Further debate?

It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, tabled by the Minister of Infrastructure.

This bill has two schedules, one about the Environmental Assessment Act and one that addresses infrastructure, specifically in relation to the real estate portfolio of government agencies.

The first schedule will directly affect how we protect the environment in this province, and I share the hesitation that has been voiced by my colleagues in the official opposition on how this bill will impact the process of environmental assessments. I think that hesitation is justified, given a long list of transgressions against the environment that this government has committed. When this government comes forward with a bill with very little communication, no briefing for the opposition before we begin debating, that directly impacts the future environmental well-being of this province, I don’t have much confidence that this government will utilize this legislation with the best of intentions, and I don’t think Ontarians have much confidence either.

The process of environmental assessments is one of the only things that stands between projects proposed by this government and the destruction of this province’s green spaces, waterways and climate. The concern that I and my colleagues in the Ontario NDP have with this piece of legislation is that it could allow the process of environment assessments to be circumvented, and we believe we need those assessments in order to protect the province’s environment. We have this concern because this government has demonstrated time and time again that protecting Ontario’s environment is not high on their list of priorities; in fact, the opposite is true. They have shown that they cannot be trusted when it comes to the protection of our environment or doing land deals in the interest of the public and of our collective future.

This bill allows the environment minister to waive the 30-day waiting period that is currently a requirement that projects must go through following the end of a class environmental assessment comment period. Projects must go through this before being granted approval to proceed. Taking this 30-day waiting period off the table is taking away another protection for our environment, as its purpose is to ensure that the minister has enough time to adequately consider public comments. These comments have the potential to lead to a recommendation of further assessments or may even result in the class environmental assessment being upgraded to a full environmental assessment. So getting rid of this waiting period means that the minister does not see any reason or value in spending time considering public input on environmental projects.

Speaker, I can see that in situations where there are no comments submitted or all the comments submitted are in support of a project, maybe waiving the 30-day waiting period would allow a project to proceed without further delay and that could benefit an important project’s timeline. I can wrap my head around that specific situation. What I cannot understand is how this government would think that we would believe that that is all they will use this legislation for, when we have seen repeatedly that this government has disdain for the very principle of public consultation, especially when it comes to the environment.

Schedule 1 of this bill would pave the way for this government to ignore public input without even having to pretend that they care, and further separate public participation and decisions that directly impact the environment.

We have seen time and time again that what this government puts forward as simply an option, for the minister to waive the 30-day period, soon becomes regular and routine practice.

This government can say that all they are trying to do is to remove red tape, but that is not the case. They have twice been found in violation of the Environmental Bill of Rights by Ontario courts for taking away rights that guarantee that the public is notified and consulted on matters affecting the environment, as well as having their comments considered before a government decision is made. We have seen through multiple situations and scenarios blasted across newspaper headlines that this government is always fighting with the public, fighting against their right to be notified and to have input on how decisions are made, and how this government uses not only taxpayer dollars but the land within this province—the land that is our collective heritage.

These two instances where courts found this government in violation of the Environmental Bill of Rights are not the end of this government’s troubles with the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Auditor General, in her most recent report, began by summarizing the Environmental Bill of Rights as follows: “30 years ago, Ontario had laws in place to protect the environment, but there was growing public concern about whether those laws offered sufficient protection. Paired with this was diminishing public confidence in the government to protect and provide environmental sustainability. The Environmental Bill of Rights ... was enacted in response to these concerns.

“The EBR Act recognizes that, while the primary responsibility for protecting the environment lies with government, ordinary Ontarians should have a means to ensure that this is being achieved in an effective, timely, open and fair manner. The EBR Act gives each person the right to participate in, and hold government accountable for, its environmentally significant decisions....”

The Auditor General followed this summary by warning that the government was yet again in violation of the Environmental Bill of Rights because they passed Bill 109 while public consultations were still ongoing.

In a surprise to no one, the Auditor General said this government may be in violation of the Environmental Bill of Rights yet again by passing Bill 23 while public consultations for multiple schedules within that bill were still under way.

Let me tell you, Speaker, the public wanted an opportunity to speak on Bill 23, but their concerns were unheard by this government. My office was flooded with emails and phone calls and walk-ins on Bill 23. Many community organizations in Ottawa requested an opportunity to provide insight to this government, but when they did, their requests and their concerns were ignored.

Because of the complexity of Bill 23, organizations such as the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa asked that the government take the time needed to listen to more stakeholders affected by the bill, to consider the impact on the environment, and to continue to allow conservation authorities to comment on development applications if requested by the city. But this government was more focused on their plan to push this through without any consultation than they were on actually listening to the public.

