I thank the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington and the member for Thornhill for their comments.

The member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington is also the PA for agriculture, and he has got a great knowledge base. Because the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is actually here today and we have made a lot of great progress with our agriculture communities so they can thrive and survive and expand, I wondered if he could expand a bit more about the benefits in this bill, particularly on what we’re doing for the agri-food, agriculture sector.

Through you, Madam Speaker: The backlog in the Ontario court system affects all court users, and creating judicial capacity enhances the effectiveness of the courts. I know this. I lived in this. This was my world. To help resolve this backlog more quickly and ensure faster access to justice, this initiative, by allowing retired judges to come back, is a way we can effectively utilize our courts and allow the process of justice to be more efficient. It’s just another way of cutting red tape.

It is now time for questions.

As the bill has a few schedules, I want to focus on schedule 3, which is the Juries Act that has just been brought up—how easy it’s going to be for people to participate in the justice system as a juror. I know that there are barriers to being a juror, one of them being financial, and perhaps other areas that stop people or prevent people from being jurors.

Can you speak to the fairness about access to justice? Being a juror—if you have to compromise your salary during the day, how is that going to help the juror system be involved?

I am also a very big fan of food. My father was a chef garde manger for many years. He toiled away in the finest hotel kitchens in Toronto.

Absolutely, we need more food and more food grown locally, especially as we are seeing more and more climate change. As we know, we are also seeing an erosion and removal of some of the very best farmland in Ontario.

So is there more in this bill that actually does more to protect farmland, to enable those farmers to make sure that they hold onto the very best? It does not. And if you wanted to address that issue, we certainly would welcome it.

In my conversations, especially acting as the official opposition critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, I’ve now had a chance to meet with an extraordinary number of legal professionals. Without exception, I would say—and they don’t agree on everything, but without exception, they all identify one of the systemic problems that now exists in Ontario is the defunding of legal aid. They’re losing qualified lawyers who want to stay in practice. Their clients who can’t get access to lawyers are suffering. The lawyers they have hired are now leaving the profession. And now we have a corporate sector that’s saying that they also don’t agree with the defunding of legal aid. All of this means that the government has a chance to take action on Thursday, when they drop the provincial budget, to put the money back in and to index it to the rate of inflation. I would describe it as a crisis, as it has been described to me.

I think that the challenge here is that the government is placing the moving to a digital administration of justice as the silver lining or the quick silver bullet on fixing and modernizing the program, and that is simply only one prong. There are many other ways to do that, including the efficient administration of court time, courtroom usage, hiring new judges, and staffing up the court system properly. All of those things in conjunction with modernization, plus an efficient working between policing as well as the court system as well as the ministry—that’s what you need, and that’s not happening right now.

Thank you so much to my friend and colleague for her excellent presentation. I really appreciated that she talked about legal aid.

I think we should all agree in this House that finances shouldn’t be a barrier to justice, but of course there were cuts to legal aid that happened—by this government, in their last session of Parliament.

Can you tell us why it’s really important that access to legal aid is something that this government should be striving for and reversing these cuts should be a priority?

My thanks to the member opposite for the debate this afternoon. I listened very intently to the member opposite’s speech and appreciated the member sharing remarks about this particular piece of legislation and the work that it does to help reduce red tape here in the province of Ontario.

I know that individuals who live in the member’s riding obviously enjoy food, as most of us do, I think, and we recognize the importance of supporting a strong agricultural sector. I have many, many farmers in my riding. I know the member opposite has many people who like to eat the food produced by the farmers in my riding.

I’m wondering if the member opposite could speak a little bit about the importance of the Grow Ontario Strategy in this legislation and what that will mean for locally grown products, such as those from my riding.

I wasn’t heckling, what I said about wind turbines; I was telling the truth.

But anyway, besides that point: The CCS carbon sequestration issue is a big issue in my riding and a lot of ridings in Ontario, because industry, to keep expanding here in Ontario, needs carbon sequestration. All I hear about is “CO₂, CO₂.” Well, if you’re going to have energy in this country and industry, you’re going to have to sequester that carbon.

I’ve fought hard, I don’t mind saying, to get that clause out of there, because that’s what the industry in my riding wants, and there are all kinds of examples—I think they’re in Alberta—where they say they’re going to take four million tonnes of carbon and sequester it. Would the member support that or similar in Ontario?

