It’s my pleasure this morning to say a few words about Bill 139, Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act. Let me tell you what less red tape looks like in northern Ontario.

You all know that my riding has the most mines in all of Ontario; the riding with the most mines is Nickel Belt. We have a brand new gold mine across the road from Gogama, a little community of about 200 people, up on Highway 144, a highway that links Sudbury to Timmins. We had the pleasure of welcoming the Prime Minister and the Premier of this province, Mr. Ford, with many members of his cabinet, when they came to—the mine is Côté gold mine, run by Iamgold. They came to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. They saw the village of Gogama, just across the street from the mine, and I had a good talk with all of them—to say the mine is programmed to have about 2,000 workers on-site. A lot of those workers would like to stay close to where the mine is so they don’t have to travel two hours, in good weather, from Sudbury or an hour and three quarters, in good weather, from Timmins.

There are lots of homes in Gogama that the government owns. The Premier, his cabinet ministers and everybody else understood that there is tremendous financial opportunity with this mine. Right now, they have 1,900 workers who sleep at the mine, in bunkers. They also have hundreds of contractors who come to do work for them at the mine site. All of those contractors have to find a place to stay; they have to find a place to sleep. But don’t worry, Speaker; there are quite a few empty homes in Gogama. All of them are owned by the government.

Three years ago, I contacted the Minister of Infrastructure, I contacted the Premier, I contacted many, many ministers—I have all of the letters here in front of me—the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, and told them, “You need to sell those homes that you own in Gogama.” I got a letter telling me that it would take between 12 and 24 months to go through that process, to put those homes up for sale.

So, 12 months later, I wrote back to all of them and asked—it wasn’t ready; and 24 months later, I wrote back to all of those ministers. Many of them had changed, so I re-sent the story. I sent them pictures of what the homes look like, how long the government had been fighting for them—because if you look at the Ministry of Natural Resources, they used to have many homes for their workers, but they also have many industrial buildings that they had there at the site. They have not used them since the 1980s—so 30, 40 years. All of us have been paying to maintain those buildings. There are people who cut the grass and maintain the trees during the summer. There are people who shovel the driveways. We pay to keep the place heated, to make sure that the structures are maintained. We’ve been paying for all of this for 30, 40 years.

The 24 months went by and nothing had happened, so I went back to the Premier, to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, to the Minister of Infrastructure—the list goes on—and said, “We have hundreds of contractors who are looking for a place to leave their trucks, to have their employees sleep. You own those homes. You’re paying to maintain them. Put them up for sale. I guarantee you, before the weekend, they will be sold.”

Two months later—because they had told me to wait 12 to 24 months—24 months later, I went back and, believe it or not, I got the exact same letter telling me that the process would take between 12 and 24 months before you can sell an $80,000 home in Gogama. If that is not red tape, I don’t know what is. How could it be that it took three weeks to put $8.4 billion worth of the greenbelt up for sale to your friends, but three years and a month later, you have not been able to go through the process you have to go through to put an $80,000 home up for sale in Gogama? I don’t like this type of red tape; I don’t like it at all.

It is not safe for those people to drive two hours from Sudbury, which is the closest place where they can house there, in order to get to Iamgold sites. This is not right. It is dangerous. You hear me read petitions all the time—“Make Highway 144 at Marina Road Safe.” We’ve had six deaths at the same corner of Highway 144 since I started writing those letters. Highway 144 has already been closed once because of the winter—winter has not even started in northern Ontario, yet the highway has already been closed once.

The reasons to act upon this are multiple, and yet we are facing a backlog of red tape.

Apparently, you have to go through a process that takes 24 months—and 24 months later, I’m told that you have to go through a process that will take another 12 to 24 months. I don’t believe any of this, and neither do the good people who try really hard to make Ontario a leader in mining.

