I appreciate the member’s statement and her providing the information about her experiences, but as a part of our commitment to break down the long-standing barriers in justice specifically—and as we were talking earlier, the system previously was literally paper-based. It was not up to date. It was not in a place where it was going to be moving efficiently for very much longer.

Our government is moving more services online by investing in technology and improving processes to deliver a better experience for prospective jurors. Not only will this reduce administrative costs, but it will make it easier for jurors to participate in the court system no matter where they live.

Will the member opposite agree that moving from the paper format to a digital-first experience would benefit the judicial system?

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?

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?

I thank the member opposite for the question. Yes, I’m honoured to serve on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with the member opposite. That is a very special committee because as a member of the opposition, he is the Chair. That is the tradition. That’s right out of the standing orders.

Some of the measures we’ve adopted in addition to a member of His Majesty’s loyal opposition being the Chair include the fact that all members sit amongst each other rather than opposite each other, as would normally be the case in any assembly or House. We routinely, both because the act provides for it and as a matter of practice, invite the Auditor General to the committee to comment on reports that the Auditor General has authored. This is a very important and valuable aspect of the work that the committee does, hearing from the Auditor General, and we will continue to call upon her to do so.

But also, in addition to the Auditor General, many witnesses come before the committee, including deputy ministers from various departments. This is essential to the work that we do—

Our plan is to work with the agri-food sector to determine current and future research needs that promote innovation and enable farmers to be on the cutting edge of best production practices, implementing new technologies and techniques that will increase the competitiveness and sustainability of the agri-food sector. Ontario is taking action, or is proposing to take action, by this bill to strengthen the agricultural sector, proposing to modernize the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, 1990.

Allowing for retired judges to come back to serve, even temporarily, will help get us through this very difficult time of dealing with these backlogs. We believe that that will have a major impact and is a positive—but temporary—measure.

I want to thank the member for his thoughtful comments.

He discussed removing the need to apply for leave to construct on energy matters, approval for consumer-funded transmission projects and impact transmission system upgrades being planned in the province. My question is, will removing the need to apply for leave-to-construct approval for consumer-funded transmission projects remove or impact existing rights to municipalities or utilities?

I want to thank my colleague from the Durham riding for an excellent presentation. Speaker, one of the areas that he spoke about was the Grow Ontario Strategy, and I’m not surprised by that, because in the region of Durham, as the member from Durham knows, we have an economic recovery plan. A feature of that economic recovery plan is our agri-food agriculture sector. So through you, Speaker, I’d like the member from Durham to provide more detail about how he thinks the Grow Ontario Strategy will benefit the growing agri-food agriculture sector within the region of Durham.

Thank you to the member from Durham for his great comments. I wondered if he could talk a little bit more about Indigenous consultation that we are engaging in and changing so that that assists our Indigenous partners in removing red tape and accessing more business opportunities, for example, that would benefit everyone. I wonder if the member from Durham, in the short time he has, can expand further.

Thank you. We’re going to move to questions.

For the next question, I recognize the member for Whitby.

I’m rising this afternoon to speak to Bill 46 which, if I understand it from my friends in government here, is about reducing red tape. In my remarks this afternoon, I want to focus on three schedules of the bill. I want to focus on schedule 5 and schedule 6 to highlight what the bill could do more on taking the climate crisis seriously. The member from Guelph spoke about this earlier this afternoon. I also want to begin by speaking briefly about schedule 9, the changes to the WSIB from an angle you may not expect, Speaker, and I hope you’ll give me a little latitude with this.

We had a significant event last week in the province of Ontario. On Thursday last week, the province of Ontario saw the election of the first Black Somali Canadian disability rights activist to this chamber in this place’s history: Sarah Jama. The people of Hamilton Centre elected Sarah Jama to take her seat in this place, and she’ll be doing that next week I’m excited to tell members of this House. For those of you who haven’t had the chance to meet Sarah, you’re in for a real treat, and for those of you who are from the great city of Hamilton, you know about Sarah and you know about the work she’s tried to do to help people with disabilities, and beyond that, just to be an incredible community organizer in her own right.