Now we’re seeing a similar story here. The government is more focused on pushing this through with as little input as possible, because they don’t care to listen to those who will be affected by this bill, just as they want to ignore public comment on real concerns following a class environmental assessment process or recommendations for a full environmental assessment on proposed projects.

If this government is confused at all as to why the public may be concerned, maybe they should consider the fact that the effects of climate change are becoming more present than ever. In Ottawa, the Rideau Canal Skateway did not open for the first time in its 53-year history this year, after an extremely mild winter with higher-than-average temperatures. This is deeply concerning. The Rideau Canal Skateway is emblematic of Ottawa. It brings in thousands of tourists and supports small businesses throughout the winter months, and now we are living with the possibility of not knowing whether it will open winter after winter. The National Capital Commission is working with people at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, trying to find creative ways for us to get it open, to create ice sooner, or to create ice that is strong enough to support thousands of skaters—despite Ottawa being known as one of the coldest capitals in the world. And yet, this government would much prefer to remove environmental assessments and exacerbate the effects of climate change, rather than work harder to prevent it.

My riding was also devastated by the derecho that struck last May and left tens of thousands of people without power for up to 10 days across Ottawa West–Nepean. It devastated the tree canopy of Ottawa West–Nepean. It took out people’s roofs and cars. It was incredibly destructive.

In the last five years, my riding has also lived through two once-in-a-century floods, displacing many residents and destroying many homes.

And in 2018, a tornado hit Ottawa West–Nepean, again leaving residents without power, destroying many homes and trapping others in their homes.

Speaker, this government continues to fail in addressing climate change in the province, and my constituents are suffering the effects of it. How many more once-in-a-century floods, wind disasters or extreme weather events will it take for this government to take climate change seriously?

A constituent who wrote to my office when this government was pushing through Bill 23 and Bill 39 rightly pointed out that biodiversity loss and climate change are existential threats, hitting us particularly hard over the past few years. The majority of our wetlands have been lost, paved over, and the list of endangered species continues to grow. This constituent is one of many constituents who have reached out to me and to the government, imploring this government to engage with the public, with Indigenous partners, municipalities, conservation authorities and civil society stakeholders to support development that is in line with pre-existing protections and actually acknowledge climate change as a threat here in Ontario.

With this demonstrated contempt for the Environmental Bill of Rights, it is not surprising that when you look back on this government’s record on the environment, you find a long list of decisions that undermine environmental assessments.

In 2020, the government weakened the Environmental Assessment Act with Bill 197, an omnibus bill, where they slipped in amendments where they made it so that many projects that previously were subject to public and ministerial oversight now have little to no public input.

One of the best examples of this, which just proves how much this government can’t be trusted on environmental affairs, is their current record on carving up the greenbelt under the guise of providing more homes to Ontarians. In a report released this week, it was found that Ontario has more than enough land to build two million homes without carving into the greenbelt, yet this government continues to bulldoze their way through criticism, ignoring the facts that are being presented to them.

It is incredibly distressing that this government has proposed the removal of over 7,000 acres of protected lands in the greenbelt. The greenbelt is meant to protect Ontario’s farmland and green spaces, which are precious and part of a sustainable future. Once this land is paved over, we won’t be able to recover it. However, yet again we are seeing this government’s attempt to carve it up to benefit their developer buddies.

Ontario’s green spaces and farmlands have continuously been in this government’s crosshairs, and they have been very consistent in introducing legislation, such as Bill 69, that will undermine the processes this province has in place to ensure that land and green space and water are protected and that if there are developments being proposed, they are done so within a time frame that allows for community participation.

This government has also been known to abuse ministerial zoning orders, which allow the province to bypass local planning rules in order to expedite developments—and using them to push through deals for developers, instead of listening and appropriately responding to the feedback and opposition from local communities.

As was said in a CBC News article published last year, “A minister’s zoning order, or MZO, is a trump card that lets the province immediately authorize development and bypass local planning rules to expedite what it wants built”—and use this trump card they did, so much so that they were criticized not just by the official opposition, but by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, who said that these orders were intended to be used sparingly, not how this government was using them when they doubled the total amount of MZOs over two years compared to the previous 18 years. This audit concluded with the mention of a lack of transparency, something this government has become well known for.

This government is also currently surrounded by criticism over spending $650 million of public money in order to simply give away a piece of Ontario Place. And who are they giving it to? A for-profit company based out of Austria.

I bring up these examples because they demonstrate that this government can say their legislation intends to do one thing when, in reality, it is aimed at further muddying the waters of public insight in order to push through their agenda, which usually involves big opportunities and payouts to their biggest backers.