There was a big event yesterday, Meet the Miners. They were here in Toronto. They’re all asking for the same thing. The people representing Iamgold were there. You heard the same thing I heard: that they want to be able to make sure that their contractors can stay on-site. There is a community across the street. You own houses. You own commercial buildings. Put them up for sale, get rid of the red tape that has already delayed this process by 37 months, and move on with this. This would be a red tape bill that I would jump up and down to support; I would clap as loud as you guys clap whenever you say anything; I would join you, if only this could be done—it will make sure that this mining project is able to have the contractors they need to deliver things on time. There is a tight schedule; things need to get done before Christmas. Some of this is done by their own employees, the 1,900 employees who sleep in bunkers on-site, but a lot of that work is done by specialized companies.

We are very fortunate, in Sudbury, to have a very large knowledge of how you mine safely and how you mine in a way that is respectful of the people, respectful of the environment, respectful of the First Nations. Those companies are there.

Most of them are Sudbury’s own people who have worked in mining their entire life. They get those contracts to go, but then there is no place to stay, so they travel back and forth from Sudbury to the Iamgold site. They do the two-hour drive on Highway 144, and I guarantee you, every second week they won’t be able to make it to the site—as opposed to buying. They would be quite happy to buy, they would be quite happy to rent; they would be quite happy to stay in Gogama. The community of Gogama is more than willing to welcome them. There are many families who have family ties to Gogama—their parents live there; their sister lives there. They would like to move there with their family, with their kids. The kids would go to school—there’s already a school in Gogama. There’s already a nursing station in Gogama. There’s a store. They want to make a living. What they haven’t got are homes. The homes that the government owns are on paved roads with sewers, with water, with Internet, with telephone, with street lights. They are located all through the little village. Gogama is not a village; they are what is called a local services board, so they do not have a mayor, they do not have elected officials at the municipal level—none of that exists. They are a local services board, and they depend on the provincial government for all of those decisions. Believe me, if it had been in a community where there was a mayor and council, all of this would have been done 36 months ago, but because they depend on the provincial government to move things forward, absolutely nothing is happening, and this is not right. This is not right for the safety of the workers, this is not right for the company that has invested billions of dollars in developing this mine site, and it is not fair for the people of Gogama—who want to grow. There used to be over 600 who lived in Gogama; they’re now done to about 200 people. They would be more than willing to welcome more.

So please work on this red tape—the sooner the better—and put up those homes that you have owned for the last five years that you’ve been in power. You have owned those homes in Gogama. Put them up for sale—there will be revenue coming, there will be people moving in. It’s a win-win-win. Why do we have to face so much red tape before any of this gets done? I don’t know.

Another thing I would like to talk about that has to do with red tape has to do with babies, actually.

If you haven’t gone yet, the midwives of Ontario are at Queen’s Park, in 228. There are two really cute babies in there, but there are also some very knowledgeable midwives who will teach you everything there is to know about good prenatal, postnatal and delivery care.

This put aside, there are some babies who need medication right after birth. We are fortunate that this kind of medication exists. For most newborns, if you are able to, you will put the medication in formula so that it is easy for them to absorb the medications that they need to be healthy, to grow—or if they’re sick, to get healthy, all the rest of this. For reasons absolutely unknown, if the medication is delivered in pill form, it will be covered on the formulary for the province, but if the medication is provided in formula—as in milk for newborns—it is not covered. This is another example of red tape. Think about it: The formulary is not only for adults and seniors; it is also for newborns. They matter. Sometimes they get sick. Sometimes they need medication. The easiest way to provide medication to a sick newborn, to a sick baby is through feeding. I’m sure all of us know how babies feed: They drink. If you put it in the formula, you’re able to control the dosage, you’re able to know how much they have taken, if they’re getting better, all of that. We have this red tape that says that if it’s in pill form, we’ll cover you, but if you need it in your baby formula, we don’t cover you. That makes no sense. This is the type of red tape that needs to change. Babies matter. We know how to give them medication in a way that is easy for them to accept, in a way that is easy for the parents to give to their baby. To ask them to crush pills and try to make it fit, and you don’t know if they got it or didn’t—no. Putting medication in baby formula is just the right thing to do. But if you choose to give your child their medication through baby formula, it won’t be covered.