I had occasion to talk to her earlier this afternoon; she came and caucused with us for the first time. I asked Sarah as we were getting ready to move into that caucus meeting, “What are you feeling right now?” She said, “You know, I’m feeling the burden of a responsibility.” The burden of a responsibility as someone coming from a physical disability, coming from the legacy city of Hamilton—a significant amount of folks in the city of Hamilton live with physical or mental disabilities or challenges all the time. She told me, “I feel a responsibility to come into this place and not just criticize the government but to bring something positive home to my community and do something with the resources we’re given in my community.” I thought how fitting to be debating what this government could be doing with this bill to reduce red tape for people with disabilities.

The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North has spoken about it in a number of the question she has posed this afternoon. I think about the penalties assessed to persons with disabilities when they enter into a romantic relationship with someone—even with a modest income, immediate penalties in their income. You and I both know, Speaker, as people who live in Ottawa and work with people with disabilities, that they live in crushing poverty already. People are living in crushing poverty already, and there should be no penalty for falling in love. There should be no penalty for making administrative errors on one’s account, for missing a letter.

But right now, I want to impress upon this government that a way you can improve this bill is by dealing with the incredibly suffocating amount of red tape that people with disabilities and their loved ones and their families and their friends, through them, face every single day.

And do you know what is also related to that, Speaker? I want to impress upon the government that working for this government right now are thousands of caseworkers who work with folks on ODSP and OW who would like to see their talents put to better use. In Ottawa, Speaker, it is common for an ODSP caseworker to have a 400-to-1 ratio. You heard that right: 400-to-1. How is one supposed to be an empathetic voice, an enabler of opportunity to someone when you have that kind of caseload? You can’t. You do triage. You do communication by email, by text, by happenstance. That is an army of folks, available to this government, that could be sent out into the community to actually help people find opportunities in their lives.

I just want to impress upon the government that if you want to reduce red tape, if that is the intent and purpose of this bill—I was listening to the member from Durham in his remarks, and I appreciated an opportunity to talk to him off-line; I know he and other members of this government care about people with disabilities—think about the red tape that you could do to reduce the burdens in people’s lives so they can embrace those opportunities the member was talking about.

Second—and this is another diversion, Speaker, so you’re going to have to maybe give me some latitude. Maybe our friends in government won’t call me on a point of order and I can get this out. I think something that’s missing in this bill is help for local and amateur sport. And I had occasion just earlier this afternoon to briefly talk to the minister responsible. As you know, Speaker, I came to this chamber, still kind of surfing and glowing because the Carleton University women’s and men’s basketball teams both won the national championship last weekend. Speaker, I’m not trying to—I know the University of Ottawa is in your riding and it’s a great university with great sports teams, including basketball teams. But as I took in that national championship on YouTube in the basement of our family home with both of our kids that play in the Ottawa system, and both universities draw heavily upon the amateur system, something occurred to me that I think is red-tape-related.

So the women played their national championship against Queen’s University Gaels—fantastic team, had the fewest points allowed this year, 515; great team, tough game—in Sydney, Nova Scotia. It’s a great place—I got family in Nova Scotia—but it’s far-flung.

The men played their game in Halifax in front of 9,000 fans. Quite a disadvantage for our squad, I have to tell you, Speaker, because the STFX X-Men that played the Ravens men’s team this year, who have appeared in 17 consecutive national championships, had 9,000 screaming fans in there, and they played a heck of a game. But what struck me as red tape in that viewing experience as a lifelong basketball fan, as a sports fan and as someone who really believes that sports is an enabler for our youth—and for people of all ages, frankly, but particularly for youth—is that the women were playing hundreds of kilometres away from the men in a tiny stadium at the same time as the men. And I said to myself, “That seems ridiculous.” If we want to travel this national championship around, absolutely—let’s give that economic opportunity to different places. But I want to see an Ontario that platforms women’s sport as much as it does men’s sport. I want to see 9,000 people out to cheer the women on, not just the men.

