The following is the title of the bill to which Her Honour did assent:

An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022 / Loi modifiant diverses lois, abrogeant divers règlements et édictant la Loi de 2022 visant à soutenir la croissance et la construction de logements dans les régions de York et de Durham.

I want to thank my friend from London North Centre for that really thoughtful presentation. I want to zero in on his comments about the WSIB.

The bill that we’re talking is about supposed to be about red tape, but sometimes I think, embedded in this omnibus legislation are red ribbons—gifts, in fact, to some very powerful bullies in our province, and the WSIB is one of those bullies.

I want to give you an update on a case I’ve talked about in this House. I’ll leave the gentleman’s name out of it. We’ve been working, as you were, with a first responder who was critically injured at work and was fighting the WSIB for years. His marriage has fallen apart. He moved back to the riding to live with his mom. I’ve brought this case to this government several times—no help. Guess what role he played last February? He was a major organizer in the convoy occupation movement, because he was convinced that the Prime Minister hated him and that this House hated him, and the only weapon he had was to paralyze our city and create chaos.

I want you to reflect, as you did in your remarks, on what happens when we leave people behind. What happens when we abandon people to the WSIB bureaucracy?

Question?

I’d like to thank the member from Simcoe–Grey for his very important question.

The supply chain is absolutely vital.

I’d like to return to the comments from the member from Ottawa Centre. He mentioned the occupation. Earlier, we saw this government completely stalled as the Ambassador Bridge was occupied. We saw this government refuse to call a provincial emergency and refuse to acknowledge that there was $300 million of vital trade going across that bridge every single day. There were so many workers who were sent home because their employer could not pay them. There was no work to do.

I think your comments about the supply chain with beef farmers are important, but I also think this government needs to walk the walk when it comes to actually standing up and making sure that we have not only the rule of law but that we have vital trade.

The example that happened at the Ambassador Bridge went on far too long and was absolutely unconscionable. It impacted so many families, and it should never have happened.

You are absolutely right; we have heard that the Landlord and Tenant Board is only meeting for above-guideline rent increases, when there are so many other issues.

I hear from tenants, of course, who have great concerns with their landlords. I also hear from landlords who are saying it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong in this scenario the Landlord and Tenant Board is completely stymied. It is completely unable to function correctly. That needs to be addressed. It is not addressed in Bill 46; it ought to be. We need to hire more adjudicators.

I want to thank the member opposite from London North Centre for his comments and point out that it has been a big part of this government’s mandate to bring jobs back to Ontario, to eliminate red tape, and to jump-start our economy. Over the past five years, we’ve brought over 370,000 jobs back to Ontario. During that same period of time, we’ve seen the agri-food industry jump ahead as our number one GDP gross intake, ahead of the automotive sector.

This government is proposing greater efficiencies for Ontario’s beef farmers that will improve their competitiveness and strengthen our supply chain.

Does the member opposite not agree that supporting the supply chain of Ontario-raised beef and over 51,000 jobs is a worthwhile endeavour?

It’s a pleasure to rise today and talk to you for the next little bit about—kind of a nerd-out time for us to talk about carbon capture and storage, but I think it’s going to be an enlightening 20 minutes—or possibly 10; my staff just gave me a triple espresso before I got here, so I’m not sure how fast I’ll ultimately end up talking this afternoon.

What I am going to talk about is a very important thing. I’m pleased to be standing here today to talk about Bill 46, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, and the carbon-storage aspect part of the bill, which is just one of the many ways that this government is cutting red tape.

I want to start off by commending the Minister of Red Tape Reduction and his staff for their work on this important piece of legislation. They’ve really done a great job.

This is a comprehensive piece of legislation that will help our businesses here in Ontario compete in the global market. It will help us continue to build a stronger supply chain, which, we’ve learned from COVID, we need to make sure is resilient. We know that we need to be ready for challenges we may face from around the globe.

I know that we have heard a little bit of everything in this bill, whether it be about eliminating unnecessary regulations regarding hot tubs or making legislative updates to allow for a new standard of veterinary medicine in Ontario. However, I did want to take the time that I’ve been allotted to talk about the part of the bill that directly pertains to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Last Wednesday, as part of this legislation, we proposed an amendment to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. As part of this red tape bill, if passed, it will remove the prohibition related to carbon storage in the province.