It’s always nice to hear my friend from Guelph hold court, particularly on matters of sustainability and the climate crisis. I’m not sure about you, but I always like to try to find a positive way of helping governments imagine themselves as actors in this moment, because sometimes people can get overwhelmed at the thought of what we do, given what we read yesterday in the IPCC report.

So I’d like the member, if it’s okay, to reflect on what I think is a major part of Ontario’s solution to the climate crisis, and that is renewing our energy relationship with the province of Quebec. Quebec stands to give us an incredible gift of hydroelectricity, but meanwhile, as I understand what the government’s plan is, we are doubling—tripling—down on gas-fired electrical plants. I’m wondering if the member, because you’re a subject-matter expert, could contribute to this debate we’re trying to have from Ottawa and inspire our friends to embrace that relationship with Quebec and bring over more of that clean power to power the next economy that we need.

I apologize, Speaker. I thought the Minister of Economic Development wanted to ask a question there, but he was just getting up.

It’s been very interesting listening to debate on this bill today, and I have to say, I very much appreciate that our government continues to put forward legislation for red tape, I think twice a year—perhaps the parliamentary assistant could correct me if I’m wrong on that.

But what I’m hearing from the opposition benches is that we’re not going far enough; we should be doing more, which we are. We keep doing that.

So my question to the member is, since I haven’t heard anything terribly negative other than they wish there was more in it, will they be supporting the legislation?

Next question?

It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House. Today, I’m speaking to third reading of Bill 46, and I’m going to focus my concerns on schedule 5 of the bill, which amends the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, removing a clause that prohibits carbon capture in Ontario while simultaneously lifting the prohibition on enhanced oil recovery.

Speaker, I’m deeply concerned about this particular provision of the bill because of the risk it presents to the people of Ontario. The government’s own discussion paper discussed this risk, which is why I was surprised to see it in this bill. I want to quote from the government’s own paper: “Careful site selection and extensive study would be required to ensure that the carbon dioxide could be stored safely.” The paper goes on to say, “As the ministry accommodates new activities and technology, stronger, more proactive oversight would be needed to prevent impacts to people and the environment and ensure that project proponents that are undertaking any activity under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act are doing so safely and responsibly.”

Speaker, there’s been no indication since the Auditor General’s report came out at the end of last year raising serious concerns about the end of oil and gas wells in Ontario that the government has mitigated this risk. It isn’t indicated in the bill. It hasn’t been indicated in any announcements. So why would the government be moving forward with this, calling literally protections—if you talk to the folks in Wheatley, like, serious protections—calling it red tape reduction?

Furthermore, Speaker, anyone who read yesterday’s IPCC report on the climate crisis knows that we are facing a serious choice. As the UN said, we are going to go down the highway to climate hell or we’re going to build a livable future, and if we’re going to build a livable future—I want to say exactly what they said: Any new fossil fuel developments are utterly incompatible with the net-zero emissions required for a safe and livable future.

Enhanced oil recovery will lead to more climate pollution, which is completely incompatible with what has been widely circulated by not only the IPCC, but the International Energy Agency and so many others. We cannot increase fossil fuel extraction, even through enhanced oil recovery, and have any hope of meeting our climate obligations, so I would suggest the government is wrong with the schedule in this bill.

By the way, solar power now is the cheapest source of electricity in the world. That’s what all the international agencies say. That’s why most of the global investment now is going into solar—a little less so for wind, but also into wind and into water power, because those are the low-cost sources of generation.

And so yes, 10 years ago—

Interjections.

I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the member’s advocacy for industry in the member’s riding—I really do. But I also think we need to have an honest conversation in Ontario. The International Energy Agency, which historically has been pro-fossil-fuel and is incredibly conservative, has said that if we have any hope of a livable future, meeting our climate obligations, we can have no more new fossil fuel infrastructure developed.

And so when we’re talking about carbon capture and storage, we will have to capture and store CO₂, but if we are doing that to replace the expansion of fossil fuel use, then it’s not going to serve the function that we need it to serve. We need to both dramatically reduce carbon pollution that we’re emitting right now, and we need to take CO₂ out of the atmosphere at the same time. It can’t be one or the other. Far too often, one is being used to replace the other, and that is not sustainable.

I’d like to thank my colleague for her very in-depth debate today which covered a lot of bases. I particularly would like to touch on the WSIB portion. I hear from injured workers in my riding on a regular basis and the struggles they’re facing. Possibly this government thinks that they’re red tape also because the funding to injured workers is being cut, and they’re constantly trying to figure out if they’re going to have a budget to be able to pay the rent in the upcoming months.

