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?

Questions?

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?

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?

My thanks to the member for Waterloo for her presentation and participation in debate this afternoon, and I appreciate her speaking to the various aspects of the legislation.

I think the carbon sequestration piece is very important. Obviously, I’ve never been accused of being a socialist, but there are aspects of the NDP that I admire, and one of those is their commitment to fighting for the environment. I believe that’s a value we share. We understand the importance of ensuring that we’re protecting future generations, especially with regard to climate change and ensuring that we’re reducing emissions and protecting the environment that we all hold dear.

They bring forward many bills, they bring forward many motions and, obviously, I respect that as the role of the opposition—critiquing our legislation. And yet, I’m wondering why the NDP haven’t brought forward any plans to address carbon sequestration here in the province of Ontario in their own history and why they haven’t introduced similar legislation in the past.

My question is for the member opposite. She touched on a lot of various points.

Providing government services faster, better and easier for people and business is what cutting red tape is all about. This means providing end-to-end services that will enhance competitiveness and resilience across all government processes.

So why doesn’t the opposition support systems that will provide a simple and efficient way for people to submit, track and receive updates on approvals in a manner that is more transparent and accountable? That’s what our government is focused on doing. May the member opposite please answer that question and tell us why she can’t support that measure?

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 want to thank my colleague from Waterloo for her excellent presentation this afternoon.

Last week, our hospital in St. Catharines actually announced that there were going to be pediatric surgical delays in order to create space and capacity, because our health care is in crisis right now.

So why are we literally talking about anything else right now when our health care is in crisis—a crisis that has been exacerbated by serious underfunding by this government over the past half a decade?

My question to my colleague from Waterloo is, why are we not talking about how we can improve our health care when it’s in a crisis?

Questions?

Questions?