As we’ve heard, we have a building filled today with Ontario Public School Boards’ Association folks. I’m looking forward to meeting with Debora Oldfield, Emma Cunningham and Rusty Hick, trustees from my neck of the woods. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’m glad to be able to ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Under schedule 5, which makes changes to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, I appreciate the conversation around carbon capture. There’s lots of new information and technologies available to us and lots of interesting conversations about environmental benefit but also impact.

I did want to ask, though, because as we are repealing the subsection that will allow for the injection of CO₂ into geological formations as a form of carbon capture, and the government’s discussion paper about this talked about the opportunities for business—“unregulated business environment” currently and whatnot. My question is, what is the rationale, or walk me through—the proposal in this case seems to narrow the prohibitions here only to projects that are also engaged in the recovery of oil or gas. “Only” involved in the recovery of oil or gas: Can you explain to us why?

I’m glad to be able to ask a question in response to an excellent presentation by the member from Waterloo, as we’re talking about Bill 46, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act.

She rightly highlighted the Ontario Line and the inability for folks to follow the money, and I know that she likes to be able to do that, which is part of the problem with P3s—that with the public-private partnerships, we don’t have the accountability. Certainly, she raised the Eglinton Crosstown—but I will see the Eglinton Crosstown and raise her the Ottawa LRT as a perfect example of when things go awry. Remembering that P3s are not about public infrastructure; they’re about private profits—these are financiers that we entrust the project to. The province, in effect, is handing over the Ontario Line and saying, “Make it happen.” They’ll get it back in the end, and then we’ll find out how many years late and how many billions more.

In terms of outsourcing responsibility—I’d love for her to shed a little more light on why we do need accountability and oversight in the province of Ontario

I’m pleased to be able to ask the member a question. We had been speaking earlier about the Ontario Line, because as we’re talking about Bill 46 and less red tape and a stronger Ontario, I have concerns about the P3 model. The member, who comes from the Ottawa area, perhaps has heard of the Ottawa LRT and is probably familiar with what can go wrong with a P3. What we have here is a bill that wants to reduce red tape, but a P3 project—once the government hands it over and says, “We trust you; please make this happen,” there’s no red tape behind there. It’s just whatever happens behind that curtain happens. We get it back, and then we are left as a province to pay the bills.

So my question is, less red tape—is this government, in its obsession with just having no regulation—are those two things the same?

My question is to the member opposite, who spent that full 20 minutes breaking down some of the bill, which is an omnibus bill—essentially housekeeping. I think I’m heartened to know—sometimes it’s hard as a member in this House in opposition to thoughtfully break down stuff that is fine; there are some pieces in here that are fine. There are other pieces that—we look forward to hearing from stakeholders—may be problematic or we would want to bring forward amendments.

So I would like to ask the member—who talked about lots of stuff, some not even remotely connected to the bill. But connected to the bill, I would like to ask the member: What is he hearing from stakeholders? Real ones—I don’t mean the ones that the government minister was talking about at that level, but from his community, his community stakeholders for whom this bill is relevant in their lives?