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—