmental assessments wherein impacts on the natural environment like ground water, surface water, species at risk, climate change and more is assessed. Socio-economic environment considers odour, noise, dust, litter and the general economy. We know that systematically low-income and marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by environmental threats, including noise, poor air quality, odour and emissions caused by close proximity to major roadways. This coincides with worse health outcomes, less mobility, isolation and more. We cleaned up air quality in Ontario massively when the coal plants got closed and now, we are just trying to go backward, it seems. This is what the government will continue to perpetuate by completely removing the requirement to engage in environmental assessments for these projects. Why can we not find a way to build necessary infrastructure at a pace that reflects its need but does not completely violate the well-being of communities? This government has not found a way to do that—not yet. There’s always a little glimmer of hope, maybe. Cultural environment examines potential effects to cultural and archaeological resources. Built environment looks at surrounding land use, transportation networks and traffic. This is exactly what I’m talking about—the One Project, One Process approach is really just the government’s way of saying that they can only deal with one project, one process, one problem at a time. Removing the environmental assessment requirements means that this government must plan around creating whole communities. We need to think about how we can connect neighbourhoods, businesses and parks. Landfills: This schedule would allow the government to bypass an environmental assessment when they are proposing to increase a landfill service area, fill rate, or consult with the public in the Environmental Registry of Ontario, the ERO. That’s right, you heard it first: Bigger landfills holding more waste may be coming to your backyard, but definitely not with your input. And we’ve seen that when we debated the bill about Dresden. I’m sure your communities would have something to say about that. We really need to focus on waste diversion. Moreover, these landfill changes will not be subject to natural environment, socio-economic, cultural environment and built environment impact considerations without the environmental assessment. Public consultation: Gutting environmental assessments is not limited to landfills. This government seeks to alter the fundamental environmental assessments by removing the requirement to publish and consult on a ministry review; the opportunity for the public to request a hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal—OLT—while maintaining the minister’s authority to refer an application or matter related to an application to the tribunal for a hearing and decision on their own initiative; remove the requirement for cabinet approval of the minister’s decision on the application for approval to proceed, while providing the minister discretion to refer an application to cabinet for a decision. When the minister of red tape introduced the bill this week, she stated that the comments received in the ERO were often not used in the amendments of the bill. Wow, that’s really telling. There are hundreds and thousands of comments all the time, not just one line, but genuine, thoughtful comments. Simultaneously, their colleagues claimed that feedback has informed bills in depth—so you’re kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth there—that the government’s bills are a response to consultation. So I question how both can be true. I beg the government to genuinely ask themselves, truly reflect on what have you done to earn Ontarians’ trust. What have you done that makes Ontarians feel like you are listening? Your bill claims that there will be ample opportunity for Indigenous consultation, but do you remember Bill 5? I was in committee and they begged for you to come up north to do your consultations there. Instead, they had to pay thousands of dollars to come down all the way to Toronto to speak to us at committee. That is not thoughtful or genuine consultation. Twenty-four First Nations came to Queen’s Park from thousands of kilometres away for weeks to depute, to protest, to voice that Bill 5 was an affront on the duty to consult. The OSAP cuts: Thousands of students rallied outside of Queen’s Park. They were not asked about how their government could best support them. The greenbelt: Did you speak to farmers before? I don’t think so. Did you ask the stewards of the land? Definitely not, but then you had to reverse it because you didn’t do it right the first time. When do you listen? When you do listen, it’s only to a select few: your friends, your donors and your supporters. So when you say that you will consult, you must evaluate the amount of trust in this government that this demands from the public. I’m not against efficiencies or changing a system. I want to get ’er done. But truly changing to make it better for you? You’ve not shown that you can be trusted. Your rap sheet includes, but is certainly not limited to, selling off the greenbelt, completely exempting certain zones from regulatory oversight, time-allocating countless bills, bypassing public feedback on bills and skirting debate, buying a private jet for almost $30 million during an affordability crisis, pausing the affordable housing mandate, investing in a strip club with public funds and, most recently, legislating shielding the Premier, ministers and their staff from any obligation to disclose their records under the freedom of information act. Schedule 6, the last one I will speak about, is the Ombudsman Act. I am definitely with and I really valued the comments from my colleague from Nickelback—Nickel Belt, sorry, Nickel Belt. They were bang on.

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

You’re not the first one to make that mistake.

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

I just have the songs in my head. How is this a red tape concern? Please explain to me how baking bilingualism into the Ombudsman Act is in service of red tape reduction, because what I see here are some of the most glaring examples of red tape. Schedule 6, enshrining in the Ombudsman Act a requirement for the Ontario Ombudsman to speak English and French, was undoubtedly an afterthought slapdashed into the nearest bill they could find because if it were a serious thought, it would have been done right the first time. In this government’s press release, the decision is framed as “strengthening access to French-language services.” Let’s review how we got here. In their first fall economic statement, the Premier and his government cut French-language services. Two key features of Franco-Ontario: This government cancels the French-instruction university in Toronto promised during his campaign and rolls the previously independent French Language Services Commissioner under the umbrella of the Ombudsman’s office, much to the outrage of the Franco-Ontarian communities and their colleagues in the Quebec government. If you are genuine in supporting Franco-Ontarians, you would leave the French Language Services Commissioner as an independent officer. That’s number one. Well, the fall economic statement is an announcement of priorities, so this particular statement confirms that right from the get-go, French language and Franco-Ontarians would not be prioritized. But this is not the end of the offences—no. The 2024-25 French Language Services Commissioner’s report reveals the systematic deviation and discreditation of Ontario as a genuinely bilingual province. Namely, the report details the many times the duty to provide active offer was neglected in everything from road signs, court services, government websites to public consultations and more. “Active offer” specifically outlines the legal obligation that services must be offered in French from the first point of contact without request. Not only were French-language speakers repeatedly unable to easily access French services, but a regulation meant to provide limited exemption to certain types of publications from offering French options was abused to skirt responsibility. Regarding the adjustment to the Ombudsman Act laid out in Bill 105, the story is more of the same: French language and creating an inclusive society that lives the spirit of bilingualism is not a priority for this government, and can and will be sidelined based on the government’s poor discretion. The Ombudsman hiring process began in November 2025. The committee is comprised of members from all parties. We reviewed hundreds of résumés and worked with HR. There were countless opportunities for this government to declare that the next Ombudsman be bilingual, but nothing—crickets—