We have this program in Ontario that covers medication for children whose parents do not have access to a drug plan. I could go on about this, because this idea that you have to not have a drug plan in order to be covered by the government plan—in my neck of the woods, if you work for Tim Hortons—nothing against Tim Hortons; they provide lots of good jobs to a lot of people—you get $300 a year if you’re part-time, $500 a year of drug plans if you are full-time. So they’re trying to help their employees; they’re giving them a bit of money. There’s a good chance that if you have a sick child, you will be talking about thousands of dollars of medications to help that child, but because you work part-time at Tim Hortons and have $300 a year in coverage for your drugs, you are not covered by the government; you cannot gain access; you have been excluded, because your employer gives you a little bit of a drug plan. That is red tape in my book. That makes no sense. If we are going to limit pharmacare to people over 65 and children, make it universal so that everybody over 65, everybody who is a child—right now, it’s set at 18; no, sorry, 25—everybody who is under 25 has access and it will be easier. It certainly will be easier on parents who are facing children with sickness.

Now I just realized that I only have two minutes left.

Ça me fait plaisir ce matin de vous parler d’un autre projet de loi qui enlève le « red tape »—c’est une expression que ce gouvernement aime utiliser.

J’aimerais vous donner l’histoire de Gogama. À Gogama, le gouvernement est propriétaire de plusieurs propriétés : des maisons, des propriétés commerciales. De l’autre bord de la rue de Gogama, de l’autre bord de la rue 144, nous avons une nouvelle mine, une mine qui s’appelle Iamgold, Côté Gold—et plusieurs travailleurs. En ce moment, ils ont 1 900 travailleurs qui travaillent sur le site. Ils ont également beaucoup de contracteurs. Les contracteurs cherchent des places pour que leurs employés puissent aller travailler à la mine.

Malheureusement, le gouvernement, depuis plus de trois ans, est en train de passer au travers d’un processus pour finalement mettre ces maisons-là en vente. Ça n’a aucun bon sens, monsieur le Président, que ça prendrait plus de trois ans. Il y a trois ans de ça, lorsqu’on a fait l’ouverture officielle, le premier ministre, M. Ford, était là avec plusieurs membres de son cabinet. Il a lui-même dit qu’il y a des opportunités économiques fantastiques pour les gens de Gogama avec la mine qui s’ouvre de l’autre bord de la 144, de l’autre bord de la rue de Gogama.

J’ai écrit au premier ministre et à tous les ministres qui étaient là pour leur demander : « Mettez ces maisons-là en vente le plus vite possible. » On m’a dit que ça serait un processus de 12 à 24 mois. J’ai fait un suivi après 12 mois. J’ai fait un suivi après 24 mois. Il n’y avait rien qui s’était passé. J’ai réécrit à tout ce monde-là, et la ministre m’a répondu : « C’est un processus qu’on prend au sérieux et qui va prendre entre 12 et 24 mois. » Exactement la même lettre que j’avais reçue 24 mois plus tôt. Ça n’a aucun bon sens.

Quand on parle de « red tape », là, on parle de choses comme ça. Ça n’a pas de bon sens, pour une maison qui vaut à peu près 80 000 $, que ça prenne 37 mois, à date, au gouvernement pour venir à bout de l’évaluer pour la mettre sur le marché. Cela a besoin de changer.

J’ai également parlé un peu de l’accès aux médicaments, surtout pour les bébés naissants. Pour les bébés naissants, souvent, on va leur donner leurs médicaments avec le lait maternisé. Malheureusement, si le médicament est donné sous forme de capsules ou de pilules, c’est couvert, et si le médicament est donné sous forme de lait maternisé, pour les nouveau-nés, ce n’est pas couvert. Ça n’a aucun bon sens. Ça doit changer; c’est le type de « red tape » que j’aimerais voir dans la législation.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières / Prayers.