It’s the case locally in Ottawa, Speaker, where we have a harder time finding volunteer coaches in the women’s basketball programs, more cancelled games. And I want to say to any of the friends opposite, if you go on our website, I wrote an update. My last column was on this historic weekend—the first time in 38 years that one university has captured women’s and men’s national championship. It’s a really incredible achievement to coaches Taffe Charles and Dani Sinclair—an incredible accomplishment. But my daughter remarked to me—we watched the women’s game in its entirety and then we switched to the men’s, as it just happened to be going into overtime. I said to myself this game, as every game at the university you and I serve, Speaker—we always have both games there so fans can celebrate both teams.

So I want to invite my friend in government who I know takes sport very seriously and that responsibility—let’s pursue that conversation with youth sports and the people who regulate basketball, because I certainly was so proud to be a Carleton University Ravens basketball fan, but there was a little sting in the tail there as I took that in, and I think we can improve that. I think that’s something we can maybe work on together at committee.

Okay, let’s get to the topic of the week as far as I’m concerned, and that is the climate crisis. Schedules 5 and 6 of this bill deal with two different acts, two different statutes, that I think will be really important in the actions this province takes on climate change—not the only statutes, but important. In schedule 5, the government is making the case that carbon sequestration is going to be an important part of our ability to mitigate against climate change, to address climate change. My friend the member from Sarnia talked earlier about how important carbon sequestration is in his community, and I take his point to heart on that. But I just wanted to make sure we read into the record—and I believe the member from Guelph did it earlier, but I want to do it again because some things bear repeating.

The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said yesterday in a press conference to the world: “Our world needs climate action on all fronts—everything, everywhere, all at once.” And there were three particular demands he put forward to the world, because as I am going to talk about in my remarks this afternoon, this is not all doom and gloom. I think too often when we think about how we can change our economy and our society, we get trapped in doom-and-gloom conversations and people tune out. We can’t do that as politicians. We have to make people excited to embrace the challenges and opportunities presented to us by the climate crisis we’re living in.

There were three things Secretary-General António Guterres mentioned we absolutely cannot do. One was we absolutely have to stick, hard and fast, to the goal of ensuring net-zero electricity by 2035; two, we have to stop any expansion of existing oil and gas reserves all over the world; and three, we have to be shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to a just energy transition for folks who work in the fossil fuel industry, something I think is critically important.

I say that, Speaker, because there are people from our families, from our great province here in Ontario—my own family—who have gone out to work in the oil sands in Alberta or on the east coast on oil rigs. They are incredibly skilled people. I often say to myself, as a researcher, what do we do with these skilled trades folks? What is their future, going forward? Because when I look at their own industries, whether it’s the enormous dump trucks that are driven in the oil sands or whether I look at the servicing of the oil rigs on the east coast, increasingly all those jobs are being automated, like so many other jobs in our world. The fossil fuel industry does not care about those workers. The fossil fuel industry is increasingly finding ways to get rid of those workers. But we urgently need those workers to plug into the green energy transition in our economy. That is essential.

You and I both live in Ottawa, Speaker, and just for the benefit of everybody else here, I’ll repeat an example I mentioned in debate with the minister—the minister; maybe one day he’ll be a minister—the member for Guelph. I said to him, “Ottawa-Gatineau has a particular contribution we can make to bringing Ontario to that finish line of net-zero electricity by 2035 that Secretary-General Guterres was talking about yesterday, and that is by renewing the energy partnership we currently have with the province of Quebec.”

The province of Quebec right now has more power than it knows what to do with. We are—and I think this is a positive element of what the government has been doing recently—encouraging investments in electrical vehicle manufacturing in Ontario. I give the government credit for doing that. But the question is, we can encourage the manufacturing of these products here, but how do we make sure that those products are going to be able to be used here in Ontario?