Now, you may be asking yourself, “Just what is carbon storage?” Carbon storage, which is sometimes known as carbon sequestration, is a technology that involves injecting carbon dioxide into deep, underground rock formations for permanent storage. You take the carbon dioxide emitted from a power plant, from a steel mill, from a large industrial process, and you capture it. From there, you can pressurize the carbon dioxide until it becomes liquid, where it can then be injected into porous rock formations. Instead of having the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, this process ensures that it never gets the chance to get into the air.

Removing the prohibition of carbon storage is just one tool that’s being considered to manage Ontario’s emissions. Geological carbon storage can also help transition to lower-carbon fuels as part of the production of low-carbon hydrogen. While this particular piece of legislation in the government’s newest red tape bill is just an initial step to build the carbon storage sector here in Ontario, it signals the industry that our government is serious in our intention to support geological carbon storage and that we’re taking a phased and thoughtful approach to regulate the activity.

The business community that would be directly impacted by this proposed legislative amendment has responded with overwhelming enthusiasm to this proposed change. Enbridge—who I know many of us and our constituents have a relationship with, because we rely on them to heat our homes and power businesses—had this to say about the change: “We are pleased to see the government of Ontario signal next steps to explore carbon capture, utilization and sequestration”—also known, for the acronym lovers, as CCUS—“opportunities. [It] offers an important path to reduce carbon emissions from energy-intensive, hard-to-abate industries, including those located in southwestern Ontario, by capturing them where they are produced and storing them permanently, deep underground. We look forward to continue working with government, industry and local partners to explore next steps for CCUS and to leverage opportunities to drive economic development and job creation.”

The Ontario Chemistry Industry Association of Canada had this to say: “Enabling geologic storage of carbon is an integral step to decarbonizing Ontario’s chemistry sector while improving our ability to win new investments and create well-paying jobs that are going elsewhere. Carbon storage is already operational in western Canada and key US jurisdictions.”

That part about attracting investments is just so very important. Historically, when this government has sent a signal to the rest of the world to come here and invest here, people heed that call. Businesses heed that call. When the Premier or the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade talks about making Ontario a leader in the manufacturing of electric vehicles, the world takes notice.

We saw it when Stellantis announced over $5 billion for a battery plant in Windsor-Essex to build the batteries that will power electric vehicles of the future. We saw it when Umicore announced plans for a $1.5-billion investment to build a first-of-its-kind, industrial-scale cathode and precursor-materials manufacturing plant in Loyalist township. We saw it when Honda announced their $1.4-billion investment to retool their Alliston plant so they’d be capable of building electric vehicles.

With this carbon storage plan that we have set in place, we are inviting global investment to Ontario. We are creating a sector that doesn’t currently exist in the province and letting the world know that this is another way Ontario is open for business.

To revisit some of what we’ve been hearing from industry, right here in Ontario, Stelco, one of Canada’s largest steel companies, had this to say about the plan to allow for carbon storage: “As Stelco advances towards the aspirational goal of net-zero carbon emissions, we appreciate and value the support of the Ontario government. Their efforts to provide a full suite of tools, including the recognition of geologic carbon storage, is a valuable step in support of our collective work to mitigate carbon emissions and fight climate change.”

Another steel company, ArcelorMittal Dofasco, which is the Hamilton region’s largest private-sector employer, had this to say about the proposed changes: “The proposed amendment to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act provide[s] a path forward to enable geologic carbon storage in Ontario. Carbon capture utilization and storage will play an important role in the decarbonization of the steel industry in Ontario.”

Speaker, here we have the two biggest steel manufacturers in the country saying that this is going to allow them to decarbonize their operations here in Ontario, and that is huge. We’re not sacrificing our manufacturing sector like the previous government did; we’re making sure we give them the tools they need to respond to important actions like emissions reduction, so we can compete with the rest of the world.

I don’t want to laden the House with endless instances of support for this initiative, but boy, there’s a lot of them, and I did want to share just one more quote, this one being from the Canadian Steel Producers Association: “We welcome Ontario’s announcement on creating a framework to regulate and enable carbon sequestration in Ontario. These regulatory changes represent an important step forward and support our long-term decarbonization strategy.” Speaker, these strong endorsements show that Ontario is on the right track with this proposed legislation.