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Sorry to interrupt the member. Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue. I recognize the member from Essex.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Please continue the debate.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

I return to the member from Beaches–East York.

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

That was a surprise. Thanks for that. Where was the Minister of Francophone Affairs during this whole process? That is a good question. People expended their time, money and resources applying for this position, a position that many did not have any shot at in the first place because this government failed to think through the needs of Ontario. They failed to consult with each other and those with expertise on important issues. They failed to pay attention to what was going on around them, and to honour a promise to the Franco-Ontarian community. The thing that makes the circus even more wild is that the government claims that they know best to the point that they have made a habit out of removing the power and decision-making capabilities from the hands of councils, conservation authorities, city planners and school boards because, according to the government, they weren’t “efficient,” they weren’t “responsible,” and there was “too much red tape” and “duplication.” Because this government handled this process, they initiated a costly program—check; drew out and delayed the process—check; shifted responsibility from ministry to ministry—check. Then they started all over again when they decided to add bilingualism as a requirement to the Ombudsman Act. So I guess I do not understand why this bill is under the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction with this section. I suppose that is exactly what happens when people and the systems and programs that were designed to meet and protect the needs are viewed as red tape to cut, crumple or throw out.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Schedule 4 of the bill in front of us right now talks about making regulations “governing the admission of graduates of a medical”—I’m literally reading from schedule 4—“a medical school outside of Canada to an Ontario medical residency program, including prescribing processes” for that. We call that CaRMS, Canadian Resident Matching System. I think the member from Beaches–East York is somewhat familiar with the proposition in front of us. It’s to encourage Ontario-linked individuals to get into the process and get them a residency and perhaps even to give them a little bit of preference. I invite her to offer her observations on that proposition.

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

Thank you very much to my fellow member from Essex, Ontario. Yes, I think this schedule 4, although I did not mention it in my speech, is a good step forward, for sure, so thank you for doing that. I would just say, if you truly believe in supporting health care and ending our health care crisis, you might actually do things like sign off on the phase 2 development project for Michael Garron Hospital, which is in my riding. They have been waiting over three years for you to sign off on it. It will take probably 10 years for it to be built once you do sign off. Unfortunately, the last time I asked the Minister of Health about signing off on it, she just smirked at me.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Thank you to the member for Beaches–East York for your remarks on this bill. One of the things that Bill 105 does is extend WSIB coverage to 29,000 workers in residential care facilities and group homes. Obviously, every time more workers in Ontario have access to protection in cases of injury, that’s a good thing, but there are still 1.5 million workers in Ontario who don’t have access to WSIB. If we look at another care profession, child care workers have no protection. We know that’s a profession that’s already having difficulty retaining and recruiting workers. Their wages are very low. In many cases, there is no wage grid that allows them progress throughout years, and then they have no protection against injury when it occurs. Does member think that the bill should go much, much further, that the government should actually provide protection to the 1.5 million Ontarians who still have none?

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

Thank you very much to the member from Ottawa West–Nepean. That’s a great question. I’ll throw this government a teensy, tiny bone on this bill. There are some good things in it, but, as usual—it’s interesting. Sometimes, they take baby steps. This is a baby step. Everyone should be covered. It’s 2026. We know we want to take care of Ontarians in general, but especially in the workplace, especially child care workers, who are doing God’s work, essentially, taking care of our future generations. But they take baby steps with some things and then they just ram through, like a bull in a china shop, with other things. It kind of defies logic, but I’m with you: They all need to be supported.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I’d like to ask my colleague about schedule 2, which changes the Environmental Assessment Act. I wanted to ask her a couple of things. What is motivating the government to do this? And how does removing the requirement that the government review comprehensive environmental assessments affect the average person living in Ontario?

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

Thank you to my fine-feathered friend and colleague from Kingston and the Islands for your great question. What it does to Ontarians, by removing the Environmental Assessment Act, it actually is a very dangerous move and it puts them more at risk. If you’re removing environmental oversight from landfill sites, that’s very dangerous. We know that this government does—first of all, they’re allergic to the words “climate change,” I’ve said that before. But they also do things under the guise that it will speed up building housing, because they think anything to do with the environment slows it down, which is completely unfactual. We know the green development standards have not slowed down any type of housing, including in Toronto, where we were 51% higher on our housing starts with the green development standards.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

I would like to ask the member across, on francophone services. Speaker, our government has continued to strengthen access to French-language services, including expanding the six designated areas under the French Language Services Act, and we know now that the Ombudsman can work much more efficiently in both languages. The member opposite, should you be supporting this motion?