There is a deferred vote on private members’ notice of motion number 69, standing in the name of Mr. Jones, Chatham-Kent–Leamington, prior to the deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 38.

The updated version is available at the table.

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 25, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 139, An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

It is now time for questions.

The housing crisis is not only something in southern Ontario; the housing crisis is throughout.

We are very fortunate, in Ontario, to be leaders in mining. In many little communities throughout my riding, you see mining explorations; you see new mines setting up shop. All of those mean that you need workers to do all of this work. That is so important to the GDP of our province, to the future of our province, and to the economies of the north. But in order to have a worker, you need them to have a place to live.

When the government owns homes that they do not put up for sale, it is not well received by the people of the north.

There are presently over $1 billion worth of requests that have been made to the government for interdisciplinary teams and zero dollars that have come out of this government for interdisciplinary primary health care teams.

Questions?

When our government took office in 2018, we inherited the most regulations of any jurisdiction in the world—380,000 regulations. Regulations are a necessary part of our society, obviously, but we also don’t want to overburden businesses and the health care sector.

We are currently proposing, in this bill, to streamline the submission requirements for generic drugs, to improve treatment options for Ontarians who rely on life-saving drugs. As it stands right now, when a company wants to get funding or have their product designated as interchangeable, they need to complete new clinical trials; even if these products have been approved in Canada by the federal government for decades, this could take years to do. People who need this life-saving medication don’t have the time to wait.

My question to the member is, as health critic, do you support this initiative to speed up life-saving medications that are already approved and safe in Canada and have been used in Canada for decades? Does that make sense to you?

I’d like to thank my colleague the member from Nickel Belt for her comments.

This bill, Bill 139, includes five schedules that deal specifically with post-secondary education, with five specific universities in Ontario. Those five schedules allow the chairs of the boards at those institutions to sit for a period of up to eight years, instead of six years. This member has very deep knowledge of the challenges that faced Laurentian University in her riding, and I wonder if she would like to comment on whether allowing the chair of the board to sit for up to eight years—what kind of impact and support will that provide to post-secondary institutions in this province?

I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her excellent presentation.

It’s deeply concerning to think that the government is sitting on assets that could be used and could be leveraged to help the people of Nickel Belt and help people who are working—and yet chooses not to.

In my discussions with the Tourism Industry Association of Ontario as well as the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce, they’ve indicated that many small businesses are having to actually bus workers into their areas for service jobs—such as Tim Hortons and others—because they simply can’t afford housing within their areas.

I want to ask the member, how does the government’s neglect of providing truly affordable housing impact local economies in Nickel Belt?

I want to thank the member for Nickel Belt for her comments. I’d love to visit her riding in the future. It sounds quite fascinating—to hear of the industry and the different circumstances. So I look forward to visiting your area in the near future.

I know one thing you speak very eloquently about is health care. In 2023, the Red Tape Report Card from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business challenged every province across Canada to act on reducing the burden for physicians across the health care system. Part of this bill includes accepting that challenge and moving forward with efforts to address the physician burden of paperwork. That has involved working closely with the Ontario Medical Association. I want to ask the member opposite if she agrees with the CFIB that this should be a priority.

Further questions?

I’m always glad to listen to and learn from the member from Nickel Belt. However, I will say that I’ve already heard the story about the—not town, but the—

Today, you had the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Associate Minister of Housing and the Minister of Infrastructure here during your remarks. How optimistic are you that one of those three who have received this letter multiple times in three years might stand up to their full height and change this?

Thank you to the member for Nickel Belt—it really expresses the need for this Ministry of Red Tape Reduction and all the work that it has to do and has done.

I’m pleased to rise and join the debate in support of the fall red tape reduction bill, the Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act, 2023. This comprehensive package of regulatory and policy adjustments introduced by the Minister of Red Tape Reduction builds upon the achievements of previous efforts to alleviate the burdens placed on individuals and businesses by either ineffective or outdated regulatory burdens.

