One of the government members, with a big smile on his face and with the purest intentions, asked our member what carbon sequestration is and if she believes that it is very important moving forward.

To any of the two who have spoken: Tell us about carbon sequestration. Is it something you believe is important moving forward?

We are dealing with an omnibus bill today. When government members—and I hear this, because most of us here in the chamber are from the class of 2018; I’m not sure if it holds true for today, but definitely, overall, that’s really what we are. So when we hear stories of the past, pre-2018, I always listen very intently. I always love hearing those stories. One of the things I always heard about was the omnibus bill and how the Liberal government of the time would introduce huge swaths of new information. There was a lot of stuff in there, and you would have to make a decision. So why is it significant?

We have a bill before us today that basically amends nine acts; it has 28 items within it. We’ve seen much larger omnibus bills in the past, but definitely, it’s far-reaching. There’s a lot of change that’s being proposed here. Out of the nine individual acts, two ministries have determined that amendments to their individual legislation may result in environmental impact and have posted proposed notices on the Environmental Registry.

When our lead and my friend talked about this bill and made his big submission and his speech on it, he referred to this bill as a “sleeper bill”; he actually referred to it in a positive way. Well, I don’t want to see “sleeper bills” from the government. But it is a welcome change, because a lot of the bills—I have to say, on this side of the House, I wouldn’t use the word “sleeper”; it’s more of a nightmare with some of the proposed things that they change.

The other thing is, is there really anything that’s “sleeper” by this government? Here in opposition, big changes get suggested and made. Government comes in with a slew of changes and amendments to regulations, but what is always underneath this? What lies beneath that? The government doesn’t share with us what their priorities necessarily are in very specific ways. We see bills that come here, or motions, and they describe far-sweeping changes, and in a very short time, we get together, we reach out to our own researchers, we do our own research, and we try to figure out, is this something that’s going to benefit Ontario or not?

I must say that while it is important to continuously make improvements, if it’s to regulations—for instance, the Auditor General is constantly bringing out reports pointing out ways in which government can improve. Certainly, on this side of the House, when there is improvement, we want to see it.

I must mention that there are things that are not being discussed right now, like the health care crisis that we are facing in this province. It’s interesting, because the government will talk about housing as a crisis, but they won’t refer to health care as a crisis. I think it was called a “situation” before, by the minister. Is it because they feel that they don’t have a solution to it? If you ask government members, they say that they have a solution to the housing crisis, but when it comes to health care, they won’t refer to it as a crisis.

Last week, I met with several front-line nurses, and they are sounding alarms. They talk about Bill 124. That has led many nurses to leave the profession they love. Bill 124 needs to be replaced immediately if we’re going to begin to undo some of the damage that the government has inflicted. Bill 124 was ruled unconstitutional today. I think that’s a very clear message to the government that they are going in the wrong direction in many ways.

I have to agree with the comments of a colleague who said the government is often penny-wise and pound foolish, because this government has tied the hands of hospitals with Bill 124. Hospitals had to hire more temporary nurses. In fact, they are spending, we’ve heard, up to 550% more on temporary nurses, funnelling public dollars into private pockets. This is privatization—and it’s a classic Conservative move, because you don’t want to properly fund the public system, and if it fails or is struggling, then it opens the door to privatization as a solution. I, for one, believe that’s insidious, and I don’t think it’s fair.

Titles of bills do not reflect the content or intention of legislation within it. Yesterday, we heard the government lament that the province is drowning in red tape. You could just picture the visual: We’re strangled in red tape and there’s so much of it you’re drowning in it. Language like “it’s a burden”—when it describes the regulatory functions of law.

It believes that legislation will save money for cities, but then it also introduces legislation like Bill 23 and 39, which will actually increase what cities will have to spend.

Bill 23 reduces development charges and shifts the burden to build important infrastructure to municipalities and, therefore, residents when they pay their property taxes.

Regulations are the details of law. They’re the nuts and bolts which transform our ideas into reality. The government has the habit of packaging laws together and sometimes—the devil is always in the details. This bill, for example, has 28 individual items, and it amends nine acts. Regulations keep us safe. Does red tape exist out there? It does. If something is true red tape, we’ve got to deal with it. But overall, regulations keep us safe.

Yesterday, the minister mentioned, “We have also proposed regulations that will reduce red tape for operators of certain types of hotel spas and hot tubs, such as in-suite hot tubs or tubs on a private balcony or a deck intended for the exclusive use of its guests, by exempting them from the public pools regulation. Signage requirements, of course, will remain in place to ensure the public is aware of any potential risk.” We recently heard in the news about an outbreak in an Ontario spa because of a pool. Simply putting up a sign warning people that this could happen isn’t enough. There’s a duty to prevent harm, and putting up signage to avoid liability and to shift risk to Ontarians is not the answer.

In 1976, we introduced a requirement to wear seat belts, something that is so basic and second nature to us now.

There were regulations that were in place, here in Canada, in our banking sector that protected us, and at the time, there was the big recession that happened in the States with the banking system. Regulations were put in place that—they weren’t here in Canada, we would have had a similar fate to the United States.