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

To the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore, thank you very much for the question. I’m glad you gave me more time to talk about this, because section 6 gets under my skin—because it’s too late. You should have done it in the first place. If respecting Franco-Ontarians was so important to you, you would have kept the French Language Services Commissioner as an independent officer, number one. The fact that you didn’t, you threw that role into the Ombudsman area, is completely disrespectful. Number two, if this were so important to you to have the Ombudsman bilingual, you would have said so at the beginning of the process in November 2025. You wouldn’t have waited until the process is basically over and we have to start all over again because of your mix-up.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

A reminder to speak through the Chair. Question?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

Still on section 6, where the Ombudsman—in a bill that has to do with Ontario workers and has nothing to do with the Ombudsman. The position in 10 years from now will have to be posted as bilingual. How does that make you feel and how do you think the francophone population in Ontario feels that a government who took away the French Language Services Commissioner, the Black Thursday of November 15, saw 40,000 Franco-Ontarian on December 1 push back against the government decision—and then sees a government who thinks about making the position of Ombudsman bilingual after the process has already gone. Do you think that this makes Franco-Ontarians feel good?

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

Thank you very much to the member from Nickel Belt, who has been such a strong advocate for Franco-Ontarian communities. I don’t understand because, actually, there are many MPPs across the floor who do speak French, that are bilingual—I think that’s great, but where were their voices when we first started the Ombudsman process in November? Where were the voices when we formed the selection committee, when we put out the job advertisement that did not say bilingual, when we had all the résumés come in—hundreds—who wouldn’t want to be the Ontario Ombudsman, right—and then we start the interviews? It is so disrespectful. It’s disrespectful to people who applied. It’s disrespectful to the Francophone community. Thank you for sharing about Black Thursday. I’m sorry to the francophone community for what has happened.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

The member from Beaches–East York had said that perhaps the Minister of Health was grinning at her. If the Minister of Health was grinning, the Minister was probably grinning because of the completion of the new eight-storey hospital tower at Michael Garron Hospital, which the Ministry of Infrastructure spent approximately $500 million on, which was a fantastic addition to Michael Garron Hospital and I’m sure is a spectacular, spectacular accomplishment.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Thank you. A very quick response from the member from Beaches–East York.

