It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and debate the issues of the day and today Bill 69, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to infrastructure. This bill talks about consolidation of real estate holdings of the province and about a change to the Environmental Assessment Act.

Many of you may know, and for those of you who didn’t, you’re going to find out: I’m actually here because of the Environmental Assessment Act. I have an interest in the Environmental Assessment Act because we fought a large issue in my part of the world and it was fully approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. The local people didn’t believe that it was fairly approved, accurately approved. We continued to fight it and this Legislature passed a law stopping that project. But in that process, I was personally sued by the proponent of the project—and I don’t blame the proponent, actually. The Adams Mine Lake Act stopped the project, but I almost lost my farm because it didn’t do anything about the SLAPP suit.

I was approached by the New Democratic Party to run in a provincial election to bring focus on that issue. I ran in that provincial election for the one goal, to bring focus to that lawsuit, to hopefully get rid of it, and however that happened, three days before the writ dropped, the company dropped the lawsuit.

I didn’t win that election. We came within 634 votes, I believe, of taking out a very popular cabinet minister, a very good MPP: Mr. David Ramsay. And Mr. David Ramsay announced his retirement and we came so close that I thought, “You know what? If I don’t try again, I might never know if I can do this job.” And I’m still trying to figure that out.

That’s how I got here. So my ears always perk up when I hear about the Environmental Assessment Act and when I hear words like, “We have the strongest Environmental Assessment Act in the province, in the world.” I always, “Okay, but.” No one wants red tape, but we do want regulations that actually work.

We’re currently dealing in my riding with an issue that has to do with the Environmental Assessment Act. I’ve brought this issue up several times in the Legislature. I’m going to bring it up again today.

I give credit where credit is due: The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has looked into this issue. We don’t agree on exactly everything that’s wrong, but he did take the time—I would say he’s knee-deep in this issue.

Okay, everyone in my part of the world knows that was a dairy farm. They milked 100 cows there. Some of the buildings are still there and the lagoon is still there. So we asked about the well and we were told there was no well, even though the site was approved. It was engineered and approved. All the boxes were clicked.

Now, everyone knew there was a well there, but the consultation process—under the rules, the way I understand them, everyone within 500 metres of the site has to be notified. The two places that were notified had a personal relationship with the person applying for the business and there was no other notification, except on the Environmental Registry. If there is no public notification, how do you actually get the right information?

The site was approved, there was sewage being dumped into it, and everyone except the MOE knew there was an abandoned well on that property—everyone. Yet all the boxes were clicked. We kept pushing and at some point the MOE realized, yes, there is an abandoned well. It has never been decommissioned and we’re going to have to look into that. Then the MOE kicked into gear.

Again, I’m not blaming the ministry for this. There’s something wrong with the process, because the purpose of consultation is to find the most information that you can. When everyone around the neighbourhood knew there was a well there, but no one in the neighbourhood knew that that construction site—they saw there were backhoes building something, but they didn’t know it was going to be a human storage lagoon. And when we, including myself, went to the MOE we were told, “No, no, no, you’re wrong. This is a new site.” No, no, no.

Then, when they did acknowledge there was a well there, it became apparent that part of the concrete from the original farm was in the storage lagoon. And anyone who knows anything about farms—there’s all kinds of pipes under concrete. All of a sudden, it was then an emergency because that well could be connected to that lagoon underneath that concrete, and the concrete was in the plans of the structure. So they told me, “No, this is not an old dairy lagoon,” but the legacy concrete from the farm was in the plans.

So something is wrong with the system. I’m not blaming anyone within the ministry, but the consultation sucked because it didn’t do its job. Now we are still wondering about other legacy infrastructure underneath the ground at that site, because in the clay belt in Timiskaming, we’ve got 100 feet of clay and it’s very impervious. It’s great for earth and lagoons. But that farm has been there for a long time, so for the last 100 years, those farmers have been doing everything they can to drain that impervious clay. So all around that site, there could be random tiles, systematic tiles, pipes—we don’t know what they did in the last 100 years, and we don’t see there’s been any account for it.

So when people tell me that we’ve got the best environmental assessment system in the country, I question it, because 20 years ago, when we brought up issues on Adams mine, we were told, “Oh, no, no, no. You’re wrong.” And now, 20 years later, on a smaller project, we got the same answer: “No, no, no. That’s not right.” And again, we had to push to make them acknowledge there was a well.

There’s something wrong with our system, and changing these periods isn’t going to make it better.

I thank you for the sincerity of that question. I would like to respond, in all sincerity, that I’m not sure that taking out potential time in the comment period is an improvement, because the consultation period in the waste lagoon didn’t work, because it was over and no one knew what was happening. So I’m not sure if this is an improvement, and I say that with all sincerity.

I’m not saying that’s with every project, but that’s what this bill says to me, as someone who has experienced, twice in my life, problems with the MOE. I’m concerned that this bill is not sending the right message to people—not for the government, either. They need to believe that the assessment process works.

Thank you. That’s actually a very good question. The minister, as part of the minister’s duty, has discretion on many issues, but there should be some kind of parameter on what that discretion is, because this government has—and I’m just using this government; we have vast disagreements in principle on the greenbelt and on some other things, and we would question some of the minister’s discretion.

Ministers need to have the ability to make decisions, but the decisions need to be encompassed in something that people have faith in. If you have good regulations and effective regulations—the idea is not to slow things down; if people have faith in the process, it should speed it up. When people don’t have faith, that’s when they start putting spokes in the wheels, even maybe if the wheels should be turning. People need to have faith, and every time that they see something that’s just, you know—you lose faith in the system. You lose faith in the system.