Thank you to the member opposite for her comments this morning. I remember one of the things that you had commented on was that we were introducing legislation which was introducing more red tape at the same time as we were trying to cut it—which, of course, is one of the reasons why you have to be, as a government, looking always to cut red tape: because you’re always making new regulations and new laws, and you want to make sure that you don’t just add to the burden on taxpayers.

Since being elected, our government has taken over 400 actions to reduce red tape and maintain important regulations that protect people’s health and safety. So I wanted to know, now that you’re seeing the results in savings of more than half a billion dollars annually to businesses and people and time and money, which is supporting businesses and bringing manufacturing back to Ontario, will you support this legislation and help us reduce red tape in Ontario?

Thank you to the member from London for her speech. Madam Speaker, earlier in the morning, my friend from Peterborough–Kawartha was highlighting that there were over 300,000 regulations in Ontario. Our government, since day one, has been creating an environment for businesses to flourish and jobs to flourish, and we can only do that if we’re cutting unnecessary red tape and unnecessary regulations.

As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, our Minister of Economic Development is in India right now, encouraging businesses to invest in Ontario. Does the member opposite think that those businesses will invest in Ontario if we have unnecessary regulations and red tape?

I would like to thank the residents of Curve Lake for their signatures on this petition.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas in the First and Second World Wars, over 7,000 First Nation members, as well as an unknown number of Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous recruits, voluntarily served in the Canadian Armed Forces; and

“Whereas countless Indigenous peoples bravely and selflessly served Canada at a time of great challenges for Canada; and

“Whereas this spirit of volunteerism and community marked the life of the late Murray Whetung, who volunteered to serve in the Second World War; and

“Whereas many First Nations individuals lost their status after serving in the wars off-reserve for” more than four years; and

“Whereas despite this injustice, many continued to recognize the value in continuously giving back to their community; and

“Whereas the values of volunteerism and community are instilled in the army, air, and sea cadets across Ontario; and

“Whereas the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act establishes an award for the cadets and tells the story of Indigenous peoples’ sacrifice and mistreatment;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the passage of the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act, 2022.”

I fully endorse this petition and will give it to page Alex to take to the table.

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 30, 2022, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 46, An Act to enact one Act and amend various other Acts / Projet de loi 46, Loi visant à édicter une loi et à modifier diverses autres lois.

Further questions?

Further debate?

A very quick question: One of the amendments in this bill would allow a clerk of the court to set aside an administrative conviction. That’s something that really ties up—the old system would really tie up things. The new system that we’re proposing will free judges of the provincial—

As I mentioned in my remarks this morning, one of the primary concerns of people in Ontario—and we know that from the support that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is getting for its homegrown farmland preservation campaign—is to preserve farmland.

So this member can talk about the number of regulations that have been reduced, but on this side, we want to highlight the fact that 319 acres of farmland is being lost in this province every day, and that is undermining our self-sufficiency as a food-producing jurisdiction. It is undermining food security for people in this province. It is undermining the sustainability of our agriculture and rural industry, and it’s affecting our environment when you see that level of loss of farmland on a daily basis in this province.

I’m sorry we didn’t hear an answer to that interesting question, but maybe we will in the future. I think that’s important.

It’s really great to have an opportunity to hear some comments today on the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, 2022. I have a completely different perspective on the act than the members opposite, at least from what I’ve heard today. Speaker, we all know red tape is something we are far too familiar with everywhere.

There was a great quote this morning from the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler about bureaucracy expanding, increasing—

That is exactly the case, and it’s really the result, often, of well-intended rules, regulations and policies that no longer serve their original purpose, because things do change over time, but instead cause unintended frustration, expense, delay and complications. It’s a barrier to economic productivity, competitiveness and innovation.

Speaker, if no action is taken to address red tape, it does have the tendency to grow uncontrollably, like in some horror movie. When we formed government in 2018, Ontario was being strangled, literally, by red tape: the largest regulatory burden of any province in Canada, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That’s why, since day one of the Ford government, our government has focused on removing outdated, unnecessary or redundant regulations that hold our province back.

Our government has passed eight red tape reduction bills and packages, consisting of more than 400 individual actions: bills that have contained common-sense changes such as eliminating licence plate renewal fees, making it easier for restaurants and bars to include alcohol with delivery and takeout orders and making it simpler to interact with government. These things are saving people and businesses time and money, and I would think everybody could support that.

