Responses?

I want to thank the minister for speaking. I saw that she became emotional, and I certainly know that has happened to many of us in this House, myself included. These are tough topics.

First of all, of course, I want to acknowledge OAITH, and I want to thank them for the 10th anniversary of Ontario’s Wrapped in Courage campaign.

I also want to make it clear that while tears, concern and heartfelt words certainly help, it can’t be all; it’s just not enough.

We need the Conservative government to ensure that every victim of violence who is working can have access to paid emergency leave.

We need to ensure that every victim of violence who is a recipient of ODSP and OW can actually afford to leave. We know that this government has refused to double ODSP and OW rates immediately. That could really help folks who are trying to escape violence.

We also know that paid sick days are equally important, because, folks, when home is not safe, you head into work when you’re not well; you’re unable to stay home and heal. It’s a recipe for disaster.

I also spoke with many staff members and board members from OAITH today who are incredibly proud of their work collaborating with folks across party lines—because this is a non-partisan issue. I want to say that for many of them, staff burnout is incredibly real. In some cases, the staff-to-client ratio is, frankly, untenable. In one case, I believe there were 18 or so clients with one person at the shelter. If some of those clients are moms of single kids and some of those clients are dealing with psychosis, you can only imagine what can transpire if there’s one staff member.

I want to also express the need for flexible funding. We heard from OAITH folks that it really worked when the government allowed them to have autonomy over their own budget and recognized that different shelters need different requirements. Not having that option means the difference between losing a staff member and not being able to replace that staff member, which means programming is hurt, which means the people being protected and served through that programming to help eliminate gender-based violence are also hurt by this.

One centre lost funding for their child care respite worker—and I wasn’t fully aware of this, but losing that child care respite worker created a huge barrier for women leaving violence, because if they couldn’t get to a job interview, if they couldn’t get to court, if the child can’t be left alone, if there’s no support for the child, they lose that opportunity.

I also heard that Family Court support is overwhelmed. In one particular place, there was one support worker for 260 clients, if I’m correct.

We heard about the needs in different parts of our province. I live in Toronto, but that’s not the only place—so we have to think about what’s needed for rural and northern communities that are already under-resourced in order to fight against gender-based violence.

We have to think about how escaping violence has to be inextricably linked to having housing—affordable housing; transitional housing; sustainable, supportive housing. What happens is, for folks who are unhoused, who end up on the street or are in fear of ending up on the street, survival, having food becomes one of the only things they can focus on—getting help, not requiring them to come back to a home where they’re being abused, where their children are being abused. We need to house women.

Bill 23, as you know, Speaker, is a bill that will directly impact victims of gender-based violence—because if they’re not housed, they cannot be safe.

I have a petition to stop the health care privatization plan.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of their wallet;

“Whereas” the Premier and the health minister “say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to further privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

I’m proud to affix my signature to this petition. I will send it to the table with page Havana.

November 2022 marks both Woman Abuse Prevention Month and the 10th anniversary of Ontario’s Wrapped in Courage campaign. All across our province, people are wearing a purple scarf to show their commitment to ending femicide, as well as all other forms of gender-based violence. The purple scarf symbolizes the strength and the courage that goes into supporting survivors of violence. It reflects our collective commitment to push past awareness and really move to take action to end gender-based violence.

An uncomfortable truth is that gender-based violence often goes unseen. This issue has become even more pronounced under COVID.

Unfortunately, many women and gender-diverse individuals are not aware of the services that are available to them in their communities. That is why every Ontarian can help when it comes to this issue.

This government can act to assist women in real ways, like repealing Bill 124, which has just been deemed as unconstitutional by an Ontario court. We know that many women are affected by this bill that is suppressing their wages unfairly. Women’s economic opportunities are directly related to their ability to flee situations where they may be at risk.

This is an issue that hits close to home, as my own riding of Scarborough–Guildwood was shaken by an attempted femicide earlier this year in January, when a woman was attacked and stabbed by two men in one of our communities.

Just last week, the Toronto Police Service were in a school in my riding that has been rocked by violence, talking to students about gun violence, as well as about human trafficking. One third of human trafficking victims are high school students. This amounts to modern-day slavery hidden in plain sight. These officers gave these students valuable information to protect themselves and their friends at school.

