Good morning, everyone. I’m honoured to kick off our day here this morning. I’ll be sharing my time with the great member from Durham a little bit later on.

It indeed is an honour to be before you all today to talk about details about the important measures that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has put forward in our government’s proposed Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act. I also want to take the opportunity to thank Minister Gill and his entire ministry staff, who I know have worked tirelessly to take the lead and introduce this important bill for the betterment of Ontario.

Speaker, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act is building on the government’s strong track record of reducing red tape. Since 2018, the changes we’ve put in place have saved businesses, non-profit organizations and the broader public sector nearly $700 million annually in regulatory compliance costs, and that is just a fantastic and tremendous number that has real and tangible impact.

Since the day we took office, we’ve lowered the cost of doing business in Ontario by $8 billion each and every year, and in continuing to build upon this progress, my ministry has proposed amendments to two statutes that, if passed, will further improve Ontario’s competitiveness and reduce burden for businesses.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has proposed changes to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act to accommodate innovation in new technologies, including those that can reduce emissions, such as carbon storage. In addition, we’ve proposed amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act that will provide greater flexibility for businesses that train dogs to support the hunting industry.

The proposed amendments to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act represent phase 2 of a multi-phased approach of my ministry that’s leading an effort to develop a regulatory framework for carbon storage in Ontario. It’s critical that we work to establish this regulatory framework to authorize carbon storage projects in Ontario because of the many benefits this activity could bring to the province.

I know I talked a little bit about this before in the debate around the last red tape bill that this government brought forward, but I wanted to give a brief recap as to what carbon storage is.

Carbon capture and storage refers to technologies that capture the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and permanently store it underground so that it does not contribute to climate change. The carbon dioxide can be captured from large emission sources like power generation or industrial facilities, and directly from the atmosphere.

There is growing worldwide acceptance of the important role that carbon capture and storage can play in achieving net-zero emissions in the global economy. It also has a role to play in the production of low-carbon hydrogen. In fact, carbon storage would help advance Ontario’s low-carbon hydrogen strategy, which sets out a vision for a low-carbon hydrogen economy in our province, where we can develop a self-sustaining sector in Ontario, evolve our energy system, create local jobs and attract investment, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I want to underline that point every time I say it.

Several other jurisdictions have recognized the potential of this activity, and they have already jumped on board. Our research indicates that as of September 2022, there were over 190 commercial carbon capture and storage projects at various stages of development worldwide. This number is only growing.

Without a regulatory framework in place to authorize geological carbon storage projects in Ontario, we hurt our national and global competitiveness and risk being viewed as unresponsive to business needs.

To get feedback on this activity and how we might regulate it, my ministry posted a discussion paper in January 2022 that explored enabling carbon storage in Ontario. Through this engagement, we heard about the importance of working quickly to remove barriers to carbon storage in the province, as well as the need to ensure access to all available geologic storage resources and to maximize the economic viability of these projects. Our government listened to what we heard and once again, we have acted.

As part of the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, 2022, my ministry implemented the first phase of our approach to developing a regulatory framework for carbon storage in Ontario by proposing amendments to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act to remove the prohibition related to carbon storage.

In continuing to make progress towards establishing a regulatory framework for carbon storage in Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is beginning phase 2 of our plan.

These changes are responsive to what we heard through engagement and would increase our government oversight on the testing and demonstration of carbon storage projects throughout the province.

As carbon storage is new to Ontario, we want to ensure that the activity is done responsibly. The proposed amendments include provisions that enhance the protection of people and the environment through a variety of tools.

This is also an exciting new tool for us to consider in managing the province’s emissions. It will help in producing low-carbon hydrogen and increase sector innovation that will improve our competitiveness and allow companies to access federal money for projects.

Large businesses across Ontario have expressed this exact sentiment. In fact, Jim Redford, vice-president of energy services at Enbridge Gas, said, “We are pleased to see the government of Ontario signal next steps to explore carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) opportunities. CCUS 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 can make a difference. “We look forward to continuing working with government, industry and local partners to explore next steps for CCUS and to leverage opportunities to drive economic development and job creation.”