As part of the first step in our plan to allow carbon storage, we’ve also released a road map, and this road map outlines Ontario’s path forward for creating a framework to regulate and enable the permanent storage of carbon as a new tool to help reduce emissions in the province and support businesses and industry, while encouraging sector innovation and safeguarding people and the environment.

There is currently no regulatory framework to authorize geological carbon storage projects in Ontario, and some projects are currently prohibited under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. The amendment we have proposed to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, if passed, would clarify existing rules and facilitate future alignment of Ontario’s regulatory framework with other provincial and federal initiatives that are currently under way.

The federal government has signed various international agreements pledging to reduce their emissions, the most notable one being the Paris accord. They already recognize that carbon capture will play a key role in net-zero emissions aspirations by the federal government. I know we don’t always agree on things with the federal government, such as the carbon tax, but on this particular emissions reduction strategy, we do agree, and I’m glad that this is something that the federal government understands is another tool in our collective tool belt to help reduce emissions.

The government of Canada is currently working on a carbon capture, utilization and storage strategy that will set the groundwork for carbon storage across the country. However, even though that strategy isn’t ready just yet—which is disappointing, I know—I’m looking forward to what this strategy entails. We know that some provinces, like Alberta and Nova Scotia, have already started work on this, but it will be great to have a federal strategy that will help signal to the world that we as a country are serious about this.

With that being said, the federal government is already supporting carbon storage projects through the Office of Energy Research and Development. It is my hope that, as we fully develop our strategy, industry will be able to access this federal funding, which will lead to more jobs and increased investment here in Ontario.

I think it’s also important to note something that was brought up earlier in debate, and that’s the fact that no new requirements would be placed on businesses through the first phase of the proposed amendment. That’s pretty significant under the context of this being a bill to reduce red tape. The last thing we want to do is eliminate one regulation that will actually lead to the creation of a bunch of other regulations at this stage in the road map, when we’re just in the infancy of investigating places where carbon storage makes sense.

This amendment also supports the government’s Open for Business Action Plan by responding to requests made by key stakeholders and businesses interested in carbon storage as a tool to reduce their emissions or as a new business strategy.

As I just mentioned, the federal government sees carbon capture as important. There is a growing worldwide acceptance of the important role carbon capture storage can play in economically achieving a net-zero emissions global economy. Our research indicates that in 2021 there were over 130 carbon capture and storage projects at various stages of development worldwide by the commercial sector. For example, in the United States, there were around 12 commercial facilities already in operation and an additional 50 projects in various stages of development.

Western Canada also has commercial facilities in operation at this point in time, with several other facilities at various stages of development. Alberta, in fact, currently has a fantastic example of this that’s already in operation known as the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line system—again, for the acronym lovers, ACTL. The ACTL has multiple participants which capture industrial emissions, they then deliver CO₂ to mature oil and gas reservoirs for permanent storage. This one initiative alone sequesters approximately 20%—20%—of all current oil sands emissions.

Now, Ontario doesn’t produce nearly as much oil as Alberta does, and we’re very different in terms of geology, we know that, but in Ontario we have a lot of manufacturing here, whether it be for steel, whether it be for electric cars, whether it’s for materials that we need to build 1.5 million homes as part of our housing supply action plan, we can utilize technology like this to make sure we can keep industry here while we strive for net-zero emissions. In addition to commercial projects like the one I just mentioned, there are many pilot and demonstration projects under way worldwide.

We can’t be playing catch up. It’s very simple: If we don’t have the regulations and the business environment to allow for carbon storage opportunities to happen here in Ontario, they’re just going to go elsewhere and it will adversely affect emissions-intensive industries that need to find ways to start lowering their emissions sooner rather than later. We will lose out on good-paying jobs and investments in our communities and, if you ask me, we just can’t let that happen. I think if you ask anyone, we just can’t let that happen.

In January of this year, my ministry posted a discussion paper that explored enabling carbon storage in Ontario, and, through this engagement, we heard about the importance of acting quickly to remove barriers to carbon storage in the province so that our jurisdiction does not lag behind. We also heard about the need to ensure access to all available geologic storage resources and to maximize economic viability of these projects. Our government is listening to what we’ve heard in response to that discussion paper and we’re advancing the first phase of our plan, which proposes to remove the existing prohibition of carbon sequestration in the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act as a first step.

