Park cars. Or hotel clerks. Because the jobs are not available in their community, they’ve been deemed, so they pay 85% of the difference between the job—not the whole thing. So they’re being deemed, when the jobs don’t exist in their community. And that’s fair?

That is good red tape you could reduce. You need to do better, as a government. You know about this, because injured workers have come to you. They’ve knocked on my door. I’m sure they knock on your door.

Yesterday, we all met with paramedics. What they’re asking for is to have a regulated college for professional paramedics. Right now, paramedics are working outside of their scope, because they’ve been asked by this government to work outside of their regulations. So they’re working unregulated. And you think that’s fair? You want to make good red tape reduction? Make that—you’ll save $21 million. We don’t hear you on this. Why aren’t we hearing this? If something happens to any of these paramedics, guess what? It will be on them, because you’ll all wash your hands of it. I think it happened in Windsor, the situation they were telling me—and the paramedic was the one who was dinged for it. Where is the fairness when you’re asking paramedics to work outside of their scope, unregulated? Where is the fairness in that for these workers? You say you’re for the workers.

I heard one of the government MPPs saying that it’s music to her ears when she hears about red tape reduction. Well, it’s not music to the injured workers’ ears when they’re being deemed; I can tell you that much. It’s not music to the paramedics’ ears when they’re being asked to work outside of their scope or in unregulated places and they’ve been stepping up to the plate over and over and over again. I can tell you it’s not music to the ears of First Nations communities when they can’t expand their communities, when they have a lack of housing. Two or three generations are living in a house that was only made for a small family, because they have nowhere to go. That is not music to our ears. It shouldn’t be music to your ears. And yet, you don’t address that red tape. You always play political Ping-Pong—“Oh, it’s federal.” I’m sorry, but it’s not federal—you’re a signatory; we’re all signatories to Treaty 9, for that matter. Boil-water advisories should not exist in Ontario. That is not music to our ears. It shouldn’t be music to your ears, either.

Do the right thing. Fix boil-water advisories in First Nations. Fix the housing crisis in First Nations. Fix deeming. And repeal Bill 124.

Did you know that if you lose hearing in one ear, you’re not qualified because you hear in the other ear? And yet, if you hurt a shoulder, they take that into consideration. How does that make sense?

Deeming doesn’t make sense. Deeming should be—

When you look at northern Ontario, because of the isolation—they shouldn’t be subject to have to move because there is not work in their community. The government should pass a bill saying that for anything farther than 60 kilometres, people should not be—because it affects the family. They lose their family, unfortunately—

Interjections.

Interjection.

Our duty, as the official opposition, is to question—and recommend. We do a lot of recommendations in committee and all this—and how much do you take? Absolutely zero. So I’m sorry, but no, unfortunately, this is our job, and we want to make sure that we tell the government what needs to be done.

I want to touch on some of the things that you talked about in your speech—or rather, that you didn’t talk about in your speech. You talked about things that weren’t in this bill, but I’d like to remind the member that every time we’ve introduced an omnibus bill, the NDP have objected to it and said that we’re piling everything together.

In my speech, I mentioned that we had more than 350,000 regulations in Ontario—the next largest province was British Columbia, at 169,000. Would the member opposite change his mind and support an omnibus bill that wipes out almost 200,000 regulations so that we could get back down to what was in other provinces, and that includes a number of the things he’s asking for, if we were to do that?

I want to make sure that I compliment the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay on his conversation. On this side, we regularly talk about the need for boil-water advisories in Ontario and how shameful it is—for a very long time, 27 years, which goes back through multiple governments, so I’m not pointing the finger. But I am saying that the government of the day, the Conservative Party, has been in power going on five years now. This is your opportunity to take just one of those boil-water advisories and fix it. He mentioned that one of them has been there for 27 years. Does he think there’s any reason that the Conservative government couldn’t tackle one of these and get rid of the boil-water advisory? And would that cut down on red tape and burden for businesses?

Questions?

Je veux remercier mon collègue de me poser la question, puis je vais te répondre en français parce que c’est beaucoup plus facile pour moi, parler en français.