Ontario’s total regulatory compliance requirements have been reduced by 6.5%. Businesses are saving more than half a billion dollars in compliance costs every year, and that’s money that they’re no longer spending to fill out government paperwork or comply with regulations that are duplicated across multiple levels of government.

Of course, there’s much more work to be done and our province continues to face big challenges. We continue to face supply chain disruptions that were made much worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, and we’re seeing seismic shifts in demand as the habits of people and businesses have changed. There are ongoing labour force shortages that are beginning to impact both day-to-day life and Ontario’s economy. In fact, two thirds of Ontario businesses report that their supply challenges have gotten worse this year, and more than one third of businesses say labour-related obstacles will limit their growth.

We know that government can and must play a supportive role to ensure well-functioning supply chains and solve challenges like those seen in the labour market. One of the best things we can do to achieve that is by continuing our efforts to reduce red tape.

With the time I have, I’d like to share some highlights from the package.

We’re launching the Grow Ontario strategy to strengthen Ontario’s food supply chain from farm to fork, building a stronger, more resilient agri-food sector that has a strong foundation to respond to future challenges. This strategy will outline actions to support consumers and farmers, promote the supply chain while increasing the commercialization and adoption of innovative technologies and practices that enhance competitiveness, increase productivity, and create economic growth.

To help protect road infrastructure during this time of year, the Highway Traffic Act provides local authorities the power to temporarily reduce vehicle axle weight limits. We’re giving municipalities a new option to optimize the timing of these reduced load periods, including shortening the period when conditions permit.

We’re making it easier to build electricity transmission lines that do not have a financial impact on ratepayers by exempting customer-funded projects from the Ontario Energy Board’s leave-to-construct process. With the proposed amendments to the act, proponents of these projects will continue to have the right to apply to the Ontario Energy Board to cross a highway, railway or utility line in circumstances where an agreement cannot be obtained.

We’re addressing barriers to the underground geologic storage of carbon by proposing to amend the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. If passed, this will support industry and reduce red tape by creating a framework to regulate and enable the permanent storage of carbon as a new tool to help reduce Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions. As future phases are advanced, innovation of carbon capture, use and storage technologies will be encouraged, playing an important role in managing emissions and producing low-carbon hydrogen.

We’re proposing to amend the Animal Health Act to provide authority to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to protect the health and well-being of the public and animals when faced with a potential animal health crisis. Proposed changes would enhance animal disease emergency preparedness, mitigate risks to animal health and human health, and boost the resiliency of Ontario’s livestock and poultry sector, ensuring Ontarians have a reliable, safe and stable food supply.

We’re starting a broad public consultation on the potential modernization of the Veterinarians Act to reduce compliance burdens for vets and practice owners. The proposed changes to the act would address the scope of practice, complaints and resolutions processes, quality assurance and governance of the college of veterinary medicine of Ontario.

We’re upgrading Ontario’s highway corridor management system to provide a seamless and integrated online platform for approvals and permits along provincial highways. Work is ongoing to allow applicants, including home builders and municipalities, to submit, track and receive all Ministry of Transportation approvals online, saving time and money.

We are increasing court capacity and efficiency to help address the COVID-19 backlog in criminal cases by temporarily increasing the limit on the number of days retired judges can work and allowing court clerks to reopen certain proceedings if they believe a defendant missed a notice or was unable to attend a meeting or hearing through no fault of their own.

We’re proposing amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act that would improve the operational efficiency of that act and the board. This includes ensuring injured or ill apprentices receive loss-of-earnings benefits at the same amounts as a journeyperson would receive them, providing flexibility about when the WSIB board of directors must meet and ensuring requirements for governance documents and office lease transactions are consistent with and not duplicative of other government directives.

We’re reducing red tape by exempting certain hot tubs located in individual hotel rooms or suites for the exclusive use of a unit’s guests from the requirement of the public pools regulation, and this will reduce the regulatory burden for hotel operators while ensuring guests continue to enjoy a safe stay.

We’re providing authority to local medical officers of health to order rabies testing for deceased animals if they were under observation when they passed.

This is also another important innovation: We’re enacting changes to the Mandatory Blood Testing Act to allow victims of crime, first responders and emergency personnel who are sometimes exposed to bodily substances to receive faster processing of their tests. We’re proposing other changes as well.