I also want to talk for a moment about the amendments we have proposed to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act that would provide greater flexibility within the hunting industry for dog train and trial facilities and allow for the tradition of training and hunting with sporting dogs in Ontario. Train and trial facilities are used to prepare hunting dogs and their handlers for sporting activities safely and responsibly. Over the past several years, key stakeholder groups have approached the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry with the request that Ontario consider changes that would allow licensed train and trial facilities to continue to operate in Ontario.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is proposing legislative changes to provide flexibility for existing licensed train and trial facilities to operate under new ownership, which will give opportunities to new individuals to assume the operation of existing facilities.

My ministry is also proposing to allow for the issuance of licences for new dog train and trial facilities in our province, which would be facilitated by a one-time 90-day application period.

With these proposed amendments, my ministry is being responsive to our stakeholders’ business needs and is supporting the continuation of train and trial facilities in the province by helping to maintain opportunities for training, field trials and hunting tests for dogs in these facilities.

One of the stakeholders, Angelo Lombardo, the executive director of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, spoke highly of these amendments. He said, “The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is pleased to see the introduction of these amendments. With this proposal, the government is recognizing hunting with dogs as an important tradition, for which the cornerstone is well-trained dogs. This proposal marks one of the first significant updates to dog training and trialing in over 20 years. These areas provide a safe and controlled environment for dogs and their handlers to become proficient in specific hunting practices, a convenient location to expose youth to an important outdoor activity and an economic opportunity through the hosting of training and trialing events.”

We, of course, recognize the importance of ensuring these facilities are operated safely and responsibly, and will ensure that they continue to meet strict regulatory requirements. The humane treatment of wildlife and improving animal welfare standards in Ontario continue to be important priorities of this government.

My ministry will be publishing a proposal notice on the Environmental Registry regarding proposed legislative and associated regulatory changes at the time of bill introduction. Implementation of licence transfers and issuance of new licences would not happen until consultation is complete and amendments to the act and regulations are finalized, which is not expected until late 2024.

I’ll conclude my portion of the time by saying that, once again, I’m grateful for the opportunity to address the Legislature. I want to thank all who are present here today for giving me the opportunity to speak about how my ministry is improving Ontario’s competitiveness and reducing burden for businesses.

The Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act will continue to provide much-needed relief and cost savings for Ontario businesses, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, universities and colleges, school boards and hospitals. I am proud of the contributions my ministry is making to advance this important work.

I’ll yield the rest of my time to the member from Durham.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 5, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act to enact two Acts, amend various Acts and revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 91, Loi visant à édicter deux lois, à modifier diverses lois et à abroger divers règlements.

Further debate?

On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, it is my pleasure to join the debate this morning to speak about moving forward with our government’s bill, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act, 2023.

Mr. Speaker, this bill confirms our government’s commitment that was made to my constituents and all Ontarians to improve Ontario’s competitiveness in several key areas by reducing regulatory burdens for people and businesses in the province of Ontario.

When I was here yesterday, I was pleased to hear that the House leader for His Majesty’s loyal opposition supports reducing red tape. So maybe the NDP is finally getting it. As I have indicated before, when we reduce regulatory burdens and red tape and we grow the economy, and when businesses prosper, we create an environment where there are thousands more jobs—there is good news on that front today—and we have the revenue to fund our core public services in health care, education, social services, infrastructure. That’s what it’s about. A strong economy is what it’s all about. Government does not create jobs or create a strong economy; government creates the environment for both.

Ontario’s spring 2023 red tape reduction package is about that—creating the environment for growth and prosperity for all. It was introduced in this House by my colleague the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, and it includes 42 new initiatives that, when fully implemented, are estimated to save businesses, not-for-profits and the broader public sector $119 million in net regulatory compliance costs—$119 million in savings. Think of how that money can be reinvested back into Ontario businesses and Ontario’s manufacturing sector. Think of the positive impact that would have on business growth, job creation and strengthening Ontario’s economy for the next generation—and to support all of our important public services that the people of this province depend on the government to fund.

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the positive results in Ontario’s productivity.