Has the member heard this from her constituents and her injured workers’ groups here in the Toronto area as I have in the Hamilton area?

I think one of my second sentences in my remarks was that the bill is largely supportable.

Absolutely, they’re the ones I’m most concerned about. They’re the ones I’m specifically speaking about, that there’s an opportunity right now to address this piece of legislation to cut through the red tape, but that’s not happening, especially for those who are injured and who are the applicants.

We don’t have time for another round of question and answer, so we’re going to move to further debate.

It is a pleasure once again to rise in this House, this time to join the debate on third reading with respect to Bill 46, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act.

Speaker, this bill confirms our government’s commitment, made to all Ontarians, to improve Ontario’s competitiveness in several key areas by reducing burdens for people and for businesses in the province of Ontario. This legislation, if passed, would be our government’s ninth red tape reduction bill since forming government in 2018. If passed, this legislation will include 28 new measures to increase Ontario’s competitiveness, grow our labour force so that businesses can hire homegrown Ontario talent, support our supply chains for increased manufacturing, and make government easier to access and to interact with. This is the kind of environment that government, and in particular our Ontario government, is creating so that we build prosperity, we build the province, we create jobs and we in turn create the kind of prosperity that helps fund public sector services like health care, education and social services. That is the plan of this Progressive Conservative Ontario government.

We have already seen the positive results in Ontario’s productivity with eight red tape reduction bills that we introduced and passed. We have taken 400 individual actions to reduce red tape and cut regulatory burden, and our efforts are saving businesses and other organizations $576 million each year in compliance costs. This makes it easier for municipalities, not-for-profit organizations, businesses and stakeholders to interact and work with government. By simplifying administrative procedures across all ministries and government departments, we are reducing compliance costs and improving customer service. Successive measures like lowering payroll and electricity costs, reducing WSIB premiums and accelerating capital cost allowance writeoffs are making Ontario a more competitive jurisdiction to do business in, and we’re getting attention across the country, across the continent and indeed across the world for that. When it comes to reducing red tape, our government is getting it done, and it’s never been more important for us to continue this important work.

As a former small business owner myself, Speaker, I understand first-hand how frustrating, expensive and complicated it can be when dealing with government and red tape that disrupts business life and gets in the way of growth and job creation. Therefore, these significant barriers to our productivity have to be dealt with and dealt with decisively.

To increase Ontario’s economic competitiveness, we must ensure that we do not discourage trade with other jurisdictions or hinder investment and innovation with global partners, because that would cost Ontario jobs. We are a government that is creating jobs or creating the environment for more jobs.

Now, I’ve heard the complaints about dealing with government in the past: delays, red tape, regulation. I have heard it time and again from individuals, families and small businesses in particular. I’ve heard it in my riding of Durham since I’ve been elected and even before I was elected. And while we are proud of the progress our government has made thus far, there is more work to be done.

Bill 46, the latest of our measures to fight red tape and unnecessary regulation, if passed, will help build a stronger Ontario where people and businesses can continue to thrive and where we will build upon our government’s previous work to save Ontario’s people and its businesses time and money. This will lead to Ontario becoming a stronger economic jurisdiction with confidence and stability and a hopeful future, and as I said, an ability to fund core public services that individuals and families throughout the province rely upon.

Speaker, as the minister responsible for red tape reduction keenly mentioned in this House last week, this legislation contains five guiding principles. These principles are crucial to the effort to reduce red tape.

The first principle is to protect Ontario’s public health, safety and the environment. We will accomplish this by easing regulatory burdens in a smart and strategic way, eliminating duplication, enhancing efficiency, all the while maintaining or even enhancing important health, safety and environmental protections.

The second principle is to identify and prioritize the important issues which are causing the regulatory burdens and barriers to grow. We do this by assessing which regulations cost the most time and money, while working with municipalities, stakeholders and subject matter experts to look for innovative ways to ensure these rules stay effective and efficient.

The third principle is then to synchronize rules with other jurisdictions, including municipalities and the federal government, because we all serve one citizenry. By synchronizing rules with the other levels of government and other jurisdictions, this brings consistency, streamlines efficiency, and eliminates confusion for both individuals and businesses. This is one of the most efficient ways to reduce compliance costs across the board.

The fourth principle that drives this process is that we will continue to listen to the people and to the businesses of Ontario on an ongoing basis to learn what we can do to remove future obstacles as plans evolve.