This bill will also allow the Ministry of Infrastructure to control real estate interests of prescribed entities that presently manage their own real estate interests—things such as property ownership and lease agreements. We can assume that with this bill, these real estate services will be under the control of Infrastructure Ontario, which is currently the purveyor of real estate services for most government properties. Within this part of the bill, the government claims they are responding directly to the Auditor General’s 2017 report on real estate services. That report criticized the bad management of government properties and focused its critique on Infrastructure Ontario. It did not discuss the management of agencies such as Agricorp and EQAO. These are the agencies that Infrastructure Ontario will assume control over with this bill, which completely misses the point of the 2017 report.

The 2017 Auditor General’s report stated: “Our audit determined that Infrastructure Ontario’s management of government properties was impacted in part by weaknesses in the enterprise realty service agreement ... between Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure. The agreement does not set out any mandatory, minimum standard of performance for managing the costs of capital projects. It also does not set out timelines for meeting the accommodation standard for office space designed to ensure that existing government properties are used efficiently, and timelines for maintaining the state of government-owned properties to the agreement’s standard.”

The report then went on to suggest that there are many opportunities for savings within the current structure, such as:

—“reducing the square footage in government office space to meet the 2012 office accommodation standard of 180 rentable square feet per person;

—“more effectively disposing of vacant buildings that were incurring carrying costs; and

—“revising future AFP agreements to better support hospitals in obtaining cost-effective maintenance agreements.”

The Auditor General concluded her report by stating, “Infrastructure Ontario could maintain government properties more cost-effectively by better overseeing the companies that it has engaged to provide most capital repair and property management services to ensure costs for capital repairs and property management services are reasonable and projects are completed on time. As well, existing government properties could be used more efficiently, with people occupying less space per person. The agreement between Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure needs better performance standards to incentivize Infrastructure Ontario to manage and maintain government properties more cost-effectively.

“We also found that the alternative financing and procurement maintenance framework often did not support the cost-effective management of building maintenance and hospitals that was intended when the arrangements were structured.”

With this information, coupled with the fact that Infrastructure Ontario does not actually directly manage government real estate—it instead outsources property management to private contractors—and the fact that the report quoted above focuses on criticism of Infrastructure Ontario’s uncompetitive and poor oversight of private contracts, we don’t actually know what problem this bill is meant to be solving.

The Auditor General went further in her criticism of Infrastructure Ontario and how Infrastructure Ontario continues to award contracts to private providers that had in the past demonstrated poor performance: “One private sector company with a history of poor performance is still being awarded new contracts by Infrastructure Ontario—Infrastructure Ontario does not have a formalized performance evaluation program of private sector companies during the maintenance phase of the AFP contract, and new AFP contracts are awarded without consideration of past performance. This has resulted in companies with past poor performance receiving contracts. For example, one private sector company that has been in dispute with a hospital since 2013 over what work is included in the AFP agreement was awarded contracts—in 2016 for $1.3 billion and in 2017 for $685 million—to design, build, finance and maintain two more hospitals. The dispute is still ongoing.”

It definitely does not solve the issues revealed in the Auditor General’s 2017 report. In fact, this bill may make the issues highlighted even worse than before.

The press release that the government put out when introducing this bill explicitly claims that Bill 69 “will address the 2017 Auditor General’s report and other third-party reports that have identified opportunities for the province to deliver the real estate portfolio more efficiently through initiatives that centralize authority and decision-making.”

However, as we’ve seen from the conclusions made by the Auditor General in her 2017 report, the 2017 report did not reference the poor management of agencies such as EQAO and Agricorp. Instead, it criticized the poor management of the government’s real estate portfolio by Infrastructure Ontario itself and made 14 recommendations on how Infrastructure Ontario could, with more cost-effectiveness and better oversight, better maintain government properties. There was no recommendation made by the Auditor General in 2017 that references handing over control of these agencies’ real estate interests for Infrastructure Ontario to manage.

So, once again, we are left wondering why the government read this report and concluded that the Auditor General was calling for a resolution that the Auditor General was not calling for, instead of actually addressing the real problem.

I’d like to conclude by urging that the government actually address the real problem and take urgent action on climate change.

I just want to share one little anecdote, to conclude. In 2018, when we were told that there were only 12 years left to prevent catastrophic climate change, the daughter of a friend, who was 12 years old at that time, broke down in tears and asked her mom, “Why don’t the grown-ups care about our future?” I think about that every day with regard to my own children—that this is the world that we’re leaving them, that they are growing up in.

I would really like the government to take seriously the world that we’re passing on to our children and actually address climate change, instead of trying to undermine environmental assessments at every turn.

Thank you for the passionate presentation by the Ottawa West–Nepean member.

Since 2018, the PC government has been focused on building Ontario. We have built schools. The previous Liberal-NDP coalition closed schools. We are building hospitals. The Liberal-NDP coalition brought our health care system to its knees. We are building transit, with four new transit lines in the GTA—when the NDP voted no.