Most things in life come and go in cycles. The saying “out with the old, in with the new” exists for a reason. It’s just a fact of life that at certain periods, what has been in place to manage or fill a need may have run its course, is no longer effective or is in need of alteration. The old saying, “Well, we’ve always done it that way,” just doesn’t cut it.

When systems are designed using the tools at hand to manage the efficient and productive flow of businesses and services, change is inevitable. It is incumbent upon policy-makers to monitor the impact of lifestyle, technology, geography and overarching societal changes to revise best practices and keep pace with our ever-evolving world.

While we all agree that regulations are a necessary part of the functioning of a civil society, there can be unintended consequences to the enforcement of outdated and cumbersome policies and procedures. The productive and efficient flow of business and service can and should go hand in hand with a mandate for high-quality standards and trustworthy results.

Unfortunately, regulations, much like old items in an attic, tend to accumulate over time. We heard yesterday that the minister will soon be launching a mandatory regulatory review. It’s important to keep that attic cleaned out. With the exception of time-sensitive statutes, regulations have no expiration date. Once they are legislated, they become a valid part of our framework unless we actively revisit specific examples to take them out—and that’s what’s happening with this bill.

Imagine a library that never updates its inventory. Over time, the shelves become cluttered, and finding relevant information becomes a challenge. Similarly, regulations without expiration dates can clutter our systems. Regular review and pruning are crucial for a streamlined and effective governance framework.

In the absence of a proactive approach to identify and rectify wasteful, outdated or burdensome regulations, the proliferation of such rules, along with the associated costs and time investments needed for compliance, will persistently grow over time. This accumulation not only hampers efficiency but also places an undue burden on individuals, businesses and the economy as a whole. Therefore, it is imperative that we engage in a consistent and vigilant effort to streamline and modernize our regulatory framework, ensuring that it remains relevant to the real-world conditions it is meant to reflect.

Continual enhancement of government services and the reduction of unnecessary burdens on individuals and businesses remains a steadfast goal for this government. This necessitates an ongoing commitment to streamlining processes and modernizing outdated practices across diverse sectors of government.

I understand that ministries don’t initially aim to create laws or regulations that are costly or challenging to comply with. However, without regular evaluation, many existing rules and regulations hold precedence in official records long after their original purpose has been achieved.

We observed an excessively cumbersome regulatory landscape during the previous government. Back in 2017, under the preceding Liberal administration, Ontario bore the highest compliance costs in Canada, amounting to $33,000 per business—$4,000 higher than any other province. An environment of over-regulation emerged, which created undue hurdles for businesses and hindered job growth. This excessive regulatory framework pitted the government against the people of Ontario.

When our government took office in 2018, it was evident that change was imperative. We embarked on a determined mission to eliminate the unnecessary and outdated regulations that were impeding the great potential that this province holds.

To that end, our Minister of Red Tape Reduction has been hard at work, travelling the province and meeting with stakeholders at every level to get first-hand feedback on the challenges faced when interacting within the existing framework.

Recently, Minister Gill held a red tape reduction round table in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. There, we heard from a diverse and proactive representation of businesses and services who told us how, when and where the system was failing them in their attempts to react to the needs of a competitive market in a productive, timely, cost-efficient manner. Stakeholders from the agricultural community, chambers of commerce, health professionals and service providers all had valid, informative input to give us a real-time picture of the inefficiencies of outdated regulations and their impact on the effective flow of business and service. We listened to their feedback and the feedback of like-minded, hard-working professionals across the province, and we’re moving forward to revoke, revise and update the regulations that are causing backlogs, confusion and unnecessary lag time in an evolving, fast-paced market.

Since forming government in 2018, our government has reduced the number of regulatory compliance requirements affecting businesses and other regulated entities by 6%. To date, our government has implemented over 550 measures to cut through red-tape-related hurdles, all while steadfastly upholding public health and safety and environmental standards.