And the fifth and final principle is to take a whole-of-government approach in addressing the overall barriers to growth. This holistic approach allows us to deliver better services to people and businesses, making it easier for them to access the information, programs and services they need to succeed.

To be clear, we do not believe that rules and regulations themselves are the issue, but the unnecessary, duplicative and outdated regulations are a problem, and it’s a problem we’re committed to solving by taking swift and decisive action, by introducing this legislation as part of a series.

This is a critical time for Ontario’s businesses. Even as the global pandemic has started to wind down, two thirds of our businesses across various sectors reported last year that their supply challenges have worsened as opposed to have improved.

Make no mistake about it, Speaker: Ontario’s businesses continue to face big challenges. That’s why we have brought forward this important legislation. And all Ontarians can be assured that this government will continue to show strong leadership on every front, including reducing red tape and unnecessary duplicative regulations. This is the environment we speak of when we speak of creating thousands of new jobs.

And speaking of jobs, I’d like to discuss how the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act proposes to cut red tape and support the competitiveness of Ontario’s energy sector. If passed, the proposed legislation in regard to this sector will make it easier to build electricity transmission lines by exempting customer-funded projects from the Ontario Energy Board’s leave-to-construct process. Proponents of these projects will continue to have the right to apply to the Ontario Energy Board to cross a highway, railway or utility line in circumstances where an agreement cannot be obtained.

Our government is also proposing changes that would simplify the gasoline volatility regulation, aligning Ontario’s regulations to national standards.

Speaker, I also want to touch on several modernization measures for the agriculture and food industries. These are a central part of this proposed legislation.

Through the proposed legislation, our government is proposing to amend the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Innkeepers Act. This would give beef farmers more flexibility and improve the competitiveness and the profitability of their businesses, helping to ensure a stronger and more resilient food supply for the people of Ontario.

The legislative amendments in this bill are in addition to announcements we have made to the larger red tape reduction package. Also included are policy changes and consultations in the agri-food sector to support research that better promotes innovation and enables farmers to implement new technologies and techniques that will increase the competitiveness and the sustainability of the agri-food sector.

Additionally, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act proposes to amend the Animal Health Act to provide authority for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to take temporary action to protect the health and the well-being of the public and animals when faced with a potential animal health crisis such as animal disease outbreaks. These measures aim to enhance animal disease emergency preparedness. They help mitigate risks to animal health and human health and, as well, they propose to boost the competitiveness of Ontario’s livestock and poultry sector.

As a result, these proposed amendments will help to ensure Ontarians continually have a reliable, safe and stable food supply. That is the promise we have made to Ontarians to provide healthy, homegrown food, and the promise we have made to Ontario farmers and the agriculture sector to provide the means for the sector to thrive and succeed. It goes without saying, Speaker, farmers feed cities.

Our red tape reduction package also includes the OMAFRA grow strategy, which is the province’s comprehensive plan to build consumer confidence and support farmers in Ontario’s food supply. The plan focuses on three key priorities.

The first of these three priorities is to strengthen agri-food supply chain stability by increasing both the consumption and the production of food grown and prepared in Ontario by 30%, also increasing Ontario’s food and beverage manufacturing gross domestic product by 10% and boosting Ontario’s agri-food exports 8% annually by 2032.

The second key priority is to increase agri-food technology and boost research infrastructure, advance the uptake of new technologies, grow the market for Ontario’s innovative technologies both domestically and globally and grow the use of data to ensure and support efficiencies in the agri-food sector and value chain. This includes beginning consultations on modernizing agricultural research that is specific to the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, and the legislation associated, to fuel innovation and support efforts to provide modern, relevant research information both to farmers and agri-food businesses.

The third priority in relation to growing Ontario’s agri-food industry is to attract new talent by increasing the province’s total agri-food sector employment by 10% over the next decade. Also, we propose to increase awareness of modern high-tech agri-food careers, opportunities for mentorship and hands-on job training, supporting efforts to increase veterinary capacity in the underserviced areas of the province. As a first step, the province has launched public consultations to explore opportunities to modernize the Veterinarians Act as part of the plan to increase access to veterinary care in Ontario. These are important measures to support our agricultural sector and to build a stronger Ontario.

Speaker, the proposed Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act also includes several changes to modernize and reduce administrative burdens in the justice sector. These proposed changes will help improve customer service and make it easier for Ontarians to interact with our justice system.