We’re sending a clear signal to industry that we’re committed to supporting carbon storage by developing a regulatory framework to provide greater certainty to businesses and industry here in Ontario. In phase two of the road map, we plan to develop further amendments to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act to enable projects—initially only on private land—to demonstrate new activities such as carbon storage. In phase 3, we plan to develop and consult on a framework to regulate commercial scale carbon storage projects on both crown and private lands in Ontario. Development of these future phases are expected to take place in the next two years and would include multiple opportunities for review and input from interested stakeholders.

Enabling carbon storage projects through these future phases will also better position businesses here in Ontario to take advantage of federal incentives and funding opportunities while outlining a clear path forward needed for greater investment certainty. Future phases are expected to encourage sector innovation of carbon storage technologies, which will play an important role in reducing emissions and help businesses to meet emissions targets.

Carbon storage also plays an important role in Ontario’s Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy in which the Minister of Energy has set out the government’s vision for a low-carbon hydrogen economy in our province. This strategy is allowing us to develop a self-sustaining sector in Ontario, evolve the energy system, create local jobs and attract investment while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We know that carbon storage is new to Ontario, and we want to ensure the activity is undertaken responsibly, with measures in place that make sure it’s done in a way that is safe for people and doesn’t have adverse effects on the environment.

Future phases of our plan would increase government oversight of carbon storage while maintaining public safety. And as the ministry accommodates new activities and technologies, additional protections may also be considered to ensure the continued protection of people and the environment. During each phase, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is pledging to work with stakeholders, to work with Indigenous communities and organizations, and, of course, to work with the public to ensure we design a framework that works for Ontario.

Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to talk about the important work our government is doing to usher in a new era when it comes to enabling carbon storage here in Ontario. These are very, very exciting times. And I think all of us, whether you are on any side of the House and any seat of this House, think that we need to reduce our emissions quickly and find creative solutions to reduce them.

We can’t tell manufacturing to shut down. We’d just hemorrhage jobs and plunge workers and businesses alike into complete chaos. It’s a time of global economic uncertainty. We’re all trying to get our feet back under us, and this will help achieve that. But we also need to be striving towards net-zero emissions. There’s no doubt about it. We have to be bold. We have to work together to make sure that we meet our international obligations to reduce our emissions.

This change to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act will help us do that. This proposed change sets us on a course to ensure that we keep jobs here in Ontario while creating new ones, and making Ontario an even more attractive place to do business. This ambitious plan that we have announced as part of the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act will help in our efforts to reduce Ontario’s emissions and cut red tape for business and industry, while safeguarding the people of Ontario and the environment.

So I really do hope—and I think, again, this is something that we can all get behind and support because the outcomes are all something we want to achieve. I hope all the members of this House will join us, support this important change that will help allow carbon storage in Ontario and vote in favour of this government’s latest effort to cut red tape for individuals and businesses alike. This act, if passed, will help our economy, help companies like Dofasco and Stelco, help other large emitters and other important manufacturers and energy providers meet their emissions reduction targets.

Again, it is something we can all get behind, something we should all get behind. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My colleague talked a bit about WSIB. We’ve heard the term “access to justice” being thrown around. We know that injured workers are often deemed to do phantom jobs that don’t exist just to push them off of WSIB. They then try to get on to ODSP and get into low-income housing and have trouble there. And they don’t have access to the Landlord and Tenant Board, because this government has decided that giving above-guideline rent increases is more important than tenants—or landlords, frankly—being able to have discussions about the rental of a unit.

We know that it’s low-income, racialized people who are disproportionately represented within our justice system.

Is there anything you see in this bill that will actually address the Landlord and Tenant Board issues or the WSIB issues that we are seeing in this province?

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 thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for your comments today. I know you’ve been talking mostly about the schedule of this bill that deals with carbon capture, but I want to ask you for a sort of general commitment on another schedule, schedule 8, which is the Provincial Offences Act. It deals with streamlining—or not streamlining; I’m still trying to figure it all out—with provincial offences and with how they’re dealt with.