Définitivement, il n’y a aucune raison. Si on se souvient de Walkerton—j’en ai parlé un petit peu—ça s’est réglé assez rapidement. On a une communauté dans Kiiwetinoong où ça fait 27 ans qu’ils font bouillir leur eau. On ne parle pas, là, d’en dehors, d’un autre pays dans le tiers-monde; on parle—en Ontario—d’une communauté dans le nord-ouest de l’Ontario.

Une chose qu’ils pourraient faire pour le régler : on le fait, et on envoie une partie de la facture au fédéral. On l’a mis dans notre plateforme, nous. Pourquoi le gouvernement ne fait-il pas la bonne chose? Pourquoi le gouvernement ne dit-il pas : « Non, ça fait assez longtemps que ça dure. Le fédéral ne veut pas faire sa part. On va régler le problème. On va donner de l’eau potable à la communauté, puis on va envoyer la facture »? Parce qu’on a beaucoup plus les reins solides—une petite communauté comme Kiiwetinoong. Dans Kiiwetinoong, où ils sont obligés de payer l’eau ou d’attendre, où les enfants ne connaissent même pas c’est quoi—ils ont peur de boire de l’eau potable quand ils sortent de leur communauté. Irresponsable.

I’ve talked about different points. Deeming should be fixed. We have injured workers who are starving, going to food banks.

Point of order.

We see this as a red tape reduction bill, but again I want to point out that there’s something that is very much missing, that we know has backlogged a lot of landlords and tenants.

What would it mean to landlords and tenants across this province if we were to deal with the backlog at the landlord and tenant tribunal?

The member from Scarborough–Agincourt.

I am, of course, standing today to speak about the proposed Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act.

It’s no unusual news to any of us here that red tape causes a significant amount of frustration, unnecessary expense and complications in everyday life, not just for governments, but for regular people in Ontario—for our non-profit organizations, individuals, families etc. It stops productivity, it reduces our economic competitiveness and development, and it also tends to put a chilling affect on innovation.

It’s a bit of a niche reference—but what’s the point of having the floor if you can’t throw in a niche reference here and there? I’m a big fan of Douglas Adams’s The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. When I think about red tape, I’m reminded of the Vogons in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which Adams describes as one of the most unpleasant populations in the galaxy due to their bureaucratic and officious nature. I’ll quote it directly: The Vogons “wouldn’t even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.” That sounds a lot like some of the red tape that we’ve been cutting through.

To go to another great, Oscar Wilde said, “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” That is what we are trying to stop here.

It also reminds me of one of my favourite questions to ask when I meet with stakeholders or constituents. I’ll say, “We’ve talked about a lot of the big issues, the overarching academic issues. Now can you please tell me the little tiny thing about a government process that makes you want to bang your head against the wall? Because we don’t necessarily know about it, and we won’t be able to do anything about it unless you tell us.”

Really, that’s what this bill is—this bill is the result of the government having a very clear mandate and acting on that to consult, to learn, to listen and to identify those things that make people want to bang their heads against the wall. It’s about red tape. It’s about bureaucracy. It’s about not burying everything in soft peat and recycling it as firelighters.

I’m going to talk about a few of the parts of this bill that are of specific relevance to me, whether in my position in energy or some of my more personal interests and projects.

One of the aspects of this bill—I’m parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy—is about the leave-to-construct thresholds. Currently, under the Ontario Energy Board Act, the OEB will review leave-to-construct applications for these electricity transmission projects and will grant leave, or permission, to carry out the work if it’s in the public interest to do so, looking at the needs of the project, the proposals, their price etc.

Prior to what is set out in this bill—or what this bill will change, if passed—electricity transmission projects that are greater than two kilometres in length have to go through the leave-to-construct proceedings. That includes self-funded connection lines for generators as well as industrial load consumers such as electric vehicle battery manufacturing plants or mines that are trying to connect to the grid. My ministry, energy, has heard time and time again from businesses and various industry groups that this poses an unnecessary regulatory burden, as these projects don’t impact ratepayers, whereas reliability, quality etc., are assessed through other mechanisms. It’s important to understand that the costs associated with these proposed exempt projects are not recovered from electricity ratepayers; they are customer-funded. They also remain subject to any environmental assessment processes and other approvals, which is important to understand.