Our government has been resolute in slashing Ontario’s regulatory load by a significant 16,000 compliance requirements. I congratulate the Minister of Red Tape Reduction and his PA, the member for Niagara West, for their great work.

Furthermore, since 2018, these dedicated initiatives to reduce red tape have yielded substantial results, culminating in savings exceeding an impressive $939 million in annual gross regulatory compliance costs. This achievement has brought tangible benefits to a wide array of entities, including businesses, non-profit organizations, municipalities, universities, colleges, school boards and hospitals.

However, our government must continue on this path. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small businesses in Canada incurred billions in dollars in costs due to red tape last year. This is simply unacceptable. That is precisely why it is incumbent upon our government to take a step back and critically evaluate the relevance and necessity of the regulations put forth by various ministries. We must ensure that they evolve in tandem with societal needs, adapt to technological progress, and remain attuned to shifting circumstances. Through this conscientious approach, we can maintain a regulatory framework that serves the best interests of our citizens and bolsters the vitality of our economy.

The Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act, if put into effect, will mark a significant milestone in the continuous efforts of the Ontario government to alleviate regulatory burdens. This proposed act introduces practical adjustments that aim to create an environment conducive to the growth and prosperity of both individuals and businesses. These measures are specifically designed to enhance services for individuals and reduce operational expenses for businesses, while also streamlining engagements with the government. When it comes to eliminating unnecessary red tape, only our government will get it done. This encompasses a range of enhancements, from fine-tuning government forms to alleviating administrative pressures on physicians—by doing so, we afford them more invaluable time to dedicate to providing optimal care for their patients. Furthermore, it extends to the creation of more accessible pathways into skilled trades, actively fostering an influx of apprenticeships in high-demand sectors.

Our steadfast commitment to alleviating burdens which have a tangible impact on both businesses and individuals remains resolute.

The proposed strategies encapsulated in this comprehensive package position us to forge ahead in establishing a regulatory framework that is both transparent and highly effective. Through these measures, we ensure the safety and well-being of Ontario’s labour force and families. Concurrently, these actions fortify protections for our environment and the invaluable resources that sustain our province. It also encompasses a comprehensive array of 32 innovative measures. These measures are strategically designed to enhance services for individuals, while simultaneously relieving financial burdens for businesses.

Upon full implementation, the collective impact of these measures is projected to result in substantial time savings of up to 100,000 hours annually for both individuals and businesses, underscoring the remarkable potential of these initiatives—when you think a full-time employee works between 1,820 and 2,000 hours, that’s over 50 full-time equivalents. It’s significant. This demonstrates the significant strides that can be made toward a more efficient and prosperous regulatory framework.

On this side of the House, we recognize that the key to enhancing services for individuals, reducing expenses for business and fostering smoother interactions with the government lies in our sustained efforts to alleviate the everyday burdens faced by both citizens and enterprises.

When we aggregate these annual savings, the cumulative figure soars to nearly $2.8 billion in removed compliance costs since the inception of our term in office, and demonstrates once again the importance of the minister’s work. This stands as a testament to our government’s unwavering commitment to lightening the load and seeking efficiencies, ultimately benefiting the economic landscape and the province as a whole.

If this bill receives approval, it will herald a significant stride towards efficiency and modernization in various government departments and key sectors of Ontario’s economy.

The proposed adjustments range from refining government paperwork—a move aimed at alleviating administrative burdens on physicians, thereby affording them additional time to provide top-tier care for their patients. It’s strengthening our commitment towards quality of health care delivery.

Our minister of trade has spoken many times about the importance of creating an environment where the economy can succeed. Eliminating red tape is helping to create that environment.

In summary, this bill entails the creation of more accessible pathways into the skilled trades, a strategic move to entice a greater number of apprentices into high-demand fields. This not only prepares Ontario’s workforce for enduring, fulfilling careers but also bolsters the foundation of our industries.