What I’m looking for—I do a lot of work with a group that deals with human trafficking, and some of the survivors of human trafficking are stuck with government fines. There was one woman, while she was being trafficked, she—

I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Obviously, as part of this bill, we’re trying to accomplish a lot of things, not only what I talked about today, but a number of other measures that have been included in it. When it comes to human trafficking, again, that is something that we can all agree on through all sides of this House, whatever party you may be part of: that there is no place for that in Ontario and that we want outcomes, if there are situations, to be positive, or as positive as possible for everybody involved.

I appreciate the question, again, from the member opposite, Speaker. We’ll look forward to maybe learning a little bit more about that specific situation and reflect on that when I have a moment.

This is something new for Ontario but not something new, as we’ve seen it in other jurisdictions. Ultimately, this is going to be great for the economy in Ontario, but it is also going to be great for the environment in Ontario.

Again, the initial step is being taken now. There are many more steps to come.

Minister Smith spoke in his remarks about carbon storage. I’d like to learn a little bit more about why it’s critical to establish a clearer framework to regulate the activity, and if he could speak particularly, Speaker, through you, about what the outcomes would be, please.

It’s disheartening to see changes in schedule 9 to WSIB while the government is still allowing long-standing gaps for injured workers. Again and again, workers and worker organizations bring up deeming, a practice that allows the WSIB to reduce wage loss benefits based on deemed earnings from a job the injured worker does not have.

My question is to the member opposite: Why is this government not taking the solutions proposed by the member from Niagara Falls to stop the practice of deeming?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair. It’s my first time in the House when you’re there.

I want to say, it’s always a pleasure to stand in my place in Ontario’s Legislature on behalf of the good people of Waterloo and bring their perspective to the floor.

This is an interesting piece of legislation, in some regard, Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act. I’ve had a little bit of time to review some of the stakeholders that have actually provided some feedback. This is from OSPE. They say, “This act, if passed, will implement measures to strengthen provincial supply chains”—this is an interesting component—“make government services easier to access, and boost Ontario’s economic competitiveness.” I’m going to focus on the competitiveness piece, because I do see this government moving in a direction which actually runs counter to the competitiveness piece.

And I will say that the “working with Indigenous partners” component—and I think that it was really powerful this morning when our member from Kiiwetinoong schooled the Minister of Municipal Affairs and said you can’t call Indigenous people “our people.” They don’t belong to us, and it’s an important reminder that language really does matter in this place.

On the assessment from OSPE: A component of Bill 46 is working with Indigenous partners. “The government will work with Indigenous businesses and communities to better understand and address barriers to accessing government business support programs and procurement opportunities.”

I found that this is pretty important. I don’t know if you remember, but I’ve recently become very fascinated by procurement because it can really drive the economy. It can diversify the economic opportunities of folks across the province. Yet the government, as I mentioned, sort of runs counter to this philosophy. We heard this morning the member from Kiiwetinoong challenge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and say, “Listen, First Nations people have not been consulted on Bill 23.” So you have a red tape bill that says you’re going to listen and you’re going to work with Indigenous peoples and then you have a massive, damaging piece of legislation, like Bill 23, on which you didn’t even bother to consult First Nations people.

This is the letter that the Chiefs of Ontario wrote to the government and wrote to the minister. This just actually happened on November 23, so just late last week. It reads, “The Chiefs of Ontario express their full support for First Nations leadership in their opposition to Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, due to its clear violation of First Nations constitutionally protected, inherent and treaty rights and its inevitable adverse environmental impacts on First Nations ancestral and traditional territories.”

It goes on to say, “The government of Ontario’s tabling of Bill 23 is a blatant violation of First Nations’ inherent, domestic, and international rights over their ancestral and traditional territories.” This is a direct quote from Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare. “Bill 23 will inevitably harm Ontario’s environmental heritage and weaken land and water environmental protection.”

So you have to wonder why the government bothers to put a very symbolic schedule in Bill 46 when your actions speak louder than a red tape bill ever will.

This letter goes on to say, “First Nations have been given no opportunity, nor the adequate capacity to be consulted regarding the tabling of Bill 23 and its significant changes to Ontario’s legislative and policy landscapes. It is deeply concerning to the Chiefs of Ontario that the mandate of the Indigenous Affairs Ontario (IAO) office, which is to ensure collaboration amongst ministries engaging and consulting with First Nations on policy and legislative changes, continues to be unfulfilled.”