One of the things that’s so important about this simplification of the leave-to-construct procedures is, we’ve made it clear time and time again that Ontario’s economy is booming, and we want to keep it that way. Making Ontario a province that is attractive to companies choosing to come here, and attractive to companies that want to have a green initiative, is incredibly important.

I know it can sound dry to hear a Conservative yet again speaking about the economy, but the truth is, it is the economy and the workers and the taxpayers who provide all of the wonderful things that our province has to offer, including the projects that fund those who are struggling, those who are dealing with disease, those who are dealing with poverty and systemic inequalities. It’s through our economy, through attracting these businesses, that we become the type of province that is actually able to turn around and make sure that we are caring for Ontarians.

We’ve heard stories in the past about electricity concerns preventing investment in Ontario, and that’s really what we are focused on dealing with. This sort of minor change is a really important part of that, and something we should be proud of. As I said, it’s really an example of this government and of the ministry listening and paying attention. But the other aspect of that is, again, when I’m talking about making sure that we are attractive to businesses—this specific project about the leave to construct has a lot to do with electrification. Electrification is a really essential part of our journey to net zero and our environmental commitments. We won’t be able to get down to net-zero energy uses without these types of projects, without identifying these problems, focusing on them, and making sure that we are removing them. So, while it may sound like a somewhat dry topic, the leave to construct energy lines more than two kilometres—it’s actually an important fact, and it’s definitely evidence of this government listening.

I also want to talk a little bit about two other parts of this bill that have nothing to do with energy but that I find particularly heartening. One of those is the invitation to open the 1989 Veterinarians Act. We are dealing with a significant veterinarian shortage in this province that impacts everybody. It impacts our farmers and our agri-food sector, but it also impacts people like me who consider themselves “pet parents,” who have gone through the struggles of trying to find a veterinarian. We have veterinarians who are struggling or burning out. We have vet techs who are capable of a vast amount of care, who are incredibly skilled, intelligent, caring people, but who are limited by a very archaic—1989—definition of the stratification of work within the veterinary sphere. Once again, this is definitely an example of this government listening. I think the College of Veterinarians of Ontario, back in 2016 or 2017, put out a request for input from their own veterinarians. They’ve been working on some policy suggestions since then. This, again, is evidence of our government listening to that, listening to stakeholders and saying this is important—“Your opinions are important; your input is important”—and making sure that we are getting that.

Finally—these aren’t related, but it’s of interest to me, what this bill is proposing to do when it comes to the Provincial Offences Act and convictions in absentia. As many know, I was a crown attorney. I’ve worked in a couple of small jurisdictions where I was also a provincial offences prosecutor, so I prosecuted Highway Traffic Act offences. In the Highway Traffic Act, you can be convicted in absentia. A trial can be held without you; you can be convicted in your absence. With COVID, we had a very challenging balance between trying to keep cases moving while understanding that there were a lot of legitimate factors that might be preventing people from accessing court services, understanding the process was still ongoing, that type of thing.

What the case was until what’s proposed in this bill—if a conviction was registered, the only person who was able to essentially vacate that conviction was a justice of the peace, which put a huge amount of burden on our JPs, who are already extremely overtaxed by the sheer volume of cases in our Provincial Offences Court. What this proposes to do is to give the clerk of the court the authority—obviously, following the same process—to vacate that conviction, which is going to be incredibly helpful. That’s something that we did see a lot of during COVID. Again, I’m very pleased to see it, as it’s evidence of this government listening and learning.

By cutting red tape and lowering the cost of doing business in Ontario, our government has created an environment where we are seeing record job creation and growth. These successes are powered by reliable access to energy.

Does the member opposite agree that as we continue to grow the economy, it will remain critical that we remove red tape barriers that prevent access to energy for our businesses and job creators?

No fault of their own.

I really enjoyed the member’s comments this morning.

I looked at this bill quite intently, and a lot of it is just housecleaning, and some of this red tape bill will help some individuals.