Since taking office in 2018, just five years ago, our government has introduced numerous red tape reduction packages. This legislation will be our 10th red tape reduction bill. Our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford and the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, has solidified our strong track record of improving access to government services and making it easier to invest and build in Ontario. To date, we have taken more than 450 actions to reduce regulatory burdens, all without compromising health, safety or the environment. This legislation continues to build on that progress, and we must move swiftly and decisively to pass the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act for the sake of businesses, entrepreneurs, families, and the next generation of Ontarians.

To summarize for my colleagues in this House, some of the key items in this package include:

—first, amending the Building Broadband Faster Act to help speed up the delivery of high-speed Internet. High-speed Internet access must come to every community by the end of 2025. I know many of my constituents in the rural parts of my riding—families and businesses residing specifically in Columbus, Enniskillen, Burketon and Tyrone—have been asking this government and the previous Liberal government for the same high-speed Internet capacity that the rest of the province has had for the last 15 years. I say to the citizens of my riding in those communities, stay tuned—promises made, promises kept by Premier Ford and this government;

—second, strengthening occupational health and safety in the mining sector by changing regulations to reflect modern technology and to better protect workers;

—third, enabling the next phases of carbon storage innovation by piloting technology that has the potential to store 30 years’ worth of carbon emissions;

—fourth, implementing The Hague Convention on international recovery of child support, reducing frustration for families involved in the province’s child and spousal support orders system. This will enable enforcement of support orders in more than 55 countries;

—fifth, improving safety on Ontario’s roads and highways by updating the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit drivers from overtaking working snowplow operators unless a full lane is available.

When it comes to reducing red tape, our government is getting it done, and it has never been more important for us to continue this important work. It is a significant barrier to our productivity and Ontario’s economic competitiveness to do nothing, as the previous Liberal government did, and in fact, to add to that burden, as the previous Liberal government did. And what we saw is what happened—it discouraged trade with other jurisdictions; it hinders investment and did hinder investment under the 15-year Liberal regime; it hindered innovation with global partners; and it cost Ontario jobs. It cost Ontarians jobs—300,000-plus manufacturing jobs fled the province. But under the leadership of our government, jobs are coming back by the tens of thousands.

Madam Speaker, I would like to elaborate on some of the details within this package; in particular, some elements that the constituents from my riding of Durham have repeatedly requested, and now our government is delivering.

We are taking steps to amend the Building Broadband Faster Act—as indicated, proposing legislative amendments to ensure this gets done. In today’s technology era, where everything, including most government programs and ministries, requires online access and enrolment, it is absurd to think that there are still some parts of Ontario, right here in the nearby GTA, that are unable to access safe and reliable Internet. While that is the legacy of the Liberal regime of 15 years, supported in part by the NDP, that legacy will be wiped away as we get it done and bring broadband Internet to all. This is a necessity of life.

Once the needs of all Ontarians in underserviced Internet areas are met, they, along with all Ontarians, will benefit from the amendments we are making to the Pension Benefits Act to include electronic communications. This was initiated by the Ministry of Finance, and our government is reducing administrative requirements for provincially regulated pension plans and keeping costs down by proposing changes to the Pension Benefits Act. These would allow pension plan administrators to continue to send electronic communications to members who retire, without the need for paper or electronic reminder notes.

My riding is made up of several agricultural stakeholders and farmers, who, for generations, have dedicated their lives to producing homegrown Ontario products, to feed our families and export their products to other parts of Canada and North America. I’ve listened to the farmers in my riding, and they have told me how red tape and regulatory burdens have cost their farming operations tens of thousands of dollars.

Amanda Kiezebrink is the fourth-generation owner of her family’s farm in north Oshawa, and she informed me of the specific negative impact of regulatory burdens and red tape under the Liberals. She supports our government’s plan to get it done.

With respect to the Milk Act proposals, these will assist many dairy farmers in Ontario, like Sargent’s dairy farm in north Bowmanville. Here, Ontario is proposing to amend regulation 761, Milk and Milk Products, under the Milk Act, which would reduce the burden on the dairy processing industry while improving food safety. We’re getting it done for Sargent’s dairy farm and other dairy farmers. That is a promise we have made to Ontarians to provide the environment to produce healthy, homegrown food, and a promise that we intend to keep so that farmers thrive.