Additionally, this bill emphasizes bolstering consumer protection. By ensuring consumers are armed with the knowledge they need, particularly when making significant transactions like buying or selling vehicles, we fortify their ability to make informed decisions.

These proposed changes collectively signal a proactive approach towards fostering efficiency, innovation and a thriving economy across Ontario. They reflect a concerted effort to adapt and progress in a rapidly evolving socio-economic landscape.

Speaker, one important aspect of this bill that is of great interest to me and the people of my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston is the creation of more pathways into the skilled trades, which will attract more apprentices to in-demand trades and help prepare Ontario’s workforce for rewarding, lifelong careers. Encouraging individuals to pursue high-demand trades is not only crucial for alleviating labour shortages but also for fostering robust economic growth and securing a proficient workforce for the years ahead.

As an integral component of our comprehensive fall package, we are presently conducting a thorough review of joint health and safety committee certification training standards. This review is focused on identifying opportunities for streamlining certification prerequisites, eliminating redundancy with other mandatory training, and pinpointing areas where administrative barriers and associated costs can be reduced. This strategic overhaul is designed to uphold the relevance and practicality of the training, thereby elevating workplace safety standards and mitigating workforce shortages resulting from injuries. In tandem with this effort, we are also embarking on a substantial enhancement of our database, which houses nearly three million records of workers who have undergone mandatory safety training.

This initiative is a pivotal aspect of our broader strategy aimed at making Ontario one of the safest work environments. The database serves as a cornerstone tool utilized by the ministry to cultivate secure workplaces. The impending transition involves the development of a custom-built, cloud-based database using government platforms to bolster system and procedural efficiencies. This system will be used by an extensive network comprising over 700,000 workers, employers and ministry personnel. Its primary function will be to authenticate that workers have undergone requisite training for tasks such as working at heights or obtaining joint health and safety committee certification. Furthermore, this platform will provide training providers, workers and employers with an improved user experience, granting swift, accessible, all-in-one access to thousands of training records. This transformative enhancement underscores our steadfast commitment to fostering safer, more efficient work environments across the province. That is why I support this bill.

Every day, I speak with people in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston who are engaged in business start-ups, running the family farm, or applying the tools of their skilled trade to a demanding marketplace. These hard-working professionals are pitted against cumbersome, limiting and financially burdensome regulations. When people are trying to support our families and be productive members of their local communities, the government should be working with them.

There are seven principles for this bill. The Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act contains 32 burden-reduction initiatives to help improve services for people and reduce costs for businesses.

By fixing broken systems that were ignored, our government is helping businesses save $939 million annually in gross regulatory compliance costs. To date, our government has removed over 16,000 different types of red tape, all without compromising health, safety or the environment.

This fall 2023 would build on the close to a billion dollars in gross annual compliance cost savings we’ve achieved to date, strengthening Ontario’s position as a key player in the North American and global economy.

Since July 1, 2018, this government has reduced the number of regulatory compliance requirements affecting businesses and other regulated entities by 6%.

There’s lots in this. The first is, does Ontario need a rare disease strategy so that people who live with rare diseases gain access to new technology, new treatment faster? Absolutely, yes. Does the program in place, where CADTH, the federal government, decides if the medication is effective or not, then it gets negotiated—I can tell you that of all of the provinces in the system that we have now, Ontario is the slowest. It takes, on average, 10 months longer for Ontario to add a drug to their formulary than every other province, the three territories and the federal government. Could we do things better? Yes, absolutely. When every other province has added a drug in their formulary, don’t take 10 months to add it to Ontario’s formulary.

Yes, I have hope that, at some point, good sense will prevail.

It is just common sense—simply put, if you have a business with $10 of revenue and $12 of expense, what choices do you have? You have to leave, you have to close down, or you have to find ways to make sure it becomes competitive. That’s what this government is doing—making sure, by reducing the red tape, that we’re reducing the cost to the business.

My question to the member is, what exactly has the government done since 2018 to support our businesses so that they become competitive and grow in the province of Ontario?