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

The Minister of Health was not grinning, she was smirking, and she even drew a smirky picture afterwards and waved it. Thank you for that first installation, but their ER is over capacity and they need help, and you’re not giving it to them.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Further debate? Further debate? I recognize the member for Essex.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There was just a little delay on my part because I was double-checking with the whip. I wanted to start off with somewhat of an anecdote, which will touch directly upon the very important provisions in the bill before us today. I’ll start my anecdote by observing that the member from Windsor–Tecumseh yesterday ordered pizza for our caucus. It was fantastic pizza, and it was a lot of pizza. And I’m calling it pizza because that’s what it is. My understanding is that other people refer to this as “Windsor pizza.” After a bit of discussion, I understood why that was. Of course, I had always known it as pizza because I grew up in Essex county. Eventually, as time went on, I learned that other people referred to it as “Windsor pizza.” And this is how I learned it: I went to law school. We sat down to eat some pizza. We opened the box and I said, “Oh, dear, a terrible mistake has been made. They made the pizza wrong. We should send it back and tell them to make it right.” And everybody stared at me blankly. I said, “What’s the issue here? I know what’s right and wrong. We need to send the pizza back and have them make it properly.” People questioned me about that, and I explained to them how pizza is made. They said, “Well, that’s Windsor pizza. We don’t make Windsor pizza.” That’s how I learned that there was pizza, and then there was pizza. We discussed that a lot during law school, and that could take up an entire day of discussion in itself, but I’m going to skip that part of law school. I’m going to go to the part where I graduated, notwithstanding the long discussions regarding culinary preparations. When you finish law school, you have to do something called articling, and articling is something like an apprenticeship for law students. Some people refer to that as your articling year. People refer to the people doing their articling year as articling students. Colloquially, you can call an articling student a “lawyerling.” Sometimes we call them “lawyerlings.” When I was a lawyerling, I got an articling position at a law firm called Fazio Martini, which sounds like a delicious drink but it’s actually a law firm, or was at that time. When you start out as a lawyerling, as an articling student, they typically give you tasks which are not complicated so that you can get some experience under your belt and prepare yourself for more complicated tasks. In those days, I was assigned to go to landlord and tenant court, which used to be held in a courtroom. Today, it’s held at a tribunal, but back then it was held in a courtroom. As a lawyerling, I went down to the courthouse and I sat down in landlord and tenant court and waited for the judge to arrive. Judges hated doing landlord and tenant court because they perceived it as being perhaps below their experience. I certainly didn’t see it that way, but I think some judges saw it that way. We calmly waited for the judge to come in, and then the judge entered and climbed up the very high dais to sit in the judge’s chair. Madam Speaker, you’re sitting on a dais today, but the judge’s dais is much higher than that. And so, the judge climbed up onto the dais and sat in the chair, and immediately got a scowl on his face. He was very dissatisfied with the chair. He started complaining that the chair was uncomfortable; it was not ergonomic. He stood up and he literally, Madam Speaker, grabbed the chair and shoved it, and it went bang, bang, bang down the dais, down the steps. It created a big commotion. The courtroom staff were shocked. I was shocked. The other lawyerlings were shocked. The judge stormed out of the courtroom demanding a new chair. Eventually, the courtroom staff, after doing a considerable amount of scurrying around, found an ergonomic chair, put it on the dais and called the judge back. The judge reconvened the court, and then we started calling cases. Case after case after case, that judge tore a strip off of every single articling student that appeared in front of him. And then it was my turn, and he tore a strip off my back. I replied with something that might be interpreted as impertinent, and he interpreted it that way and it didn’t land well. This judge, he adopted the fiercest scowl on his face—he looked like a gargoyle hanging off of Notre-Dame cathedral. He scrunched himself up like that and he said this to me: “Mr. Leardi, you’re going to learn law the way I learned law—the hard way.” That, Madam Speaker, leads me into the topic of today’s debate, which is how we train professionals in the province of Ontario. In this particular bill, we talk about professionals, and they are medical professionals, and in this particular bill, we talk about graduates, and they are medical graduates. Doctors also go through a form of apprenticeship after finishing their medical schooling; it’s called residency. It’s a form of apprenticeship—I call it that, anyway. Doctors applying for residency go through a process called CaRMS—Canadian residency matching system. As the system exists today, if you’re a graduate from a Canadian medical school, then you have no problem applying to CaRMS. CaRMS is broken up into two rounds—there’s a first round and a second round—and if you’re from a Canadian medical school, you can apply to both rounds. If you’re not a graduate from a Canadian medical school, you can still apply; however, there are fewer opportunities open to you. International medical graduates can still apply, and they can still get a residency position in Ontario. However, there’s a slight issue with the system. People raised in Ontario, who might have gone to high school in Ontario, who might have done their undergraduate degree in Ontario, who are permanent residents of Ontario and who have a very powerful connection with Ontario—whether that powerful connection is through residency or citizenship—might need to go outside of Canada for their medical school education. And if they want to come back and do their residency in Ontario, they’re not treated like they’re from Ontario; they’re treated like everybody else who got their education outside of Canada. I don’t think that’s quite fair, and I don’t think it serves the needs of our province. Because what we really want is to make sure that people who do their residency in Ontario stay in Ontario and don’t leave after they finish. We want these newly trained doctors to stay in Ontario and not leave Ontario. That’s why this piece of legislation is in front of us. I’ll make specific reference to schedule 4, because schedule 4 seeks to address this issue. The proposal still breaks down the application process for CaRMS—Canadian residency matching system—into two rounds, round 1 and round 2. The first round is proposed to have a certain number of seats reserved for people who got their medical education in Canada, and then a certain number of seats to be reserved for people who got their medical education outside of Canada but have a strong connection to Ontario. That’s round 1. Then, in round 2, there’s the proposition that the seats will be reserved, again, in certain proportions: a certain proportion for people who got their medical education in Canada; a certain proportion for people who got their medical education outside Canada but who have a very strong connection to Ontario; and people who got their medical education outside of Canada, regardless of their connection to Ontario. And of course, everybody will have more opportunity under the system because of the progress made by our government. There will be more opportunity because our government has increased the number of students being trained in our various medical schools. In addition to that, we are expanding the number of medical schools in Ontario. Of course, when you expand the number of people being educated at the medical schools, that means you’re going to have more medical school graduates, which means you’re going to have more people into the system, and that gives more opportunity out there for people to pursue that course of professional development. When fully implemented, our government’s plan will add approximately 340 additional educational spots for people to pursue a medical education. That is a very big increase, and it should come as welcome news. In addition to that, we are increasing the number of residency training positions that will be available. Also, when fully implemented, we will be adding more than 500 residency positions. A residency position, of course, is the apprenticeship process that a medical graduate goes through after graduating from the medical school—and then goes into the apprenticeship process called residency. There will be over 500 more spots when fully implemented, and that, of course, creates more opportunity for everyone. It creates more opportunity for those individuals who have a medical degree from a Canadian university, and it creates more opportunity for those people who have their medical degree from a university outside of Canada as well. So everybody benefits, but the primary beneficiary, of course, is going to be the patients of Ontario. These are changes being proposed by our government in Bill 105, which is the bill that we are speaking about today. These changes are practical. They are fair. We are protecting Ontario’s health care system. We are protecting Ontario’s medical students and making sure that we have a reliable pipeline of talent going into the future. I will also take this opportunity to talk about a few of the other accomplishments of our government in the field of the Ministry of Health. First, I’d like to talk about the remarkable increase in the number of nurses who have been registered in the province of Ontario. Since taking office in the year 2018, this government has registered approximately 100,000 nurses in the province of Ontario. I was kindly asked about that yesterday, and when you calculate the net benefit—because of course, there are always people entering the profession and exiting the profession. Some people exit the profession for retirement. Some people exit the profession for other reasons. And some people enter the profession. So we will talk about the net new increase of nurses in Ontario. And the net increase of nurses in Ontario is 15% since this government took office in 2018. In addition to that, this government has seen approximately 20,000 doctors enter Ontario since taking office in 2018. That is also a very excellent achievement. I would also like to take an opportunity since this bill also talks about schedule 7, the Retirement Homes Act, to touch a bit on that and this government’s accomplishments in that area. We’ve heard the member from Peterborough discuss the benefits that have accrued to his riding as a result of the efforts made by our government. The member for Peterborough correctly observes that in his riding alone, this government has added an additional 800 resident spots for people in various retirement homes and long-term-care homes. Those 800 spots exceed all of the spots created by the previous Liberal government in their entire 15 years of governing the province, which I believe is quite a remarkable achievement. But there’s going to be more because in my riding of Essex, we have two new homes being built. One is being built in the town of Belle River, which will add a net increase of 80 spots, transferring 80 spots from a former home in a town which is now going to be transferred to Belle River. The 80 spots will be, of course, upgraded into a modern, state-of-the-art facility and add an additional 80 spots, for a total of 160 resident spots for people in the town of Belle River, for a net gain of 80 in that location. Then, in the town of Amherstburg, the same thing is happening. Another home is being, let’s say, transferred into another use.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Those 80 spots are being transferred to Amherstburg, and an additional 80 spots are being added, for a net gain of 80 spots, for a total of 160 retirement home resident spots in the town of Amherstburg. So I just wanted to touch on those accomplishments at that time. Finally, I want to turn my attention to what I had alluded to earlier in my speech. In the final analysis—notwithstanding the words of the gargoyle-esque judge in the landlord and tenant court on that particular day—I did not wind up learning law the hard way; I wound up learning law my way. Eventually, after receiving guidance and initial training at other law firms, I moved on and I founded my own law firm. As a sole practitioner lawyer, I gradually built up my law practice and became, with time, moderately successful at it. I hired an assistant. I hired articling students of my own—lawyerlings of my own—who I then trained and hopefully gave good guidance and a fair amount of mentoring to. They entered the system—in this particular instance, the law system, the legal system. I’m proud to say that many of them are still practising law today. That’s how these systems work: They go from university training to training under the mentorship of an existing professional to the final stage, where you go off on your own and practise on your own and then maybe even train people yourself. The medical system operates in a similar fashion, where people who study medicine at university graduate and then do a period of training and then go off on their own, either as individuals or in a group practice and then maybe even train people under their own wing. That’s a good thing. It should continue to happen. As a sole practitioner lawyer who then eventually hired lawyers as well as part of a small, boutique-type practice, we did do long hours of work. It was quite routine for us to work past the regular hours that other people work. We worked until 8 o’clock at night, 9 o’clock at night, 10 o’clock at night. So during last night’s discussion, when other people were observing that it was dark outside, I didn’t find anything particularly unusual about that because I routinely work to 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock or 10 o’clock at night. I did that when I was a lawyer and continue to do that today. I do think that, perhaps, not everybody should be required to do that, and it was clear that we did force some members of this House—not all, but some members of this House—to stay up past their bedtime. That’s an unusual thing, but I can say, in the final analysis, the pizza was very good. I fuelled myself up, and that helps you get through the dark hours of the night.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