As a trial lawyer for over 30 years before being elected, I’ve witnessed first-hand some of the regulatory delays and burdens placed on the legal profession and the courts.

There are four areas where the Ministry of the Attorney General is acting to move forward to modernize our courts. Amendments, as well, in this bill include amendments to the Creditors’ Relief Act, amendments to the Execution Act, amendments to the Trustee Act, and amendments to the Courts of Justice Act.

Lastly, our government has proposed amendments to a regulation under the Law Society Act which would make the Law Society Tribunal function more effectively by recognizing the expertise of the chair and giving the chair of the tribunal the choice to assign either a one-member or a three-member panel where regulation states cases must be heard by three members.

I am proud to support this bill, and I look forward to hearing further debate.

I really enjoyed the conversation that both of the members provided.

My question is to the minister.

As a small business owner, I understand some of the challenges that small businesses go through, and I was very interested in the dog training facilities. It’s actually my understanding that they are becoming few and far between.

Could the member please advise on why this is happening and what our government can do?

There are many redundancies in government left behind by the previous administration—much unnecessary overhead and burdens and hoops to jump through.

But there is plenty of oversight for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and the Auditor General continues to have a very broad mandate for value-for-money audits.

What we’re doing is removing redundancies, removing duplication. That’s part of reducing red tape and regulation without compromising oversight. That’s the key to this bill.

Again, a little bit of a history lesson when we talk about minority governments and official opposition—yes, His Majesty’s loyal opposition, that’s the name for it for a reason. However, minority versus majority governments—when there is a budget bill, when there is a minority government, you can bring the government down. The NDP could have done that from 2011 to 2014 but did not do so. They aided and abetted the Liberal legacy.

There are a number of acts being amended or proposed to be amended by this bill.

The Courts of Justice Act—to remove the requirement of the Auditor General to audit the accounts and financial transactions of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. Again, oversight is still there, but it’s removing duplication.

The Creditors’ Relief Act will include electronic formats, if those amendments are passed.

The Execution Act—for a principal residence exemption in forced sales. That amendment will be made if this act is passed.

Updating hearings before the hearing and appeal divisions under the Law Society Act—I covered that off in my speech, but that gives the chair the discretion to go to one-member tribunals instead of three, if appropriate.

Amending the Substitute Decisions Act, updating that—this would clarify that an attorney has the power to access personal information about an incapable person.

Updating the Trustee Act to facilitate investment of trust investments—and, of course, the amendment to The Hague Convention to allow proper enforcement of child support orders.

These are very important measures, and I urge all members of the House to support them.

Holding a power of majority government? You should be a lawyer—you say you’re a lawyer; you should know this.

The thing is, they were a majority, and you were the official opposition, so you voted, percentage-wise—and you can verify it; it’s on record—the same as us, if not a little bit less than us.

My question is to the minister. For the bait zoning, I’d like to hear from you where we are with—where your government is, because—

When your Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre met President Biden, he was clear that opposition was an act of loyalty. So I want to make sure—His Majesty’s loyal opposition—that’s what we’re doing, our job here, holding you to account, just like your Conservative leader has said.

My question is very specific. You talk about not wanting duplication or red tape. You’ve taken out the Auditor General’s ability to audit the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. The Attorney General said, “We don’t want to hire more people. We don’t want to spend taxpayers’ dollars.” So explain to me why, then, you are requiring audits, for example, in the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto has auditors. They audit their books. They do all of that work. They have a chief financial officer. But you’re requiring an external audit to see how they can recoup all of those development charges that are leaving a hole in their revenue. How do you explain that duplication?

I appreciate the passion from the member opposite this morning. He just got a little bit of a question out there, at the end.

I will say, in general that I could not be more happy with what I’m seeing from this government, writ large, within this bill and the previous red tape bills that have come before it. We continue to support businesses, non-profits, organizations throughout Ontario to make their job simpler and to save them money, and a big component of that is the time component. I think about small business owners in my riding and what they have to do and how they have to do it, and they only have so much time in a day, in a week to get that job done. This bill helps them and helps everybody.