This issue needs more attention. It is up to all of us to make sure that something is done with this information. Action must be taken.

Here I would point out the valuable contributions of many organizations in my riding, like Settlement Assistance and Family Support Services, Strides, the Scarborough Women’s Centre, Toronto Police Service 43 division, YouthLink, as well as the Boys and Girls Club of East Scarborough, in their ongoing fight against human trafficking and to protect our young people. These organizations have been steadfast in standing against human trafficking, and their efforts have been critical in advancing safety and security in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood and throughout Toronto.

I think it’s also important to emphasize the essential work being done each and every day to support victims of gender-based violence.

In Scarborough–Guildwood, we are lucky to have a very special organization that is dedicated to the well-being and safety of francophone women and their dependents: La Maison. Like other safe havens across the province, La Maison plays a critical role for survivors of domestic and family violence, offering much more than just a safe place to stay. Supports include a 24-hour crisis phone line, individual and group counselling, children’s services, community education and transitional planning and support, all in their language of choice—in French, of course.

The services and supports that are provided by organizations like La Maison are absolutely vital to addressing this issue.

This is reflected in the painful truth that there is a reason that we’re here wrapped in courage today, and it is really a dark one. We must acknowledge that women and girls face violence—and I agree with you, Minister, that they deserve to live in a world that is free of violence. Every girl should grow up to achieve her potential without this dark issue hindering her.

That is why it is so important that, as a Legislature, we all raise our collective voice and demand more, yes, from this government—because you do have the ability to respond.

Whether it’s in housing or it’s in the removal of Bill 124, or to support women and girls in other ways, more does need to be done for women and girls in this province to keep them safe.

I have petitions that I’m happy to present on behalf of Ontarians close to my riding and served by Hamilton Health Sciences.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas patients requiring surgery have complex care needs, some of which are urgent or life-threatening diseases and under anesthetic can become unstable, unpredictable, quickly change or deteriorate; and

“Whereas a scrub nurse is a member of the surgical team who provides a surgeon with instruments while maintaining a sterile environment, acts on and anticipates their requests, prepares medications, assists with retraction of tissue, communicates to circulating registered nurses (RNs) patient care needs, and responds in emergencies; and

“Whereas more health care providers are needed to address the surgical backlog, but surgical patients need a regulated nurse in a scrub nurse role who has the education, training and qualifications of a diploma or degree and a specialized credential in surgical nursing that makes them knowledgeable, expertly skilled and experienced, and anything less puts patient safety at risk; and

“Whereas Hamilton Health Sciences’s new surgical model of care is to replace nurses who perform the scrub nurse role in operating rooms, with unregulated operating room assistants (ORAs); and

“Whereas Hamilton Health Sciences’s actions to replace nurses with unregulated health care providers erodes the standard of care that patients will receive because ORAs cannot respond to patient care needs and they are not accountable to the public for the care they provide; and

“Whereas the Operating Room Nurses Association of Canada (ORNAC) recommends that the scrub nurse role be performed only by nurses; and

“Whereas cutting nursing care in operating rooms means patients can suffer from unnecessary complications or death because of unrecognized care needs, delayed care, miscommunication, or errors;

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

“Immediately stop operating room assistants from performing the scrub nurse role at Hamilton Health Sciences;

“Stop any further plans to cut and replace registered nurses within the operation rooms at Hamilton Health Sciences;

“Cease the new surgical model of care that replaces scrub nurses with operating room assistants because it does not adhere to Hamilton Health Sciences’s mission to provide excellent health care to the community it serves.”

I couldn’t agree with this more, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate. I have over 1,200 petitions here today. I will affix my name to them and give them to page Alex to bring to the Clerk.

“Petition to Save Eye Care in Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government has underfunded optometric eye care for 30 years; and

“Whereas the government only pays on average $44.65 for an OHIP-insured visit—the lowest rate in Canada; and

“Whereas optometrists are being forced to pay substantially out of their own pocket to provide over four million services each year to Ontarians under OHIP; and

“Whereas optometrists have never been given a formal negotiation process with the government...;

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

“To instruct the Ontario government to immediately commit to legally binding, formal negotiations to ensure any future OHIP-insured optometry services are, at a minimum, funded at the cost of delivery.”