The member talked a little bit about the changes for retirement homes in this bill. We all know that retirement homes—if you make a complaint, it is an industry-driven agency that handles your complaint. We all know that in retirement homes, they are allowed to increase the cost of everything but rent every 90 days, and many of them do. Whether it is the cost of food, the cost of cleaning your place or doing the laundry, many of them increase. People put in complaints and say, “Why does the cost of living here keep increasing and increasing?” The industry-driven complaint mechanism says that it’s allowed, and that’s the end of it. Do you figure this is a fair way to deal with the 70,000 frail, elderly people who live in retirement homes?

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

I appreciate the question from la députée de Nickel Belt. There is a complaint mechanism in place, not only for what she just mentioned, but also there are government-appointed inspectors who go into the various homes across the province of Ontario. You can file a complaint with a government-appointed inspector who will then determine whether or not that particular home is in compliance with government regulations and laws. That is a frequent mechanism that can be used if you choose to use that mechanism. Many people discuss these issues directly with staff and management at the various facilities, and many, many disagreements are resolved in that fashion as well. So yes, there’s more than one mechanism to resolve these issues, and everybody should try to use the mechanism that’s right for them.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mr. Matthew Rae

Thank you to my colleague from Essex for his very riveting remarks this morning. I always enjoy when the member from Essex rises in the House to speak. I was wondering if they could elaborate—I know he spoke extensively, because he is the parliamentary assistant to health, on some of the changes in the Ministry of Health we’re proposing through this legislation. But I know the Minister of Red Tape Reduction and our entire government have worked hard to reduce costs for small businesses and Ontarians, putting more money back in their pockets, reducing regulations. I was wondering if the member from Essex can share with this place how this bill, if passed, will build upon those great successes.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

What a great question from the chief government whip. He’s probably heard me before talking about my experience as a boutique lawyer in the province of Ontario. When the government increases costs or increases compliance—we’ll call it compliance; it’s really regulation—small businesses either have to eat the cost or pass the cost on to their customers. In the case of my law office, we tried to come up with very inventive ways of trying to make sure that things got done without having to pass the cost on to the customer, on to the client, and sometimes that’s just impossible. Sometimes the only way you can do that is to pass the cost on to the client, which makes, of course, things more expensive for everybody and sometimes defeats what you’re trying to accomplish.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Through you, Speaker, to the member from Essex: In the bill now, within six months of certification, if there’s not a collective agreement reached in union negotiations within six months, there could be a decertification vote. I used to bargain first collective agreements for a living. I did it for about three years for SEIU. There’s almost never a collective agreement within six months. So I’m wondering if the member could tell me: Did the government fail to do its homework or is this just a blatant attack on unions?

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

The member has asked me quite a complex issue, and I suppose I could answer it by making reference to the law. But I remember once that the member accused me of using legal mumbo-jumbo. I don’t want to use any legal mumbo-jumbo. I just want to say that the certification process can’t go on forever. Nobody wants it to go on forever, and there has to be a point in time when people decide whether or not they’re going to become a member of a union or a member of a different union. There has to be a cut-off date to be fair to people who choose to join a union. You have to be fair to people who choose to join a union, so there has to be a cut-off date. We could have a long discussion about where the cut-off has to be. I’m sure people would have fair opinions on where it has to be, and I’m sure this discussion will continue, but to be fair to union members, there has to be a deadline.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

My question to the member for Essex: Speaker, Ontario families need more doctors. We need a physician workforce plan that brings talent home and keeps it here, especially in the communities that need doctors most. Can the member explain how the proposed CaRMS revisions prioritize Ontario-connected international medical graduates and strengthen our physician pipeline?