Walkerton is the last one I’ll mention for now. We saw privatization and a number of reasons that led to the crisis and the problem that was there, but one of them was a lack of provisions made for notification of results to municipal authorities. So here you see privatization and a lack of regulations to allow for the reporting of what’s actually going on.

So is everything red tape? I know this government loves to take away all forms of regulation, but I don’t know if that’s always the answer. Again, regulations define the quality of life we lead. They shape our environment, quite literally.

Take the greenbelt, for example. It can’t be replaced. The government thinks it’s a zero-sum game to take from one part and add it to another part of the province, but they fail to see that it’s about location. Watersheds will be lost. Migratory paths of animals will be disrupted, literally severed. As my colleague pointed out yesterday, Ontario is losing over 300 acres of prime farmland per day, and over the last 35 years alone, Ontario has almost lost a fifth; it has lost 2.8 million acres of farmland. And yet, in 2022, we’re talking about the government chopping up the greenbelt.

I want to say this to my friends in government: In 2018, I was knocking on doors, just like you all were, and there was a staunch, lifelong Conservative voter who said to me, “I’m going to vote for you.” He said that the mere mention of the now Premier, but the then candidate, saying he wanted to develop on the greenbelt—and then he backpedalled. I remember, during the campaign, it came back, it went away, it came back—“Maybe we’re going to build affordable housing.” They’ve completely abandoned the affordable housing part of it, but they’ve gone back to the greenbelt. This guy said, “I’m going to vote for you,” because he thought it was outrageous. He grew up in those areas.

Do I blame individual members? I know it’s not easy. You get questions from the opposition during question period, and the ministers do their best to—well, I have to say this one thing. We ask questions, and sometimes we face condescension from the other side; for instance, “Doesn’t the opposition know what supply and demand is?” and “economics 101,” and this sort of answer. I get it; some of the questions we ask are not easy to answer. Then when I hear about that, I think, “Do you know what we do every day?” We demand answers from this government on behalf of Ontarians, and they don’t supply answers. So even in the basic understanding of supply and demand, in that sense, they don’t even get it right.

But the reality is simply this: Do I blame the individual members? I think it must be tough for you, often, in your seats, because we sometimes see what comes here—and I defined it as a nightmare—and it’s frustrating to see changes that we think are damaging to the province.

But do I believe that the rank-and-file members of this government who came here to make the world a better place—right? To make change—do they feel that they have the power to do that, even being a banner-carrier for this party? I don’t know.

And I know it’s tough. Some of the questions are almost rhetorical, because we know the answer: the fact that an individual will buy up tens and tens of millions of dollars of prime green space in a protected environmental land, and then, mere weeks or even months later, that area is being flipped and it’s now for development.

A simple question is, did a conversation with this particular developer happen? How do you answer that? Because I sit here, as a member of the opposition, and I cringe when I hear those questions. I don’t know what you must be feeling as individual members, and certainly when the minister has to try and answer a question like that—I know; I know it’s tough. But I guess I digress.

What are the schedules that are being opened up? Animal Health Act: The schedule allows the minister to issue a temporary response order to a specific hazard if the Chief Veterinarian for Ontario is of the opinion that any delay in issuing an order will be of significant risk to animal or human health and that immediate measures are necessary to mitigate these risks or stop them from increasing in risk. The temporary response order can be in effect up to 72 hours, and only an extension of 72 hours is allowed.

This seems like a reasonable amendment. Sometimes government questions are, “Do you think that this particular schedule is bad in a bill?” Newsflash—I think you all know this on the government side—is everything that you introduce here a problem? Not everything. There are some things, if you would seek to want to talk to us, consult with us, we all have something to contribute in this House, on all sides—if you were to give us a heads-up that this is the direction in which you’re going.

NDP members, countless times in committee, have introduced very positive amendments that you know are a good way forward. But do you choose to take them? Why? Why don’t you? So are there things within some of your omnibus bills that are decent? This seems decent.

The question is, is there poison in these larger bills? And then when that’s there, we know that your bills are going to pass anyway, but we’re not going to play games with you.

But anyway, this seems like a reasonable amendment. As we know, time is often of the essence when it comes to matters that threaten issues of health and safety. There is a direct link between the health of our livestock and health. The food chain must be protected, and this amendment would ensure that swift action be taken to reduce an outbreak.

Courts of Justice Act: The schedule amends the amount of time a retired judge can serve. Currently, a former provincial judge may be designated to serve as a provincial judge on a part-time basis, as long as they do not exceed 50% of full-time service in a calendar year. This schedule amends the amount to 75%, I presume—I think it has been mentioned—to try to deal with the backlog in courts. So it repeals section 87.1 of the act that deals with the continuation in office of provincial judges who are assigned to the civil division before September 1, 1990.

Is this a Band-Aid solution? I can’t deny that the pandemic delayed cases, but there was an existing backlog even before. Is the solution to simply hire more judges rather than bring them out of retirement and increase their workload? The existing backlog is proof that there was an existing shortage of judges. The volume of cases is there and we need to invest in the justice system to ensure it is working, instead of Band-Aids.