We would be very supportive of a piece of legislation which actually solidified and embedded a respectful relationship with Indigenous peoples in Ontario.

The letter from the Chiefs of Ontario goes on to say, “Unilateral legislative and administrative changes within Bill 23 without consultation or engagement with First Nations are unacceptable and an abuse of power.” Abuse of power—this is from the Chiefs of Ontario. “The unprecedented steps taken by the government of Ontario to violate existing treaties and their will to systemically sell off resources will have dire consequences for First Nations and future generations.”

Then it goes on to say—and this follows the questioning of our member from Kiiwetinoong this morning: “First Nations are not stakeholders; we are sovereign nations and are entitled to proper consultation based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ... and mutual respect.”

Then, finally, just to close this loop of inconsistency of the PC government in Ontario: “The government of Ontario can no longer avoid its duty to consult with First Nations by delegating responsibilities and obligations to municipalities, developers, and project proponents. The government’s requests for after-the-fact commentary from First Nations regarding the conception of Bill 23 do not discharge the crown’s duty to consult. To move forward, First Nations require a clear commitment from the government of Ontario to honour its duty to consult and to honour, respect and uphold First Nations’ inherent rights and jurisdiction.”

They have asked—and they’ve had to ask after the fact, Madam Speaker. They want to meet with the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, the Premier and the minister responsible for Bill 23, “to discuss the impacts ... and the value of protecting Ontario’s natural ecosystems, lands and waters from irreversible losses and damage for our future generations.”

So there you have it. You have the Chiefs of Ontario basically calling out the PC government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, for being completely inconsistent and disrespectful of Indigenous peoples in Ontario. And why is this relevant to Bill 46? Because Bill 46 actually embeds a component that says that we’re going to try to better understand and address barriers. Do you know what they need to understand? It’s that Indigenous peoples in this province have a right to be consulted, and the government has a duty to consult. So you can put whatever you want into a red tape bill, apparently, but at the end of the day, when you disrespect Indigenous peoples in Ontario, your actions speak louder than words.

The procurement opportunities that this government says that they want and care about in Bill 46—if you were serious about this, you would have passed my private member’s bill, which was diversifying the procurement chain and the supply chain to make those supply chains more local, to make our local economies more resilient, to diversify the people who are interacting with the public service.

At the end of the day, Bill 46 is primarily a series of housekeeping amendments, although we’re still waiting for some stakeholder feedback on the carbon sequestration because the government has said that this will be environmentally neutral. Well, we’re going to take the word of folks who actually have a track record of believing in measures to address climate change, which this government clearly does not. In fact, they have lost in court on several of these initiatives.

The other thing that the opening preamble for the legislation talks about is that it’s going to strengthen the economy. Listen; there is a time and a place for regulations. We sometimes disagree with the government on where they cut regulations because we’ve seen, and we should learn from, the history of this government on things that they have cut when they’ve reduced regulatory measures, especially around health and safety. We have the classic example of Walkerton. We should be learning from that example every day.

But on the stated economic goals of Bill 46, I have to say that the economy requires investment in people. What we have seen from this government is that they don’t fully comprehend how important people who deliver public services are. If they did, they would have already repealed Bill 124. Bill 124 is a piece of wage-suppression legislation which is driving health care workers out of Ontario.

We were in committee just last Thursday, myself and my counterpart from London, and we heard first-hand from a nurse who’s working in the emergency room in Ottawa. They had recruited 28 new nursing students, but they have lost 42 experienced nurses. So the government can say, “But we have 28 new nurses,” but you have 42 nurses who had a connection with that community, who had knowledge that you cannot learn from a textbook. That knowledge transfer, that mentorship that happens in the nursing field, it doesn’t seem to resonate with this government.

The other piece, though, is that we do support progressive infrastructure development and investment, I have to say, because we follow the money. We follow the money very closely over here. It is a rare, rare day that I can take a quick quote from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, but this association—I’m going to read their open letter to this government on infrastructure and transit projects, because it really is telling of how sloppy this government is with regard to the finances of the people of this province. This is the letter, and it’s a really good parable, if you will:

“Imagine you’ve hired contractors to do a home renovation project. You’ve finally saved up enough money to add that second bathroom you’ve always wanted. What would you do if, halfway through the job, the contractors came to you and said that costs had suddenly doubled, and the only explanation they had was inflation?