I looked at the changes that are being done under schedule 4, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, providing the opportunity for others to be eligible for certain programs. That’s good news.

I will go to schedule 9. Here was a perfect opportunity. Many times we raised in the House the challenges that a lot of injured workers are facing in this province when it comes to deeming.

Would a review, would us looking at what deeming is, having that hard discussion—would that benefit anyone in this province?

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Thank you to my colleague from Kitchener South–Hespeler for the wonderful presentation.

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Peterborough–Kawartha mentioned the more than 350,000 regulations and the regulatory burden on businesses, impacting our businesses.

This red tape reduction bill is trying to make things easier for our small businesses, fairly clearly.

There are over 1,800 small businesses in my riding of Markham–Thornhill.

I’d like to thank the minister for introducing this bill, and our government and our Premier.

My question to my colleague: You passionately talked about the energy industry. How would this proposed bill bring changes to the energy industry?

Thank you to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler—and my congratulations on talking about The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy as part of debate.

Very often, the Conservative Party, when they talk about removing red tape—in another cultural reference, I think of Thanos doing the snap and getting rid of half, and the danger of just eliminating red tape.

I think for the most part in this bill, we’re just cleaning things up. But when I think back to removing red tape and what happened in Walkerton and the deaths that happened there—how do you ensure a balance between that? Very often, when there is consultation for bills, the notification comes out at the very last minute; people have to register within a short amount of time, and there’s only five hours to hear discussion from stakeholders. So how do you ensure that you have good debate, you have good bills, and that the bills and the red tape you’re removing don’t cause issues like we had in Walkerton?

When we’re looking at this bill, we’re looking at the things I mentioned that are the comparatively small and niggling issues that make people bang their heads against the wall. The issues that you are raising are obviously things we all care about, but they’re not what we are talking about today.

What we’re talking about is—I’m almost tired of hearing the words—red tape. It’s bureaucracy. It’s layers upon layers of regulation. So I think that it’s unfair to assess this particular bill against bills that have a much grander scope. This is about red tape. And housecleaning is not something to dismiss as unimportant, as it has a significant impact on Ontario businesses and families.

My point would be the same: We are talking about a red tape bill. It’s not just housecleaning; it’s an essential part of government business. It may not be particularly exciting, and it may not make for the best headlines, but this is material that is incredibly important for Ontario. It shows that we are taking our duties to Ontario very seriously and that we are listening.

When we’re talking about larger issues—they’re valid issues, but they’re not the purpose of what we are discussing here.

Again, I would say that it’s not just housecleaning, it’s not just housekeeping. Those things are actually very important—or we would be living in quite a disaster. That’s what we’re here to do—to clean house.

Yes, it’s definitely something I’m passionate about.

You’re correct; it has been in place for a very long time, since 1989, when I was two. So it’s really time to look at it. What’s important to understand is that this is a call to veterinary professionals to give their opinion on a—there is no sort of specification about what, in particular, they must give input on. What we’re looking at is streamlining it, making sure there’s a reduction of compliance burden for our already overworked veterinarians, vet techs and vet clinics. We’re also looking at how we deal with complaints, quality assurances, that type of thing. But ultimately, the overarching goal is improving access to care for animal owners. This isn’t something that’s like a top-down imposition of change; it is a request from that community—to say, “What do you need changed? Come tell us.”

Per diem judges, bringing them in—part of access to justice is access to swift justice, to actually getting your case resolved. That’s incredibly important.

I’d also comment again about the POA matter. Convictions in absentia were a huge issue as far as access to justice because of people not having representation, not understanding the process. By allowing clerks of the court to vacate convictions, it means that provincial prosecutors are able to deal directly with individuals and basically cut through all of the red tape that would prevent us from reopening their cases and dealing fairly with their matters.

I’d like to thank the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler for her comments today on this red tape bill.

She spoke ever so eloquently about the Veterinarians Act, so I would like to ask a question about what the ministry is consulting on—and why is the ministry modernizing the Veterinarians Act? I do understand that it has been 30-plus years since this act has been looked at. If she could comment on that, that would be great.

Further questions?