Having been a practising trial lawyer for over 30 years before being elected, Speaker, I can tell you, from personal and professional experience, that these reforms that are proposed in the bill are long overdue in Ontario’s justice system. I have in my past life written several articles and op-eds about trial delays and case backlogs, as well as testifying before a House of Commons committee as a subject matter expert on how to alleviate current backlogs in both the criminal court and the Provincial Offences Court.

Our government is proposing to amend the Provincial Offences Act to make life easier for Ontarians by helping to reduce the backlog at provincial offences courts. The proposed amendments will allow court clerks to reopen certain proceedings if such a clerk believes that the defendant missed a notice or was unable to attend a meeting or hearing through no fault of that person.

We’re also proposing to create more judicial capacity and alleviate backlogs in criminal cases at the Ontario Court of Justice by temporarily raising the limit on the number of days that retired judges can work. Those retired judges bring talent, experience and dedication and will help alleviate backlogs.

Lastly, the proposed legislation will reduce administrative costs and make it easier for prospective jurors to participate in the court system through updates to the Juries Act. The bill, if passed, would also introduce the pilot project that makes a jury questionnaire available online by default. This proposal will also allow us to test the feasibility of moving away from sending hard copies of jury questionnaires through the mail. This will provide Ontarians with a modern, convenient, streamlined way to participate in the justice system, while reducing costs and administrative burdens.

What we are doing with these proposals is driving efficiencies, reducing costs and, really, making it more possible for jurors to have a better experience while serving as jurors. This is consistent with both the charter right to trial by jury in criminal matters in the Superior Court of Justice and the important substantive right to trial by jury in civil matters under the Courts of Justice Act. This is about enhancing the experience, making it easier for jurors to participate as jurors, and that is consistent with making sure the justice system is about serving the people, working in partnership with those who serve on juries with our hard-working judges.

I heard the member from Toronto Centre suggest that she’s convinced that somehow we should reduce jury trials if there’s some inefficiency or red tape associated with that. In my experience, Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Juries, when they deliberate together, often deliver speedier justice because they can deliver their verdicts in hours after the hearing of evidence or, at most, in a few days, whereas reserve decisions in judge-alone cases can take up to six months or longer to reach the litigants.

Piloting this project then, Speaker, will help the government assess the impact on response rates in different communities. In all cases, the right to receive a paper questionnaire will be maintained.

Through the 13 legislative initiatives in the bill that stretch across government, we are creating the conditions that let businesses thrive and people prosper and, as a result, if passed, the proposed legislation would benefit all of Ontario’s people and businesses.

As my colleague the minister for red tape stated in the House last week, our government continues to work with and listen to people, businesses and experts in the field who have been instrumental in recommending great ideas to reduce red tape in Ontario. We continue to encourage people and businesses to submit their suggestions to move forward further on this important measure.

I urge the opposition to recognize these important measures, and I’m hearing that they are convinced to do so. I urge them to stand with us to help reduce red tape, reduce regulatory burden and reduce duplication and unleash the full potential of Ontario. That is the right thing for the province. That is the way to grow and build the province, create jobs and prosperity and fund our essential, core public services. So if I heard right and the opposition is ready to support the bill, I congratulate them on changing their tune and not just being the party of no. Thank you, Speaker.

Thank you for your presentation, to the member across. In a recent conversation I had with the federation of Ontario law societies—there were about 33 different individuals on the call and they were from across Ontario—when I told them about schedule 2 of this particular bill—this is the schedule that brings back retired judges to increase their sitting time from 50% full-time to 75% full-time—their reaction was quite alarmed. I would say that they were overwhelmingly in disagreement with this proposal. They said that they weren’t consulted, but they were also noting that the solution the government has brought forward is costly and not efficient at all.

Would you explain to those who perhaps may be watching why this government believes that it is more cost-efficient to bring back judges who are already receiving a pension and put them back into the system, and whether or not you think that this proposal is sustainable in the long run?

Thank you to the member of the government opposite for his presentation. He and I both serve on public accounts, and a lot of what we see here, the changes that come in these what we might call housekeeping bills or regulations and other things that are seeking to improve government, come out of public accounts. They come from suggestions made by the Auditor General of the times.

I wanted you to tell us how important public accounts is as a committee and why it’s important to listen to what the Auditor General has to say and to bring those changes here to the floor of government as quickly as possible.

There’s really no greater example of burdensome red tape than the over 800 regulations associated with the ODSP Act. Can you imagine becoming disabled, with no income, and then having to navigate 800-plus regulations? These are not only barriers to growth; they are barriers to survival. Will the government be reducing the heavy burden of regulatory overreach attached to social assistance programs?