When we look at train and trial facilities in Ontario, we’re seeing a decrease in the number of those facilities. Since 1997, that number has gotten smaller and smaller, because there’s no way to sell a facility and there has been no way open a new facility. Imagine if that were you and that was part of your livelihood, and you had a business where the asset was essentially devalued because you couldn’t transfer the ownership. That would obviously be very, very troubling.

This is an opportunity to right that wrong, to open up the ability to transfer these licences—which will still very much be given lots of oversight from the ministry and create new opportunities for new business owners throughout the province. I think it’s very, very important, not only from a business standpoint but also from the cultural heritage of hunting and dog training in—

Ça m’étonne toujours d’entendre le gouvernement dire que le NPD a « propté » les libéraux quand ils étaient au pouvoir. Hier, on entendait le député de Kitchener–Conestoga dire, comment can you prop up a government when they’re a majority?

The Conservatives should think about this, because they were in power—the last time, the Liberals were in power for two majorities, but you were the official opposition.

Vous étiez officiellement—

Interjection.

It is now time for questions.

My question is to my colleague from Durham, who, I understand, had a long and fruitful practice in law. I’m wondering if he could speak to some of the changes that are being made through this legislation that will impact the legal profession, such as changes to the Creditors’ Relief Act and the Execution Act.

I have a question to the member from Durham. He talked about Internet capability, and there are some changes here that nibble around the edges. We’ve been talking about public versus private. The member has stated that he wants Internet for everybody in Ontario. How is that going to happen with a private delivery model, when it’s not economical for any of those companies to locate in many areas of the province?

Thank you for letting me give my inaugural speech today.

The word “hooyo,” which means “mother” in Somali, is derived from the root word “hooy,” which translates directly into the word “home.” My mother provided me within her own physical body my first home and birthed me into a world that wasn’t built for me. She gave me the tools I needed to survive in this world, as a child with cerebral palsy who was deemed a vegetable at birth and a future burden to the state.

Under the leadership and wisdom of my mother, I learned the beauty of unconditional love and compassion. I also learned what it meant to advocate fiercely for those you love through watching her navigate impossible circumstances in order to raise me and my siblings. She single-handedly pushed back against discriminatory pressures from school boards when I was told in grade school that I didn’t belong in integrated classrooms. My mother pushed to make sure that I had the best health care access and supports in place when navigating systems steeped in misogynoir and ableism. She taught me to speak up for myself at times when no one would listen. If not for her, I wouldn’t be here today, so I’m beginning this off by thanking her.

I also want to thank everyone in Hamilton Centre who has shown me, through their constant commitment to organizing, what radical love and care can look like. Thank you to Sahra, Sabreina, Amr, Koubra, Ahona, Vic, Kojo, Rain, Matthew, and so many others for believing in me and pushing me as your comrade to run for office. Thank you to Daniela for being the backbone of my campaign, and to Sara, Shirven, Robbie, Anika, Davin, Daunte and so many others—alongside the Ontario NDP caucus—for the countless hours that you spent over your lives that you committed toward sending me to Queen’s Park.

Of course, thank you to everyone in Hamilton Centre who voted to support my candidacy.

My name is Sarah Jama. I am 28 years old, and I’m the newest addition to the Ontario NDP caucus. I represent the riding of Hamilton Centre—a riding within a working-class city with strong labour roots, filled with caring community members who support one another when times get tough. Throughout the years, my friends and I have organized to make sure that care has been felt in this riding. To us, over the last decade, care has looked like a number of us delegating at council, asking for investments into our public transit system; it has looked like a number of us organizing to feed thousands of disabled residents, at the onset of the pandemic, through a makeshift, community-led, community-funded food delivery service.

This care in our community has looked like non-profits banding together to push for vaccine prioritization for COVID-19 for Black and racialized people in Hamilton, and community-run vaccine clinics. In fact, Hamilton was the first city to prioritize Black, racialized and disabled people for vaccines—and it was part of that work.