I support this petition. I will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Grace.

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 29, 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.

I’d like to thank Dr. Sally Palmer once again for providing my office with these petitions.

“Petition to Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and soon $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by ... 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens well below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to live in this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a basic income of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I wholeheartedly support this. I hope the members opposite are listening. I’m going to affix my name to it and give it to page Ema to bring to the Clerk.

I started my debate this morning—of course, then, it was statements. So I’m going to just finish off the rest of my contributions to Bill 46, which is, essentially, as we know, a cutting-red-tape bill. There’s a lot of housekeeping in that bill. Some of those things obviously need to be reviewed.

This morning, I talked about systems. Red tape is a system where we look at what’s working and what’s not, and try to make things better.

The justice pieces of the cutting-red-tape bill: There are eight schedules. Schedule 2 is about the Courts of Justice Act. Of course, we know there are backlogs in our justice system. One of the things the government is proposing in schedule 2 is to have judges come out of retirement and contribute more hours so that they can help with the backlog of cases, so that people can actually get justice. Yes, that’s an important step.

We also need to look to the future. Judges are retiring. We don’t have enough judges. I’ve heard from the Ontario lawyers’ society in London that that needs to happen as well. In combination with that piece, I hope the government is looking towards the future and making sure we don’t get into this predicament again. Courts were backlogged prior to the pandemic, so let’s not keep perpetuating that kind of system, that kind of red tape, so to speak, that disadvantages people who are seeking justice.

The other part with justice in this bill is schedule 3, the Juries Act. Basically, the schedule is providing that a person’s jury questionnaire may be obtained, completed and returned electronically. The government’s modernization of the Juries Act is—they’re proposing to make it easier, so that a juror’s questionnaire is available online, and they’re testing the feasibility of moving it away from sending a jury questionnaire through the mail. One thing I like about this part is that they are actually—except if you request it by mail. We know that all through parts of northern and rural Ontario, there’s not always access online, Internet. That would be something that is a reasonable proposal. They’re looking, of course, to cut costs and make it easier for prospective jurors to participate in the court system.

I met with the Salvation Army group yesterday, and in their report they address justice. They’re doing a lot of good work in our communities to help people who are in vulnerable situations, whether it be recovery or pathways to going to school and supporting them. One of the reports that they had for London, Middlesex, Huron, Perth, Elgin county and Chatham—635 referrals were made to adult community justice programs. One of the things they talked about was, again, the system. They only get $30,000, funded by the government, to create these referrals into the community, and they were saying that they have to raise all the other money.

We don’t want people in the justice system if we can redirect them to a better situation and lifestyle. It costs more money, quite frankly, to have people be recidivists, coming back into the system. That’s not a goal I think anybody here aspires to.

The other thing I want to talk about when we’re looking at justice today: I got a Google alert earlier today that—as we know, there has been a challenge in the court system on Bill 124. Again, there have been a lot of court challenges with this government, so when they’re creating legislation and creating rules, they really need to look at the logistics and the legalities of it. This article that I have was published in September 2021. Since 2018, they had 14 challenges in their legislation. I don’t know if Bill 124 is part of that one—I don’t know, but they’ve lost that legislation. They’ve been defeated. Bill 124, according to my Google alert—“An Ontario court has struck down a ... bill that limited wages for public sector workers.”

So when we are creating legislation, let’s not tie ourselves up in red tape and in courts. Let’s make legislation that actually works for workers—if that’s what we’re doing. Let’s make legislation where there aren’t constitutional challenges. You’re causing your own red tape. You’re causing the backlog of the court system—which we don’t really need to do.

I was talking about systems and how schedule 8 of this red tape bill, Bill 46, does look at different schedules and what systems there are.

The health care system is also something that needs to be looked at very closely, and there need to be changes.

The government believes in the changes they’re making, but they don’t work for everybody.

My constituent Tammy has a serious medical condition. She has a visible flap on her head, and she needs surgery to cover that flap. Her doctor gave her a referral, but she has to wait two years in order to get that. Her question to us is, what is the government doing to address specialist wait times? Some people can say that’s elective surgery, but if you’re the person waiting for that, it doesn’t seem elective, and waiting two years is really unreasonable; that’s just uncalled for. The health care system does need more help. Like I say, the government is saying that they’re helping the health care system, but when you have to wait two years—that is not the help that people are asking for.