Finally, I’d like to say that we’re proposing a new act and associated regulation-making authorities that, if passed, would confirm the continuation of the corporate status of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, retroactive to January 1, 2020.

All of these initiatives, I think, are helpful to the people of Ontario, will make it easier to interact with government and will reduce the red tape burden. I think everybody should support them, so I’m hoping everyone will get together with me and do that. I look forward to any questions.

The member from Eglinton–Lawrence spoke about how Bill 46, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, is helping to protect and amplify small businesses. I guess I wanted to know, then, why it was her government that granted small business grants to businesses that weren’t even in Ontario to the tune of some $200-plus million during the pandemic—money that was supposed to be supporting our small businesses going out of province. That seems odd.

I know that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence knows that we share communities like Little Jamaica and small businesses in midtown that are squelching for funds and had their grants turned down because of little administrative glitches.

I’m just wondering what the government has to say about that, and particularly the member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Alexis de Tocqueville, speaking about democracy in America, spoke about the administrative bureaucracy, saying it’s like a “sovereign power” that “extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute and uniform rules, which the most original minds and vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them”—

It’s always a privilege and an honour to take my place and stand at my seat on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

I want to start my comments this afternoon by asking a question to the government. This bill is entitled Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act. I want to put a question, and I’m going to end with the same question in my comments that I’m going to be bringing in this afternoon: Does this government look at First Nations as being red tape? I’ll come back to that question at the end of my comments that I’ll be making this afternoon.

I do want to go through a few of the schedules that I do want to put some comments on. I want to talk a little bit about schedules 1 and 4, but most of my comments that I’ll be making today will be on schedule 5. There’s some concerns that I see there, and I want to raise those concerns because there’s certainly some issues that I have there.

I want to go to schedule 1, and I’ll cover schedule 4 at the same time. Bill 46 has been marketed by the government as taking measures to aid farmers and protect Ontario foods. However, they are basically tinkering around the edges with this particular piece of legislation. They are not taking on the larger challenges identified by industry groups as major hurdles to Ontario’s agricultural market.

The Ontario beef farmers have asked the government to take steps to support their industry by—the government calls it red tape, but these are really big steps and big milestones that the industry has been asking for, for a very long time, which are increasing investment in the risk management program to help protect the province’s food security, that’s one; to review the PAWS Act and examine farm inspections and enforcement practices employed under the act, there’s another one; and preserving farm and grazing lands through land use policies that see agricultural lands protected.

Now, the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane and many of our members have raised it often in the House, and let’s put the number out there: 319 acres of land are being lost every single day. That’s 319 acres of farmland that are being lost each and every day in this province. The government just removed protection on thousands of acres of farmland, which is a direct attack on the industry’s long-term future for Ontario.

Now I want to take some time and look at schedule 5. The things I want to cover under schedule 5, in the short time that I have left, are: Schedule 5 is eliminating the prohibition of deep geological carbon storage. It’s also opening up the path to storage in ground; however, it’s also being used to extract natural gas. I want to touch on this a bit.

The third thing that I want to talk about is that they’re opening up a process to crown land which—crown land is a colonial way of saying “treaty lands.” And I go back to the initial questions that I put to this government: Do you see First Nations communities as red tape? Do you see First Nations communities as stakeholders? And why is it that we’re seeing legislation such as this as an afterthought, that now we’re going to go back and consult with First Nations on treaty lands? We’re getting that wrong. These discussions should take place prior to the legislation coming into the House.

Now, on point number two, what I wanted to do is touch on a few things. This is an article in a paper, Narwhal. It says, “Critics of carbon capture technology see investments like those in the Prairies and argue it’s simply a way to prolong the lifespan of an industry that needs to put itself out of business if the world is to survive.”

It also goes on to say, “The push for government funding”—and again, the funding is coming from the federal government, but the province is opening up legislation here to permit this to happen—“also comes as oil and gas companies are pulling in big profits, and spending the windfall on stock buybacks and increased dividends for investors....

“Even those who support carbon capture technology”—one of the speakers—“including Chris Severson-Baker, the Alberta director of the Pembina Institute, don’t want an excess of public money invested in an industry that is ‘likely to decline in the not too distant future.’”

He also goes on to say, “These projects, at scale, are not cheap.... Most require significant public funding to make financial sense.... costs, including sourcing good storage areas, could become more expensive.” And he goes on to say, “the average cost of a big project in Canada is currently $1 billion for a megatonne per year of reductions.”