This care also looks like hundreds of Muslims who gathered at Bayfront Park last year to pray together in public, in solidarity with hate crime victims in London, Ontario.

This care has looked like many of us working together as organizers to successfully get police out of schools in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

This care has looked like many of us standing out in the rain, watching police officers shove the tents and belongings of homeless people, some of whom were pregnant, into the garbage, and doing all we could to replace those lost belongings.

Care in Hamilton Centre has looked like a number of us, at 20-something years old—and I’m including myself in that—starting non-profit organizations like the Disability Justice Network of Ontario or the Hamilton Encampment Support Network, trying over and over again to fill gaps created by cruel and harmful bylaws and legislation which work in tandem to continuously criminalize disabled people without homes for trying to survive.

This care has looked like a number of us in Hamilton Centre who made the decision to camp outside in the freezing cold for two weeks in Hamilton, in solidarity with houseless folks who died in part due to no housing or shelter options being available.

This care in Hamilton Centre has looked like a number of us getting arrested because we were trying to stop the eviction of Black and Indigenous people from a park in the aftermath of a traumatic fire, where their belongings were lost.

This care in Hamilton Centre has looked like a number of us continuing to try to improve the material conditions of those around us, with very little resources, over and over and over again, while some of us experienced housing precarity ourselves or were deeply unwell.

This care has looked like organizing multiple funerals for our friends, who shouldn’t have died a year ago—almost to the day.

This care has looked like organizing peaceful demonstrations to call attention to the ways police have harmed our communities.

This care has looked like my friends and I running for office at different levels and being successful in Hamilton Centre, succeeding in those elections, fuelled by the desire to improve the material conditions of people who are struggling. I’m shouting out my fellow organizer Sabreina Dahab, who is now a trustee, and Cameron Kroetsch, who is a councillor in ward 2—

This care has looked like, in Hamilton Centre, us organizing peaceful demonstrations to call attention to the ways police have caused harm in our communities.

This care has looked like my friends and I running for office at different levels of government in Hamilton Centre, succeeding in those multiple elections within the last few years, fuelled by the desire to improve the material conditions of people who are struggling in this riding.

Mr. Speaker, I want this House to be very clear that I am not here as an elected official today because I believe wholly that the system is fixable solely by electing good-faith actors. Last night, I was speaking with Mariame Kaba at a Police Free Schools meeting, She is an accomplished author, organizer and abolitionist. She reminded me that I am here to keep my foot in the door to keep the rupture that was successfully caused by my successful election open. And I agree with her. I am here today because of what has been and continues to be at stake under the leadership of the Ford government and to draw attention to it. But nobody in this House seems capable of absolutely fixing what this government continues to intentionally break.

Disabled people who are homeless continue to get stuck in this shelter-to-park-to-prison-to-park cycle because there is nowhere else to go. Shelters demand that you change how your body functions, including suddenly stopping the use of drugs, in order to access supports—a completely ableist framework, that you must change how your body needs to function in that moment in order to access care and love. Jails like the Barton Jail in my riding routinely withhold psychiatric medications from people who have been arrested, contributing to that prison-to-park-to-shelter pipeline.

Disabled people on the Ontario Disability Support Program or Ontario Works are living under legislated poverty, unable to afford food or rent. This government is well aware of that.

Many people are choosing and have chosen medical assistance in dying because of no other options being made available. It can take up to two years to access a pain clinic in this province.

In fact, someone I know in Hamilton successfully used MAID because she was vomiting cyclically due to her disabilities, and while on ODSP, she couldn’t afford the food she needed in order to live the life that she wanted. She has passed away.

We have seen so much death in Hamilton Centre, and that’s the only catalyst that pushed us to run to access a bit of power.

Disabled people have been warehoused in crumbling long-term-care systems under this government, without real choice, and the privatization of our health care system is a direct attack on the sickest members of our communities. People deserve the right to age in place at home, instead of sitting in their feces and urine for days on end, like Chris Gladders did, before he chose to die through MAID because he was in at LTC and was not being provided supports.