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

I want to thank the member for that question. I know that this is an issue that’s going to be particularly important for his riding because it’s those types of ridings—rural ridings, northern ridings, communities that need assistance in attracting doctors—those are precisely the ones who are going to benefit from these provisions the most. Because what these provisions do is they say, if you happen to be a permanent resident of Ontario and you have a strong connection to Ontario and you just happen to have gotten your medical degree from outside of Canada, we’re not going to treat you negatively just because you got your medical degree outside of Canada. We’re going to recognize that you have a strong, strong connection to Ontario and you want to come back and stay in Ontario and become a doctor in Ontario. So we’re going to do that. We’re going to recognize people who have a strong connection to Ontario and give them the benefit that they did not previously enjoy.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

This bill, as the member pointed out, prohibits employers from charging employees for the purchase of their uniforms or for laundering their uniforms, which is great for the employees who will be covered by that schedule. However, the bill also allows the Ministry of Labour to reimburse employers for the cost of required protective headwear. So my question is, why is this government subsidizing major employers like EllisDon by enabling the compensation of those employers for the cost of required protective headwear?

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Yes, it’s great progress to make sure that a required branded uniform is not adopted at the cost of the employee, that a required branded uniform must be paid for by the employer. That’s progress. As I’ve said in previous remarks in this chamber, we have introduced previous legislation which we have colloquially dubbed Working for Workers. And I had said that we would continue introducing Working for Workers legislation. I had really gone on a crusade, saying we would have 13 and 14 and 15 and continuing and continuing, because we’re going to continue making progress. We’ve made progress since 2018. We’ve shown that progress over the last eight very short years of government, and I’m quite confident that we’re going to continue making progress, maybe not specifically as the member from London West—who, by the way, is a very great conversationalist and I give her that compliment. It might not be specifically what she requested today, but it will certainly be progress and it will continue over the course of this government.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

There is not time for another round of questions and answers.

Official source

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Official source

Mr. Aris Babikian

As the grandson of survivors of the Armenian and Greek genocides, I am honoured to rise in this House to pay tribute to the memory of one and a half million Armenians and one million Greeks who were victims of state-sponsored and premeditated crimes against humanity. Tomorrow, Armenians around the world will mark the 111th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. As a member of the provincial Parliament, I join Armenians globally and all those who stand for truth and justice in commemorating the memory of one of the most heinous crimes of the 20th century. April 24 is not only a day of solemn remembrance. It is also a moment of responsibility. It reminds us that historical injustice must never be forgotten or ignored, and that preventing genocide requires principled leadership and unwavering commitment to the truth. I am proud that Canada, including the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, the government of Canada and the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, has recognized the Armenian genocide, and remains committed to upholding human rights, preventing crimes against humanity, and strengthening international accountability. May this day serve not only as remembrance, but—

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Thank you.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

I’d like to give a shout-out to the reigning Canadian Baseball League champions, the Welland Jackfish, as they prepare for their home opener on Saturday, May 16. The evening promises to be a memorable one, featuring an all-new pre-game plaza party, a championship banner giveaway for fans, an official banner unveiling and post-game fireworks. Last season marked a record-breaking milestone for the organization as they welcomed over 67,000 fans for the first time in franchise history. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many of the players and staff, and they are champions both on and off the field. Their deep connection to the Welland community is evident in their ongoing support for local food drives and community initiatives. Their commitment goes far beyond the diamond. Recently, at the 52nd Welland Sports Awards Night, Welland Jackfish majority owner and team president Ryan Harrison accepted the special recognition award as the team’s director to honour what they have contributed to the community. Congratulations to the entire Jackfish organization. We look forward to another record-setting season.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

For the past two years, my office has conducted a community survey to better understand the needs of my constituents in Don Valley East. It’s how I make sure that their voice is reflected in my voice every time I rise in this chamber. This year, our survey revealed that 61% of my constituents rank health care as their number one priority, with 39.6% of them saying their top local concern is improving access to family physicians and their hospital. Another 16.6% reported that prescription drug costs are affecting their household budgets, and 28.9% said rising costs have forced them to delay medical or dental care. These are astonishing numbers that the Premier and members of this House need to hear. My constituents aren’t asking for alcohol and convenience stores or a tunnel under the 401; they’re asking for health care that’s accessible, reliable and meeting their needs, because right now, it isn’t. That’s why this government must work faster to publicly integrate nurse practitioners; to adopt pharmacare; to fund our hospitals, including Michael Garron Hospital; and to introduce a real retention strategy for health care workers that are overworked and far too often under-appreciated. Thank you to everyone who is participating in our community survey. Your voice is heard and directly shaping the work and advocacy that I do here on behalf of Don Valley East.

Official source

MPP Billy Denault

This week is National Volunteer Week, and I want to say a big thank you to all the volunteers in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. In my first year in office, I’ve had the privilege of travelling to many organizations to honour and acknowledge the role volunteers play in our community. They truly are the backbone and lifeblood of what makes rural Ontario shine. From Legions to Lions, Optimists to Kiwanis, they embody the community spirit in every activity they take part in. Palmer Rapids Lions Club, Renfrew Lions Club, Arnprior Optimists, Arnprior Rotary Club, and the Legions in Arnprior, Pembroke, Petawawa, Calabogie, Renfrew, Chalk River and Barry’s Bay—I have had the opportunity to attend celebrations with them all, and many more community organizations. But true to form, it’s the people within these organizations who make the difference in small towns across my riding. I also want to acknowledge today the passing of a super volunteer in our community, Rev. Leo Hughes of Arnprior, who passed on April 11, 2026. His kindness, care and compassion rang out on every Remembrance Day, at the cenotaph, on the 11th day and the 11th hour. His voice etched into every boy and girl, every man and woman who attended, as the words rang from his heart like a melody. To the Hughes family, I extend my deepest sympathies. May his example remind us of our duty to serve our communities with honour, compassion, care and the heart, as he did.