I’m just briefly touching upon some of the highlights that were in this article: “‘We think there’s definitely sources of [carbon dioxide] that could be captured in the upstream oil and gas sector, in the oilsands, today, but it’s not as extensive as the companies claim.’”

He also goes on to finish this article: “The injection of carbon into deep aquifers requires monitoring to ensure that carbon doesn’t escape for a very long time. He noted there might need to be a fund to manage that liability.”

So under schedule 5, we will allow for carbon dioxide to be injected into the bedrock as a form of sequestration: “Carbon capture ... and storage essentially means any technology that removes carbon from industrial processes and ... stores it deep underground ...

“Captured carbon can also be used for what’s called enhanced oil recovery, where the carbon is injected into old wells in order to increase pressure and force more oil or gas to the surface. The carbon is then stored in the wells. It’s a less carbon-intensive way of getting to the oil, but it’s still using carbon to access sources of, well, more carbon.”

Environmental groups have criticized carbon capture as a form of greenwashing during a time of climate crisis, allowing oil and gas companies to justify extracting more fossil fuels. According to the industry proponents, “There need to be more regulations put in place to oversee the expansion of carbon capture, utilization and storage, particularly when it comes to pore space and monitoring.” And the government has removed the prohibition of carbon capture on crown lands. These are treaty lands, and the government has not demonstrated any consultation with First Nations, Métis or other Indigenous groups about this change. So I come back to the question that I initially asked: Does the government look at Indigenous communities, Métis, Inuit and First Nations, as red tape? Well, if I look at this bill and compare it to the actions this government is doing, one would have to extract and say yes, because they are completely leaving them out of the decision process or engagement process.

These crown lands that this government is going to be tampering with and opening up is a colonial way of saying “treaty lands.” Let’s be straight about that, Speaker. There is a responsibility from this government to have meaningful consultation with First Nations, Indigenous communities, Inuit and Métis people, and they’re not doing that. They’re looking at them as being an obstacle.

I may be wrong. I’m hoping that someone from the government will steer me in the right direction and show me differently. But when legislation comes to this House—and this is not the first piece of legislation that came to this House and is in this format and denies and does not take—this government does not take the time to meaningfully participate, engage with the First Nations community leaders. It leads me to believe that this government exactly does that: They look at First Nations across this province as red tape. They look at them as being stakeholders. And I tell this government, you will have a lot of an easier time passing legislation if you sit and have meaningful discussions with Indigenous communities.

I’ll pick up on the question just asked by the member from Niagara West about democracy and red tape. This bill is about red tape reduction, and the government has argued that the other bill they have before the House, Bill 39—that you need to override the results of the last municipal elections in Toronto, Niagara, York and Peel in order to get more efficiency, to cut the red tape and get housing built. Is it not possible to build housing while still respecting the outcomes of our recent municipal elections and respecting the democracy that they represent?

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We do share a border and lots of great companies that work along Eglinton in Toronto. I’m really proud that we were able to get all of the money out to small businesses to support them. I’m really proud that we’re doing a lot to save small businesses—all businesses, really—money in Ontario by saving them about half a billion dollars by reducing all of this red tape.

Under the former Liberal government, they had the highest cost of compliance for businesses in Canada, a total of $33,000 per business, which was at least $4,000 more than any other province. That is not a record that would draw businesses here, as my friend said earlier. We need to get businesses to come to Ontario so we have a prosperous economy for all of our workers and all Ontarians.

Certainly, he describes some of the red tape and the burden of bureaucracy and red tape on businesses and communities so that they can get things done. I think it’s very clear from what you read—and Alexis de Tocqueville put it better than just about anybody else—that it’s something that we need to address. We need to free people from the burden of red tape, and I’m very excited that we’re bringing forward yet another red tape bill to achieve that.

Government can be an undue burden. We have three levels of government in Canada: We have municipal governments, we have provincial governments and we have federal governments. It’s confusing for people, and it also poses a huge burden on people to achieve their ends. They have to make sure they’re complying with regulations of all kinds all the time, and I think the more we can do to streamline that, rationalize it and make it make sense so people can still get things done and so governments can still get things done—that’s a good objective and we should achieve that.

The member from Toronto–St. Paul’s.

Interjection: You’re not in your seat.

Questions?

Interjection.