“Most people would probably fire the contractors on the spot and look for someone else to do the job. Inflation is a factor, but double?” You cannot rationalize a doubling of the cost of infrastructure projects because of inflation. “And, even if you decided to keep those contractors to finish that one job, you certainly wouldn’t hire them” again—but that’s what happens in this place. And it turns out that the Premier apparently has no problems with this.

The Premier “decided to put Metrolinx, a crown agency, in charge of overseeing the construction of the government’s major new subway projects.”

We’ve heard about a lot of these projects that were carefully drafted on the back of a napkin, and Metrolinx will be leading the charge, even though the agency to date has a—I would not say a very good record. You just have to point to the Eglinton Crosstown project and the public-private partnerships that Metrolinx, as the contractor, oversees. So when these projects were first announced three years ago—at the heart of the plan is the Ontario Line. This Ontario Line is supposed to connect the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place. Let’s not talk about Ontario Place today, because it is very, very problematic. I don’t think anyone thought it would end up as a spa.

The Ontario Line’s “cost was originally pegged at $10.9 billion. Metrolinx was put in charge of overseeing the project.

“Just a few days ago, news broke that the Ontario Line, which is still at least five years from completion”—if we’re lucky—“is now set to cost taxpayers at least $19 billion.” That’s almost double.

“That’s a 75% cost increase.

“That extra $8 billion could have paid for seven brand new hospitals”—it could have.

“The Ministry of Transportation is covering for Metrolinx and blames inflation for the increased costs.

“While inflation has certainly hit the province hard, Ontario hasn’t seen 75% inflation over the past three years.

“The Ontario Line is not the only example....”

Metrolinx was tasked by a previous government with “overseeing the construction of the Eglinton Crosstown line through the heart of midtown Toronto.” That project is now $325 million over budget.

“That’s enough money to hire over three thousand nurses”—or pay the nurses in Ontario a fair wage. What a concept that would be.

It goes on to say that Burlington and Oakville—municipalities which this government has been, quite honestly, insulting through the course of Bill 23 and Bill 39—decided that they were going to do a rail underpass together, and Metrolinx said that’s going to be $60 million. Well, they just got a quote for $177 million.

It’s the contractor that goes over budget—and you would think that the government would want to tackle this issue, because infrastructure investment does create jobs, but over-budget infrastructure projects that never get done on time or on budget are a drag on the economy. The only people who benefit from these kinds of projects, when there is no financial oversight or accountability, are the people who are at the table, in the backrooms, making the deals and making the money.

The fact that they’ve claimed that Bill 46 is somehow an economic competitiveness bill, not addressing the importance of accountability and efficiencies in infrastructure development, is not shocking, but it is problematic. A huge reset button needs to be hit on these public-private partnerships, which are not serving the people of Ontario very well.

I’m not going to hold my breath that this government is going to take on P3s. They’re very determined to go in that direction. At the very least, though, the Minister of Transportation should take responsibility. You can’t outsource your responsibility as a minister of the crown—I guess you can, because she is, but it is not in the interest of the people we serve.

So there are obviously inconsistencies with Bill 46, and we have some concerns with that.

Also, the fact that the government claims that they care about red tape, that they want to reduce red tape, is really an oxymoron, because they just passed this morning—we voted against it, for the record, for very good reason—Bill 23. Bill 23, in the region of Waterloo, is going to create twice the red tape that we’ve ever seen—

Questions?

Thank you very much for the question. Again, I want to highlight what we see as some real, solid and tangible benefits, which are industries and emitters which we know strive to reduce those emissions yet at the same time protect the jobs that they have and the investments that they’ve made and potentially any future investments. We want to work with them to enable a framework, to take that carbon that they’re emitting, again, go through those many steps that create a safe and environmentally responsible framework to capture that carbon and then store that carbon. Thankfully, in Ontario, we have the geology for it that will allow that to happen. So we’re uniquely positioned here in Ontario to be able to support industry that way, and there will be some great outcomes, both, again, environmentally and economically.