I want to also talk about the WSIB—I believe that’s the last schedule in this bill. We know that the WSIB is being moved from Toronto to the London area, which we’re happy about. The government says no job losses will occur, but we are asking for more transparency around the bidding process. What’s going on with that? Where are they looking? How long is it going to take? It was announced, I think, just around the election—again, that was a surprise announcement.

The other thing is, right now, that property that is owned by WSIB is government land, so it would be nice to know, transparently, what’s going to happen to that property. We would like to see it stay in the government’s ownership in order to provide affordable housing—affordable housing being maybe some social housing or geared-to-income housing, which would help the people of Toronto tremendously. We know that that is a crisis in the making for many decades, and those kinds of propositions, when there’s land available, would be very helpful, because other bills that the government has proposed are opening up the greenbelt, and they’re looking at that land or farmland. When you have that asset already in a government coffer, why not use that for proper affordable housing as well?

Speaker, I want to wish everyone a wonderful, merry Christmas, and to wish that everyone be safe, and to say thank you to our first responders, who are going to keep us safe through the holidays. They work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and I think—

Interruption.

I have a petition here to stop Premier Ford’s health care privatization plan.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of their wallet;

“Whereas Premier Doug Ford and Health Minister Sylvia Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to further privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

Speaker, I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature to it and give it to page Scarlett to give to the Clerks.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas neighbourhoods across the GTA have been unfairly targeted by discriminatory practices in the auto insurance industry;

“Whereas people in marginalized neighbourhoods are penalized with crushing auto insurance rates merely because of their postal code;

“Whereas GTA drivers with clean insurance records continue to be gouged by this unfair practice; and

“Whereas Ontarians are facing skyrocketing costs of living, and auto insurance companies continue to make record profits;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to end postal code discrimination and price gouging in auto insurance and pass Bill 12, Ending Automobile Insurance Discrimination in the Greater Toronto Area Act, 2022.”

Speaker, I fully support this petition, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Alex to give to the Clerks.

Further debate?

Thank you for your excellent presentation.

Since we are talking about justice and there are elements of justice being dealt with in this bill, I just want to bring back an issue that was talked about a lot in the last session.

Do you believe that if the government is contemplating justice, we need to talk about repealing the cuts to legal aid? Do you believe, in this system, that there is pure access to justice in a way that’s accessible to all, or do you still believe that there are barriers? If we’re talking about justice, shouldn’t we be talking about some of that stuff too?

My thanks to the excellent member for London–Fanshawe for her participation. I always value her concise and yet insightful approach to debate and the ability that she has to contribute in a meaningful way. I appreciated the remarks that she made this afternoon. I know that in the role of opposition, it’s important to always look at the legislation before you with that critical eye and provide that accountability, and I respect that.

I’m wondering if you could speak a little bit about the importance of carbon sequestration in achieving our climate goals, and ensuring that we’re reducing carbon here in the province of Ontario and are able to also reduce the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. I’m wondering if you could speak a little bit about those changes and how important that is as Ontario seeks to make changes that will ensure future generations have a clean and safe environment to enjoy.

We’ll move to questions.

I don’t know what’s creaking.

I think that really makes a difference. When Bill 124 has been repealed, I think they’re going to feel better about what they do.

With that, I’m going to conclude my debate. I look forward to questions and comments.

The fact that the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act is in here, in schedule 5, and then the Ontario Energy Board Act, under schedule 6—as far as I’ve heard, I haven’t heard a lot of analytical pieces to it; we’re still waiting on the climate change experts we consult with. We are waiting to see what comes out of that. The government has had many turbulent decisions around climate change. Hopefully, when we get that feedback, a little more expertise, we’ll be able to see that that is in the right direction.

Reinstating the funding to legal aid is going to help the system function better. I don’t know about other members, but I suspect that they get calls all the time from people who are desperate for justice. Legal aid is so busy that they’re actually triaging people and having to turn them away or delay their access. They have a deadline in court, and that isn’t helpful. So reinstating that funding is crucial for low-income people who are in vulnerable situations.