We are on questions and comments, right? I’m just clarifying. Excellent.

I had an opportunity to listen to many of the things that the member was saying. Listen, he brings up some valid points, and I do appreciate any time he rises in the Legislature.

I want to go back just quickly to the question that I asked the member for London West. When we’re talking about eliminating red tape here in the province, looking at regulations that we can try to streamline or, quite frankly, eliminate if they’re redundant—my riding lost 12,000 manufacturing jobs, 12,000 good-paying jobs. These are jobs with pensions. These are jobs with benefits. These are jobs that people want, and we lost them to jurisdictions that had less red tape and regulation.

Just as a general question, does the member support the reduction of regulations here in the province, the reduction of red tape and things that will support good jobs, good-paying jobs, good, steady jobs for the people of this province?

I always enjoy being in the House when the member for Kitchener–Conestoga is in the House. It seems that when I’m not here, he seems to really ramp it up, and when I’m here, there are more cordial discussions that we have, because we have several sidebars. That’s something that a lot of people who are watching right now on the TV don’t get to see when the cameras are off: the work that gets done in this place.

I say to the member, of course I would support legislation that would be helpful, that would generate employment opportunity, economic growth in this province. However, a good part of my statement that was made today was actually on the bill. I talked about that. But I wanted to raise a flag and I wanted to hear from the government, who can tell me differently, is this government actually looking at Indigenous communities as being red tape? Because if you are not, then the consultation process would have taken place prior to this legislation hitting the floor of the Legislature.

I’ll leave that with you, my friend.

Merci au député d’Algoma–Manitoulin pour ses commentaires. J’ai une question sur la séquestration de carbone.

My question is about carbon capture and the sequestering of carbon. You talked quite a bit about it. It seems like an unproven technology, and it seems that there was a case in Australia where the government invested millions of dollars in carbon sequestration. It wasn’t very successful, and it seemed to be used more as an excuse for oil companies to continue burning fossil fuels rather than an actual way of reducing carbon output. Would you like to comment on that?

It’s a pleasure to join this discussion today on Bill 46, An Act to enact one Act and amend various other Acts. It’s the first red tape bill that our new Minister of Red Tape Reduction has brought forward, but I doubt very much that it will be the last, because it is something that we are absolutely seized on, on this side of the House.

And it didn’t start here. I’ve been around long enough to remember when former Premier Mike Harris was elected in 1995. He saw a province that had been governed by the party on the other side here for five years, and saw the absolute growth in red tape in the province of Ontario and what a constricting effect it was having on businesses and people in the province of Ontario.

I know they might get upset with me here, but socialists love red tape and bureaucracy. They absolutely love it. I’m not sure how they’re going to vote on this bill, but I’m sure they’re kind of conflicted because the people out there, they get it. Government is too big. It stands in the way of progress. Every time you talk to somebody on the street and you ask them, “How is this going?”—it could be their project to build a new home, it could be a project to build something in the community, it could be a public institution that’s going to be built in the community—the first thing they’ll say is, “I can’t believe the amount of regulations we’ve got to go through to get that done. It’s absolutely ridiculous.” You talk about other jurisdictions that get things done in a quarter of the time.

This bill is not going to fix all of it, but it does speak to the philosophy and the belief of this government and its members that we can do better. We can make Ontario much better by getting on with moving forward and not standing in the way.

I do want to appreciate the Oscar Wilde quote from the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler earlier today—I don’t have it in front of me—that the bureaucracy is expanding to serve the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. It may not be exactly the quote, but it certainly paraphrases it. That’s what happens as governments get bigger and bigger and bigger. The bureaucracy becomes more and more unwieldy, and the people aren’t even actually able to understand what a blockade it can be.

So you have to have a government that actually takes the position that we are going to remove some of that unnecessary regulation. I don’t know if there’s an actual definition out there, but to me, red tape should be defined as “unnecessary regulation that impedes the ability of society to move forward in a progressive and beneficial manner”—something to that effect; that’s my own definition.

But the members on the other side—while listening to this debate, I have to ask myself, do they really want to debate Bill 46, or do they want to regurgitate something else? Because I heard more about Bill 23 today than I heard about Bill 46. But there’s a news flash for you folks over there: We actually passed Bill 23. It’s now done. But I think youse are a bit conflicted on Bill 46. You actually barely want to speak to it.

With that in mind, Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

Further questions?