A fundamental principle of our justice system is that a person has a right to be tried within a reasonable time. This is not a guideline or soft target, but it is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms: section 11(b) of the charter, which guarantees the right of any person charged with an offence to be tried within a reasonable time. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we are administering justice in a reasonable and timely manner.

Schedule 3, Juries Act: The schedule is a modernization measure that would enable the jury questionnaires to move online. Currently, the sheriff mails out questionnaires. The schedule amends the act to allow for electronic procedure for jury questionnaires.

As we know, when we do make steps to modernize, we must realize that not everyone has access to a computer or access to the Internet, so I’m glad to see that a recipient of an electronic questionnaire may request a hard copy be mailed instead. As well, a person who receives either an electronic or mailed copy can request an accommodation for accessibility reasons. It’s important.

I also want to echo the comments of my colleague yesterday who referenced a 2018 investigation conducted by the Toronto Star-Ryerson School of Journalism at the time, which found that juries were not reflective of the population. We need to do better. Juries should be as diverse as the population is.

You will find that Ontario is the only province that does not compensate jury duty beyond 10 days. An employer must, by law, grant someone that time from work, but there is no provision to pay.

We know that, with the rising cost of living, people have to make tough choices. From the debate last week on paid sick days, we know that people are often faced with choosing to stay home and be unable to pay bills or go to work sick. In this case, someone who was asked to serve as a juror is being asked to take leave from work but will not be compensated beyond 10 days. This is a gamble that not many can afford to take.

Again, I raise that because you’re opening up acts, there are a lot of positive changes that could still be made. It affects who will be able to serve as a juror. It has a direct effect on the composition of our juror pool. We need a deeper look into how juries are be selected in the first place. Simply combing through property tax rolls is sure to exclude many from the prospective pool: family members, students, renters and the list goes on.

Schedule 4, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act: The schedule amends the Innkeepers Act so that a lien cannot be placed on cattle with respect to cattle enrolled in the Ontario Feeder Cattle Loan Guarantee Program. In essence, this prevents cattle co-op members from feeding other members’ cattle and makes the program less effective than it should be. I’m told this is a welcome change by some. It will make our beef industry more competitive and will strengthen our food chain.

As we know, the price of food in Ontario has skyrocketed beyond 11% this year. One way to combat this is to start by strengthening and investing in our food chain. Perhaps this is a way to do it. Being able to produce more local food is good for the environment, it’s good for the economy and it’s good for pocketbooks. Transportation is a large part of the cost of food, and if we can reduce the distance that our food has to travel to get to our stores and our plates, we can start to help reduce the cost of groceries.

Schedule 5, Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act: The schedule repeals a section of the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act that prohibits the injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of carbon sequestration into an area, including an underground geological formation. What is carbon sequestration? It’s a process of capturing, sequestering and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in an attempt to reduce the human carbon footprint. So you’re trying to create a larger pool or a carbon sink. It’s claimed to be environmentally neutral and limited to projects that are engaged in the recovery of oil and gas, and I’ll defer to experts to weigh in on this one, because I know that global warming is a real crisis. Decisions that we make today may be irreversible, and it would help that the government is listening and consulting with environmental experts.

As my colleague pointed out yesterday—and this is a simple fix too. One way to deal with carbon in the atmosphere—and it’s so simple. What is it? It’s to plant trees. Plant lots of them. Protect our environment. Protect our environmental areas. But what does this government do? And I’ll remind the government: A long time ago, it was a Tory Premier that had the foresight to establish and empower conservation authorities. But this government today, this version of the Conservative government, is going in the opposite direction. And so if it believes that carbon sequestration is a way to get carbon out of the atmosphere and to deal with it, the simplest way is to protect environmentally significant lands and to plant trees. It’s so easy. Do it.

But of course, and I won’t get into all the details—you know it and I covered it before—we’re going in the opposite direction. We’re paving over huge swaths of the greenbelt, something that this government wanted to do over and over and had to go back on it. And here it is; they’ve come out with it. So that is not the right direction in terms of protecting the environment.

Schedule 6, the Ontario Energy Board Act: The schedule states that proponents of projects that are exempted from the requirement to obtain leave to construct from the Ontario Energy Board may apply to the board for an expropriation or the authority to cross a highway, utility line or ditch. It expands exemption language in subsections 99(1) and 101(1) to include any exemption that is authorized under the act.

Speaker, I have just about a minute left, and so I won’t be able to get into some of these other provisions. But I do want to say this: The government House leader often gets up, and many members get up here, whether it’s a minister or others, and they claim that they want our support on bills and what they bring forward. If that was true—and in reality, do I believe that? I can’t impute motive, so I question if they really care or not whether we vote on it, because the reality is, they hold a super majority in this chamber, and they’re going to pass everything that they put here, if they wish or not.

But if they truly care about our vote and our support, reach out. Tell us what you’re doing. Ask for our opinion. We, just like you, have members who have so much to offer this House, who care about our communities and were elected here to try to build a better Ontario. If you want our support, if you want our bills—I know we’re going to see over the four years many omnibuses—let’s talk about the contents of it. Let’s collaborate. Let’s work together. You hold all the power in this chamber, and you can choose to respect all members here or not, whether it’s ours or your own.