Today is Wrapped in Courage—we know that a lot of women who earn a low income are seeking justice for various reasons, and one is, of course, family matters.

When you can’t afford the cost of the courts, which is astronomical—you don’t want to go there if you don’t have to. Having legal aid supports is extremely important for vulnerable populations.

It’s an honour to rise in the House this afternoon to speak in support of Bill 46, Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, introduced by the Minister of Red Tape Reduction. I want to thank him and his team for their work on this bill. I’d like to share my time today with the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

As you know, Speaker, the previous Liberal government doubled the number of provincial regulations, adding over 10,000 new regulations every year. That’s an average of 30 new regulations every day for 15 years. Four years ago, when we formed government, we inherited the largest red tape burden in Canada. This red tape added over $33,000 in the costs per company, far higher than most other provinces. We lost 350,000 manufacturing jobs because Ontario wasn’t competitive for business.

As the Minister of Economic Development said last week, Sergio Marchionne told Premier Wynne that her policies were putting Ontario at a disadvantage. I met with Frank Stronach recently, who told me that he told her the same thing. Last week, he wrote in the National Post about the ongoing problem of regulations that do nothing to serve the public interest, while creating costs and frustration for both producers and consumers.

We have passed eight red tape reduction bills since 2018, including over 400 actions to reduce red tape. As the minister said, these were common-sense changes to save time and money while still protecting health, safety and the environment. So far, these bills have reduced costs by over $576 million every year for businesses, non-profit organizations and the broader public sector, including municipalities, school boards, colleges, universities and hospitals. The results are clear: Ontario is the economic engine of Canada once again, with one of the fastest-growing economies in North America. In the last two years, we have attracted over $16 billion of investment in the auto sector alone, including over $11 billion for the manufacturing of electric vehicles and batteries. And this is only the beginning.

I want to take a moment to thank Andrew Dempsey, Doug Grodecki and Mohamad El Mahmoud, senior executives at Stackpole International, for taking me on a tour of their facilities in Mississauga–Lakeshore on Friday. Speaker, Stackpole is a top-three global parts supplier for hybrid and electric vehicles, and, like many others, now they’re looking to invest and expand their foot-print in Ontario. If passed, Bill 46 would build on this record of success, with 28 new initiatives to make Ontario more competitive and to make our supply chains stronger and more secure.

One of this government’s first bills four years ago was the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act. This policy would have cost Ontario consumers and businesses billions of dollars every year. But the Auditor General reports the previous government never confirmed that this would actually reduce carbon emissions. In 2016, the Auditor General reported, “These funds may be leaving Ontario’s economy for no purpose other than to help the government claim it has met” its targets. As Frank Stronach said, this would do “nothing to serve the public interest.”

In contrast, carbon capture and storage technology is already being used to capture over 40 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year, including four megatonnes in Canada, but mostly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. If passed, schedule 5 of Bill 46 would amend the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act to move towards a regulatory framework for carbon capture technology in Ontario. It would provide clarity to the industry and encourage innovation to qualify for the federal government’s $2.6-billion carbon capture and storage tax credit introduced earlier this year in the 2022 federal budget. We know this will have an important role in meeting Ontario and Canada’s climate targets.

Dennis Darby, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, reports that, in a survey earlier this year, manufacturers ranked investment in carbon capture technology as a top priority to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

If passed, schedule 6 of Bill 46 would also amend the Ontario Energy Board Act to exempt consumer-funded transmission lines from certain OEB approval requirements. And as we compete with other provinces and states for investments across the electric vehicle supply chain, this change will help to reduce legal costs and make Ontario more competitive.

Mr. Darby said, “We’re pleased that the province continues to listen to our concerns, and put measures in place that increase regulatory certainty to achieve a cost-effective energy transition and help manufacturers grow.”

Speaker, last week, I met with Thomas Barakat and his team from the Ontario Good Roads association about asset management and environmental best practices. For example, each spring in Ontario, our roads are weakened by excessive water during the annual spring thaw. Pavement reductions are up to 70% greater in the spring than any other season. This means the same axle can cause up to eight times more damage to the roads in the spring than any other time of the year. For this reason, the Highway Traffic Act allows municipalities to reduce vehicle axle weight limits in the spring. However, the restrictions needed and the time period they’ve needed depend on the region and the road conditions each year.