Official source

Ms. Catherine Fife

On March 10, Dr. Andi Jones passed away after a courageous battle with cancer. Andi gave so much to her community of Penetang. Andi was a teacher and mentor to so many in family, sports and emergency medicine, including as the team physician for the under-18 Canadian women’s national hockey team. Dr. Jones dedicated more than 24 years to the Georgian Bay General Hospital as an ER doctor. She was the first full-time female emergency physician at the hospital, paving the way for future generations of women in emergency medicine. They dedicated a room to her at GBH. My friend Jeannie MacGillivray said this about Andi: “Her intelligence, tenacity and generosity are what made Andi such a phenomenal teacher. To be an exceptional teacher, one has to be willing to give so much of oneself. She was a natural.” She was also an exceptional friend, daughter, sister, wife, and loving parent. In Jeannie’s eulogy, she wrote: “Jack, Case, Cal and Tate (and Olivia and Soph)—you are so loved. Her love for you was palpable and fierce. She loved each of you so uniquely that her voice had a different tenor when she would speak about each of you. “A love that profound doesn’t dissipate or fade—it’s etched in your DNA, it’s the essence of your being and will always be part of who you are. So when life is hard, remember that love and draw the strength you need from it.” Sincere condolences to Andi’s loving husband, Dan, and parents, Tom and Lindy, family and community. Thank you for sharing Andi with us.

Official source

MPP Mohamed Firin

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize and celebrate the Learning Enrichment Foundation, a Toronto-based charitable organization that has served one of our city’s most diverse communities for more than four decades. Established in 1978 and headquartered in Mount Dennis, the Learning Enrichment Foundation has grown from a small community initiative into a cornerstone of York South–Weston. Each year, LEF provides licensed child care to over 2,000 children and families and supports more than 6,100 individuals through settlement services, language training, and employment and skills training programs. Programs like the Family Well-Being Program give parents and caregivers tools to strengthen relationships and prevent youth violence, while the youth program empowers people through mentorship, leadership training, career counselling and recreational activities. LEF’s social enterprise bicycle assembly and repair program—BAM—provides affordable bike repairs and, through a partnership with the Air Canada Foundation, has given bicycles and helmets to children in the local community. Looking ahead, LEF is continuing to build economic resilience as they are redeveloping properties into a 14-storey mixed-use development in the riding that will put community and economic development at its heart. Once completed, it will offer 149 units of affordable housing and approximately 30,000 square feet of community space, creating a vibrant hub where residents can live, learn, work and shop. Madam Speaker, I’m proud to stand with the Learning Enrichment Foundation and thank them for more than four decades of dedicated service to the community of York South–Weston.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

I rise today to stand up for workers, families, and small businesses who rely on the Fort Erie Race Track. For over a century, this track has supported good local jobs—from the trainers and jockeys to the farmers who supply feed and equipment. It’s one of the largest employers in Fort Erie. But today its future is at risk. A $35-million funding agreement developed with the OLG and Ontario Racing is being delayed by one stakeholder, Woodbine Entertainment Group. The CEO of the Fort Erie Race Track pointed out that the delays from Woodbine are at the direct expense of the remainder of Ontario’s 13 horse-racing venues. The concerns raised are serious. The one person that controls Woodbine, Jim Lawson, can’t be allowed to jeopardize the future of the Fort Erie Racetrack. We’re hearing about restrictions that prevent horses from moving freely between tracks and scheduling decisions that pushed the Prince of Wales Stakes out of the peak summer season. The letter from the Fort Erie Race Track warns that these actions aim to weaken and eventually close the Fort Erie Race Track. Workers at the track haven’t seen a purse increase in nearly a decade. Raising costs are pushing them to the brink. They shouldn’t have to relocate. This is their livelihood. Fort Erie is their home. I’m calling on the government to finalize the agreement as intended, protect jobs, and ensure a fair and balanced horse racing industry. Supporting the Fort Erie Race Track means supporting Niagara.