On this note, I speak from personal experience, because the summer before last, my partner and I, we took the leap; we bought the same vehicle the member from Guelph drives, a Chevy Bolt EUV. It’s a great car, but in the winter, you get a range of about 200 kilometres to 250 kilometres on that car. You need to know where all the charging stations are. Forget driving to Toronto; that is a tricky enterprise, potentially, if you need to stop and recharge. I often take the train. But if the members opposite are serious about the electrification of transport in Ontario, which I think is a fantastic goal, we have to build the infrastructure to sustain that.

What hydroelectricity in Quebec represents, as some advocates have said—think of it as a giant battery, a giant battery beside our existing hydroelectricity system, our existing, though not large enough, renewable energy system and the way the grid functions with nuclear power. Thinking about that opportunity with Quebec that costs, depending on whose estimates you believe, five cents to seven cents per kilowatt hour, that is an enormous opportunity for us.

But instead, what I’ve heard the Minister of Energy—who is someone I’ve enjoyed debating and talking to over the years. But I’ve heard him say, recently, “No, Joel, we’re going to be moving out of this permanent agreement with Quebec. We are going to be moving into spot markets.” That’s kind of transactional, in the moment. That’s not a commitment. So what does Quebec do? Well, Quebec says, “If Ontario is not serious about taking our power, let’s sell it to the United States.” In some cases, depending upon the amount they’re cranking out, they may be selling that at a loss.

But here we are, their neighbouring province, desperately in need of this power. Depending on whose estimates you believe, we have to have either a 75% increase or double our electrical capacity in Ontario if we want to electrify buses, if we want to encourage more electrical heat pumps in people’s homes or if we want to do that in larger buildings—or if we want to have more electric buses running in our streets, as I know the great city of Toronto is doing and Ottawa is trying to embrace, and I’m sure other cities. We need more power for that. So Quebec presents an opportunity for us to explore that relationship further, Speaker, and we’re not taking it. We’re not taking it.

I want to make sure that members of this House are aware of some of the news from yesterday because, as I said earlier, sometimes when we talk about the climate crisis, it can be doom and gloom. Here’s the truth. The truth is, in 2015 the countries of the world met in Paris and made a collective recognition that we have to try to limit the growth of emissions, we have to stop the heating up of the planet, we have to stop it at 2 degrees Celsius. In 2018 they revised that estimate and they said it needs to be 1.5 degrees Celsius.

We were on track at that point to get to 3.5 degrees Celsius of a warmer planet—3.5 by the end of the current century—and we know what that means. In Ottawa, we’ve seen it: five major massive weather events, two once-in-a-century floods and two massive windstorms. This has been devastating for farmers, devastating for homeowners, devastating for our electrical system. Tens of millions of dollars of damage. So that’s where we were on track, but actually, if you look at what the scientists are telling us, given some of the changes countries around the world have committed to, we course-corrected to some extent to 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer, which is still way too hot.

But if you look at what was recently negotiated in the last round of the global Conference of the Parties discussions, we are now back on a track potentially of 1.7 degrees Celsius. So these commitments and the changes some countries are making are making a difference. I want people watching at home to know that that does matter. Writing me and writing any politician in this House, pressing with your employer, pressing with your community organization to embrace the climate crisis: All of that work has led us to something. We’re on track. But it’s not far enough.

The big step Ontario made was phasing out coal-fired electricity. That was an enormous step we made, and I give the previous government—previous to this government—credit for doing that, having been pushed, of course, by environmental advocates.

But what we cannot do, what we absolutely cannot do, is what my friends in government have currently proposed, which is massively increase the footprint of gas-fired electricity in this province. As the member from Toronto–Danforth said earlier in question period, that will erase all the benefit that this government has attempted to do with major manufacturers, major emitters like Dofasco or Algoma Steel. Any of that work you’ve done with the EV industry in attracting that investment is all wiped out if you increase gas-fired electricity by 300% or 400%, depending upon the estimates you believe. Don’t just believe the socialist from Ottawa Centre; look at the scientists that are informing the UN report and the IPCC report from yesterday. They—

Interjection.

That’s all the time for questions. So we’re going to continue with further debate.