Thank you to the member from Peterborough–Kawartha for his discussion this morning. He talked a lot about the importance of removing red tape.

We’ve heard recently at Queen’s Park, and last term, about the red tape surrounding getting medications—for cystic fibrosis, for example. Last term, we talked about the red tape surrounding take-home cancer medication. If you’re in the hospital, the cancer medication is covered, but if you take it home, you have to pay in advance and get a rebate.

I’m wondering if the member from Peterborough–Kawartha would talk about the importance of removing red tape for people who need medication and have to go through this unnecessary burden of paying for it in advance in order to get reimbursed afterwards.

Thank you very much to our member sitting opposite there. It’s music to my ears when I hear how the red tape bill will support and benefit businesses.

I’ve run my own business before, and there were many times that I finally gave up doing some of the work for the government because of the red tape and the amount of time I had to spend there.

I would also like to know who else will benefit from these changes and how.

Our government is cutting red tape to improve the WSIB’s operational efficiency, and it will have a direct and positive impact for workers and their families, because WSIB would then be able to focus more on supporting injured workers, rather than dealing with duplicative reporting processes. From the comments made by the member opposite, I assume that this is something he would support because it should help workers and their families.

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?

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?

Thank you for the presentation this morning. I know that less red tape—one of the things I always talk about is the number of long-term boil-water advisories in the north. I wish we removed the red tape of funding all the boil-water advisories. Sometimes, our First Nations can be identified as red tape because we have rights that are trampled on.

I just want to find out if you’re aware of any free, prior and informed consent that was done for First Nations and to ensure this bill move forward?

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?

I wanted to ask the member opposite—he had a lot in his remarks. But when we talk about red tape, a lot of us have different definitions of red tape. I just want to ask the member opposite how he would define red tape.

I just wanted to ask the member—you know, we talk about small businesses and helping them with red tape, and you were saying, in your definition, that you don’t want to overburden them and that you have to be cautious. I’m just wondering when was the last time you spoke to CFIB and what you heard from them and when your last meeting with CFIB was.

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.