Official source

Mme Dawn Gallagher Murphy

It is Volunteer Appreciation Week, and I cannot think of a better way to recognize all the outstanding volunteers in my constituency of Newmarket–Aurora. My riding is home to so many non-profit organizations, all of whose work would not be possible, would not get done without the hundreds of volunteers that make it work. This year’s theme is “Ignite Volunteerism.” This is an opportunity to spark new energy, reconnect with community members and recognize the vital role volunteers play in strengthening the social fabric of our community. My office and I owe an endless debt of gratitude to volunteers for their years of support at my signature community events like the annual community barbecue, the seniors expo, non-profit appreciation gathering and community events like this weekend’s Run for Southlake and York Pride parade, as well as the Canada Day parade and the Santa Claus parades. Volunteers make our community kinder, stronger and more supportive. Thank you all, all you amazing volunteers in Newmarket–Aurora, who make a great difference.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Palliative care is so important to each and every one of us. Everyone that lives will one day face death. This is a common reality for all of mankind. I am proud to be a part of a government that has made record investments in palliative care. Hundreds of new hospice beds have been funded across the province since we formed government in 2018, bringing Ontario’s total to 768 beds. Just in my riding, we have two hospice projects currently under way, and last week the Townsend Smith Foundation announced that they would be moving forward with a new name: North Halton Hospice. This change makes the organization’s mission crystal clear, and that mission is to bring a hospice to north Halton. With the property conveniently located on Trafalgar Road in Halton Hills, between Georgetown and Milton, North Halton Hospice is well placed to fill an essential need in our community. Our government has stepped up to support the creation of 10 beds at the North Halton Hospice, representing millions in capital funding. I have been and will continue to be a strong supporter of bringing palliative care to our communities. On May 2, the North Halton Hospice will be hosting their hike for hospice event starting at 10 a.m. In Halton Hills, there will be two hikes, one starting at Prospect Park in Acton and the other at beginning at Norval United Church on Danby Road. If anyone is interested in participating and supporting this important cause, you can register at northhaltonhike.ca. I want to thank executive director Kim Kohlberger, the board of directors and the countless volunteers and donors for their tireless work supporting the North Halton Hospice. I am confident that as a community we will—

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Members, if I could have your attention please.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

It is with mixed emotions that we share that after 36 years of outstanding service of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, PSO constable Michael “Mikey” Grant is retiring tomorrow. Michael is widely respected for his professionalism, reliability, positive spirit, and of course is well known for his contagious laughter. He has also proudly served part-time in the local reserve Queen’s York Rangers regiment. He is deeply valued and will be truly missed. Mikey, we extend our gratitude and best wishes for a well-deserved, fulfilling retirement. We love you, and we will miss you.

Official source

Applause.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Oh, that smile. We’re going to miss that too.

Official source

MPP Mohamed Firin

I’d like to introduce, from the Learning Enrichment Foundation, Amina Yassin, Fei Tang, Elizabeth McBain, Montsy Bassas, Michelle Trigiani, and the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Honourable Laura Albanese, who was also an MPP for York South–Weston.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I’ve spoken about the Patel family, who died in the fatality on Highway 69. Kush Patel, their son, is here, as well as Jay Mahida, Minal Mahida, Pankaj Patel, Hardip Vaghela, Hardipsinh Mahida, Suketu Patel, Puneet Mehta, Parixit Patel, Deep Mahida, Devan Patel and Arsh Patel. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park. They’re going to be having meetings with members from the government side.

Official source

Ms. Marit Stiles

I’d like to introduce some friends from Dufferin–Caledon. From the NDP riding association, we have President Andrea Aloe, Lynda McDougall and Brenna Flynn. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Welcome to your House.

Official source

MPP Billy Denault

This morning, I’d like to welcome to the gallery constituents of mine from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and family members of page John Lepack from Arnprior. Please welcome Tiffany; his dad, Jason; his sister Lucy; and his grandparents Tom and Pam. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams

I’d like to welcome members of the Catholic Women’s League of Canada’s Ontario provincial council to Queen’s Park: Colleen Martin, Hilarion Mitchell, Karen McDonald, Lisa Henry, Linda Squarzolo and Susanna Lubowitz. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Hon. Sylvia Jones

I would like to introduce page captain Henry’s mother, Karla; his dad, Chris; and his brother James. Congratulations, page captain Henry. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

I want to wish a warm welcome to June Muir and Maxine Deleersnyder from the UHC Hub of Opportunities. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon

I’d like to introduce some amazing people from Kayanase and Ogwehoweh Skills and Trades Training Centre, Grand River Employment and Training—especially jazzy Jordon Myers and energetic Erin Monture. Welcome to your House.

Official source

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault

I’d like to welcome my new executive assistant for my constituency, Arlene Morrell, here today; my new executive assistant here at Queen’s Park, Shan Dhanoa; and Jeanue Chung, my retiring executive assistant. I wish him all the best in his new endeavours.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

I’m happy to welcome my good friend and the best man at my wedding, Elijah Gortson, to the Legislature today.

Official source

Mr. Deepak Anand

I would like to introduce a non-partisan, non-political resident group from Sudbury: Jay Mahida, Minal Mahida, Pankaj Patel, Hardip Vaghela, Hardipsinh Mahida, Suketu Patel, Parixit Patel, Deep Mahida, Kush Patel, Devan Patel and Arsh Patel. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Official source

MPP Lisa Gretzky

I’m delighted to welcome June Muir and Maxine Deleersnyder from the UHC Hub of Opportunities. Welcome to Queen’s Park. And to the parents of Windsor West’s page, Dr. Darren Cargill and Amy Seibel: Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

I would like to welcome Linda Squarzolo from the Catholic Women’s League, who came down from my riding to visit. And I’d like to remind everybody that 16 days ago, Vinod and Shilpa Patel died on the two lanes of Highway 69. In the gallery with us today, we have their son, as well as many of their friends from Sudbury, who came down to let the Legislature know what it feels like when you lose a loved one on Highway 69. I’d like to welcome Jay and Minal Mahida, Pankaj Patel, Hardip Vaghela, Hardipsinh Mahida, Suketu Patel, Puneet Mehta, Parixit Patel, Deep Mahida, Kush Patel, Devan Patel and Arsh Patel. Thank you for being here today.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

I recognize the member from Peterborough–Kawartha on a point of order.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

I’d just like to correct my record. Last night in my speech, I said that there were 1,200 people who had been consulted on the budget. There were actually 900 individuals that came and spoke to us directly, 1,000 written submissions and 12,400 electronic submissions.

Official source