I’m glad to hear that the Ministry of Transportation is working in partnership with the Ontario Good Roads association on prediction models that will allow municipalities to reduce these restrictions when conditions allow. This will improve and strengthen our supply chains in the auto sector, in agricultural trucking and right across our economy while protecting road infrastructure.

Earlier this year, in March, the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, now the chief government whip, announced the Building Ontario Business Initiative to strengthen Ontario’s supply chains and to provide Ontario companies with greater access to the public procurement operations through Supply Ontario, which is now part of the Treasury Board. The government has set a target awarding $3 billion in contracts per year to Ontario businesses by 2026 to help drive growth and job creation.

Again, if passed, Bill 46 would help build on this progress. For example, as the minister said, the Ministry of Transportation is now reviewing the use of corporate performance rating to evaluate bids for engineering services. In practice, CPR tends to creep upwards, and the rates cluster together, with little or no distinction between high and low performance.

Some members will remember a case under the previous Liberal government that was highlighted by the Auditor General in 2016. A contractor installed a truss upside-down on the pedestrian bridge on Highway 401 in Pickering. The contractor’s performance was so poor, Metrolinx had to take over and manage the $19-million project. And yet the Auditor General wrote, “Although Metrolinx was aware of this contractor’s lack of experience, its poor work ethic, and its unwillingness to improve performance,” this same contractor was awarded the contract for the second phase of the project. It then built a stairway incorrectly and caused $1 million of damage. Metrolinx terminated this contract too, but later awarded the same contractor another, even larger, project valued at $39 million.

Speaker, as the minister said, giving less weight to CPR would help make the procurement process simpler to administrate, fairer for everyone and, most importantly, it would help ensure value for taxpayers’ dollars.

To conclude, again, I want to thank the minister and his team for this work on another important bill that will improve Ontario’s competitiveness, strengthen our local supply chain and make government services easier to access. I would urge all members to join me in voting for Bill 46.

Thank you, and now I will share my time again with the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

The next question.

We don’t have time for other questions, so we’ll go to further debate.

Thank you to my colleague for that passionate presentation.

Since being elected in 2018, our government has taken over 400 actions to reduce red tape while maintaining important regulations that protect people’s health, safety and the environment. This has led to savings of more than half a billion dollars in annual compliance costs.

Will the member opposite agree that cutting red tape saves people and businesses time and money so they can grow their businesses and spend more time with family?

Thank you, member from London–Fanshawe, for your presentation. I always like the different perspectives that you bring to this House.

Cutting red tape across government has many benefits. It’s making interaction with the government easier, to reduce our dependency on postage, and it is improving the environment by reducing our dependency on paper.

Why does the opposition continually vote against all of our red tape reduction measures and the many benefits they have for the people of Ontario?

Thank you for that question.

I mentioned earlier that I worked in the insurance industry before I came here, and we analyze everything ad nauseam and always look for details. Anywhere you can make things work better—if there’s a cost savings, of course, that’s going to improve people’s lives.

I think the member said $500 million—I’m not sure what number he used. That savings—

Of course, we all know that if you don’t get the help you need, you get worse; your quality of life and health deteriorates. It’s hard enough to get home care to come and help. So upfront investments that prevent people from waiting years go a long way and actually save the health care system money.

I said earlier today that a person has been waiting since 2016 for a doctor, and that’s just unspeakable—I don’t even have words. That’s what we’re doing here in Ontario.

So I hope the government can do better when it comes to wait times for all areas, including access to primary care doctors.

For me, coming from the insurance industry, where we had files upon files, I tell you, that’s the best system for me—when it’s reliability—but that doesn’t mean the absence of the electronic and saving costs. As you can see, I always come prepared with paper, just in case my laptop doesn’t work, just in case the Internet goes down. It is a cost-saving measure that needs to be addressed. Most of the time, it’s very reliable. But when you work in insurance and you’ve got an insurance background, you’re always making sure that there’s not something around the corner that you can’t prevent. So I do appreciate that we need to be online, but that’s just my way of working.