Thank you, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, for that wonderful presentation. As part of the red tape bill, we heard so many things. Thank you for all that important information you have provided to this House.

The level of carbon in the atmosphere has been consistently increasing. Greenhouse gas emissions are a huge issue, and this is damaging the environment. You talk about carbon capture storage. These are very, very important new concepts to Ontario. Could you explain, please, Minister, more about what are the economic, health, social and environmental benefits through this bill?

False.

It is not false.

We have a regional level of government that the government may or may not like—or they may or may not like the hard line that’s around the region of Waterloo. We have seven municipalities within that regional umbrella. The government is downloading the responsibility for housing and development to those seven other lower-tier governments. Right now, the region of Waterloo coordinates, collaborates, has the big picture on these infrastructure projects, like housing, affordable housing, not-for-profit. They are missing one part. They are missing the money from the province of Ontario; I can tell you that much. They have found a fairly strong partner in the federal government. Now, because of Bill 23, all those seven little municipalities, who have staffs of 10, 12 or 13 people, are going to have to figure out the planning process for the new housing projections—if it matches the provincial direction, whoever is going to determine those provincial priorities. Is it the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Is it the Premier himself? Is he going to determine what the provincial priority is? Right now, nobody really knows. So this, in effect, is going to create double the work at those lower-tier governments, and it will likely slow down housing developments and housing starts. In fact, the housing starts in the fall economic statement had been downgraded.

All of this comes at a time when we hear members of the government saying fairly disparaging things about these municipalities. My counterpart the member for Kitchener–Conestoga, just last Wednesday, was saying that the township of Woolwich didn’t even know that they had $6.5 million, and that $200 million was in reserves, and that nobody was spending the money.

So what did I do? I did what I’m supposed to do. I wrote to all of those municipalities, I quoted the member from Kitchener–Conestoga—I pulled out his comments, which were fairly negative, I have to say—and I reached out to those municipalities. You could imagine their surprise, because they have a five-year, capital-forecasted budget for $6.5 million, and all of it is allocated. I give these municipalities full credit for planning, for doing their due diligence, and for working within a very tight timeline and guidelines that are determined by the provincial government, because they are creatures of the provincial government.

At the end of the day, when you hear back from the municipalities and they say, “All of this money is allocated for five years”—someone in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs just looked at a number and said, “That’s outrageous,” but they didn’t meet with them, they didn’t talk with them, they didn’t consult with them.

And I have to say, this is a government that has $4.5 billion in a contingency fund, unallocated. Who does that, especially when the FAO says a reasonable contingency fund is $1 billion?

So what I see with Bill 46, as I said, is some housekeeping amendments, but you’ve always got to pull back the layers with this government, because they’re always up to more than what appears. What a disrespectful way to treat municipalities in the province of Ontario.

This is a very interesting question coming from the government, because we have stood in our place now, day after day, talking about the importance of delivering publicly funded health care, for instance—the government says, “Well, we want to streamline,” and they even put out the memo asking local health agencies to work around the clock.

We believe in public services. We believe in delivering services efficiently, and that, certainly, is not happening in our health care system.

So I guess the question is—and this was the theme—why is the government so inconsistent in your treatment of the very people whobuild this province and really hold communities together?

The Ottawa LRT is a perfect example of addressing administratively and, through legislation, improving the transparency on these projects. At the end of the day, this isn’t the government’s money or the opposition members’—it’s the people of this province, through their tax dollars. Once it goes into this massive contract, which is usually a consortium of some magnitude, you lose touch with that project and you lose the accountability factor. And when you lose the accountability factor, things go very, very wrong, as has happened with the Eglinton Crosstown, as has now happened with the Ontario Line.

To see a project like the Ontario Line go from $10.9 billion to $19 billion, and then the Minister of Transportation says, “Oh, well, it’s Metrolinx. I’ve told them”—

I do appreciate the minister giving us sort of his version of carbon sequestration. For us, it’s always, who’s driving the bus on this legislation? Who’s motivating it? In this instance, it does seem like this is coming from Ontario businesses that have been interested in pursuing new underground geological storage projects.

It’s amazing how fast a business can get action. Why can’t the nurses in the province of Ontario get action?