I want to thank the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for an excellent presentation on the proposed legislation in front of us.

He mentioned in his remarks that he hosted a round table on red tape removal with the minister. I’d like the member to speak about what he sees to be the effect of this proposed legislation within his riding. I know he’s doing a lot of hard work for the local businesses in that area.

I think the extension of the chair’s role is important to continuity. In the organization where I came from, we created a past chair role just to be able to maintain that historical knowledge. So I think there’s a lot of common sense to that particular one.

So far, there have been 16,000 different types of red tape reductions. There’s a lot of work to do, and we’re going to continue to do it. I know the minister plans to bring another bill forward in the spring, so the work has just begun. We now have a Ministry of Red Tape Reduction. To your point—we’ll continue to chip away at the thousands of red tapes that we have in this province.

In my previous career, I worked in a multi-sector, multi-funded organization. We’re talking about the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services; the Public Health Agency of Canada—grants from time to time. It would even come to a point where you would have to decide not to accept a grant because the administration burden was higher than the value of the grant. There are so many examples of that that this ministry is directing its efforts to.

We had a round table. We had agriculture; we had our paramedics around the table—and multiple examples. The minister was there and has taken notes, and we’ll see those coming forward in the future.

There are 12 key forms to streamline, through working with the OMA. It results in 95,000 hours back to physicians—that’s not inconsequential, by the way—which is around 50 full-time equivalents. That means the nurse that the physician has—or sometimes the physician just has one staff, so they’re using their nurse for both administration and—they could be doing other things, like preparing the patient to see the physician, doing the blood pressure, instead of doing unnecessary paperwork. It results in 285,000 additional patient visits—not inconsequential.

I appreciate the debate.

This is, quite frankly, a dull bill. There are one, two, three, four, five schedules that basically say a university “provides that a member of the board may not serve for more than six consecutive years. The act is amended to permit an exception to that rule in certain circumstances for a member who is serving as chair of the board.” I agree that we need to clean up regulations when appropriate—but the way that I’m hearing it debated, like this is the second coming of Christ, is not factual.

I feel like the Conservative government is out of touch with what’s going on with people. We’ve talked several times here about the need for take-home cancer medication to be covered—you get a pill, you take it at the hospital, it’s covered; you bring it home, you have to pay out of pocket, fill out forms, get reimbursed. That is regulation and red tape that we can get rid of.

This might be necessary, but why can’t we get the common sense stuff done in this House? That’s my question.

I’m glad to ask the member a question on his comments on this red tape reduction bill, Bill 139. His remarks focused a fair bit on small business.

I had a recent conversation, as I know a number of us did, with the doctors from the OMA, and I heard from a young doctor, or a soon-to-be doctor. In her first six weeks of medical school, she told us that she had been nearly dissuaded from going into family practice because everyone was like, “Oh, wow, you’re going into family? There’s so much work to do. The administrative burden is so significant.” They raised the need for the community family health teams to be a priority for this government; they say it would reduce physician burnout—because you have a team that could do a lot of that administrative support. Right now, doctors are spending about 20 hours a week just doing paperwork.

Where there’s an opportunity for a centralized intake that has been piloted and these referral systems—could the government focus on that in another red tape bill since it’s missing from this one?

I would like to thank the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for his comments this morning in the debate on Bill 139.

As the member for London West, I engage frequently with businesses in my riding, with people who are involved in economic development, and one of the things that I hear the most, when we talk about some of the barriers to growing our economy and supporting businesses in London—it is the need for housing; it is the need to make sure that people have access to a family doctor; it is the need to make sure that new employees who are coming to this city can bring their kids and there’s going to be access to good schools that don’t have as many portables on the property as they do in the school; it’s access to child care; it’s access to transit.

So my question is, why are we dealing with a bill that has such inconsequential, meaningless housekeeping amendments instead of dealing with these big challenges that businesses are facing?

Questions?