I would argue that together, these legislative decisions and underfunded social assistance, while continuing to warehouse disabled people and fund the disproportionate criminalization of disabled people in poverty, work together to paint the picture of modern-day eugenics.

This government has been so preoccupied with being tough on crime and sending people back to work, when the truth is, people have multiple jobs and still can’t afford to live in this province; when the truth is, criminalization is disabling, rips people away from stability and is not rehabilitative; when the truth is, some disabled people can’t work and are punished for it through underfunded social assistance rates.

Today, I am thinking of all the racialized disabled people I know who have died after being forced to interact with the so-called justice system: Soliman Faqiri, a Muslim man with schizophrenia who was beaten to death by prison guards; DeAndre Campbell, who was 25—he was younger than me—and routinely called police for help when he was in crisis, but he was killed by a rookie cop on the job who thought he was a threat; Ejaz Chowdhury, a Muslim man who was killed on a mental health call; and so many others I could name, who were not only racialized but disabled too and needed supports.

None of this is normal. It’s not normal that people can’t afford their medications. It is not normal that disabled people are warehoused into long-term care or are overrepresented in our prison systems. It is not normal that people can’t afford places to live and then get into trouble for having nowhere to live. It is not normal that sending kids to school these days with a smile is nearly impossible for parents of disabled students. It is not normal that teachers are taken to court. It is not normal that the people in this House with the most legislative power to do good are causing so much harm.

There have been a lot of questions leading up to me taking this seat in the House about who I am, what motivates me and what issues I care about. There has also been a lot of fearmongering about me as the “defund” caucus member.

Let me be really clear: My goal as an elected official is to take care of the people in my riding by improving their material conditions as best as I can, because I truly believe we don’t have any other options left. I am not here to get lost in the theatrics of this colonial place. I am here to bring light to the issues impacting working-class people and to support my caucus in forming government in 2026, under the leadership of Marit Stiles, because we do not have any other options left. People are dying because of the choices made by people across this aisle.

I’m here to collaborate with my comrades Trustee Dahab, Councillor Krotesch, Councillor Nann, and MP Green in Hamilton Centre to also make sure we are building a riding in Hamilton Centre that continues to take care of those who need support the most.

Mostly, I am here and participating in this system as an elected official to hold this government accountable for the harms caused.

Further questions?

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned, unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

When it comes to innovation and delivery and getting it done, the people of this province and, I can tell you, the people in the hamlets in my riding who have not had that Internet access—they don’t care how it’s delivered, as long as it’s fair, reasonable, and the government has an ability to have oversight and to keep costs down. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we’re committed to. The kind of question that is raised here results in the kind of dithering that doesn’t get it done. The people in my riding in those hamlets have been waiting a long time, and we’re going to get it done for them. Promises made, promises kept.

Less red tape means a stronger Ontario; a stronger Ontario means building Ontario; building Ontario means tens of thousands of more jobs; more jobs means that we have productivity, growth and prosperity for all and the ability to fund the core public services that all Ontarians rely upon.

Ontario is stronger when we have less red tape, and we have growth because we have less red tape and regulatory burden. That is what this bill, as part of a series, is all about.

My question is to the member for Durham, and the question is very simple. If you look at the title, it says, “Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario.” What is the correlation between the two?

Please continue the debate.

I thank the speaker for her passionate remarks this morning. I could hear that passion across the aisle. All of us choose to seek elected office in their own timing and pace, and for some it happens later in life, even those with grey hair like mine. I wonder if the member could explain to the House when her decision first arose and when that passion first started for her.

Thank you for the question.

I’ve been pretty involved in politics for some time because I see it as a form of harm reduction. I don’t believe in removing ourselves from the space. I co-managed the successful campaign of Councillor Nrinder Nann. I’ve been involved in the provincial and the federal levels of the NDP for some time.

I made the decision to run when my predecessor announced that she would step down. My friends and I worked together to sign up over 600 people to the party, to show that people want to re-engage in politics. People have been disengaged for a long time, in general. Voter turnout is abysmal, in general. I think in deciding to run, it was a statement of, it’s not just me taking this seat, but it’s a lot of us who care about wanting to be involved.