Bill 69 will help—predictable infrastructure projects and let us build infrastructure faster without compromising the EA process.

Why are the members opposite against building the infrastructure that the people of Ontario need and deserve? Why doesn’t the opposition want to join us in building Ontario?

I would like to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for her excellent presentation showing how Bill 69 is actually creating a loophole that undermines or even negates the Environmental Bill of Rights.

It seems that this government is a government of backroom deals and escape hatches when you look at Bill 28—the bill that never was but never was—the “notwithstanding” clause, MZOs, Bill 124, and now Bill 69.

You talked about the Auditor General’s 2017 report, and you pointed out how Infrastructure Ontario management was ineffective, with no standards of performance, and that there were no timelines. It has even been pointed out that invoices were non-specific and did not have proper addresses on them—so it wasn’t necessarily as though these invoices were even related to the properties that were being managed.

My question: Is it fiscally prudent or socially responsible to give further contracts to Infrastructure Ontario?

Questions?

Interjections.

Further debate? I recognize the member for Oakville.

I enjoyed the member opposite’s comments, but I’m a little bit confused, I will admit. I’ve just read the bill, sitting here, in detail, and a lot of what you’re debating—respectfully, I understand your opinions—I don’t think is fully applicable to this bill.

Again, when we see “reducing inefficiencies”—I think we would all agree that the easiest thing to spend in the world is somebody else’s money, the taxpayers’ money. I know with this government, this Premier and our ministers—what the Minister of Infrastructure is trying to do is to reduce the red tape and cut costs.

As I said—through Bill 63—we can’t cut our way to prosperity, but we can be more lean, we can be more efficient.

I am still a little bit confused, again, why the opposition wants to make sure that we are not going to be as efficient as possible. Why does the NDP want to spend more taxpayer dollars, when I think that we’re spending more than we need to right now? We’re going to invest dollars, in this government. Why do you want to spend more money inefficiently?

There were a lot of buzzwords in that question. But I certainly agree with the member opposite that this government has a track record, and that track record is what I just spent 20 minutes outlining. It is a track record of undermining environmental assessments, undermining our green spaces and our waterways, undermining the future of our children.

Let me tell you, the government has done a great job of creating jobs cleaning up from natural disasters. But we could create a lot of jobs by investing in retrofits, building more sustainable infrastructure for our communities and things that would actually prevent and reverse climate change and help us to build more sustainable communities, which would allow my children and everyone’s children to have a healthy future in our province.

No, it’s not at all fiscally prudent to keep giving an organization that has such an incredibly poor track record contracts. And it hasn’t been great management on the part of that organization to keep outsourcing contracts to companies with incredibly poor performance. In fact, one starts to wonder after a while if the point of the contracts is not the actual work being done, but who is on the other end receiving the money for the contracts—which is another pattern recurring with this government that we have seen.

I will try to clear up your confusion efficiently for you.

I think one of the most inefficient ways of spending taxpayer money is to spend it on an organization that is not delivering good oversight, is not delivering good value for the citizens of Ontario—and what we saw in the Auditor General’s report is that Infrastructure Ontario has clearly not been doing that. We’ve repeatedly seen occasions where outsourcing by the government has led to incredibly inefficient management of services. It results in money going into people’s pockets; it has not resulted in better services for Ontarians.

This government’s love of P3s also frequently results in inefficient services for the people of Ontario—once again, money going into private pockets and incredibly inefficient oversight. If the member has any doubts about that, I would love for him to come to Ottawa and ride on our train that was built as a P3 and does not have round wheels and has doors that do not open in the heat or the cold.

I would also add to that that our city of Ottawa is still waiting for our expenses from that storm to be reimbursed by the province. I can tell you, it’s incredibly inefficient for the city to have to clean up after such a major storm. It was incredibly expensive for the residents of Ottawa West–Nepean to have to rebuild their roofs, to purchase new vehicles. For many of them, it cost the entire contents of their freezers and fridge; for many others, there was an incredible cost in trauma and psychological suffering, because they were trapped in their own homes.

We’ve seen this government, just recently, refuse to require generators that would allow people to get in and out of their own homes in the case of these storms.

We’ve also seen, with the floods in Ottawa, that allowing people to have homes built on hundred-year flood plains results in having homes that are eventually flooded.

That is why it is valuable to have an environmental assessment done—so that you are not building your homes and your buildings and your roads in places that are going to be destroyed by climate events.

Thank you to the member for the question.

He’s absolutely right; this government has a track record. It’s a track record of undermining environmental assessments, of undermining our green spaces and our waterways and our clean air at every turn.

There is absolutely no future for the province of Ontario if we don’t have green space, if we don’t have farmland, if we don’t have clean water, and if we don’t take action to stop irreversible and catastrophic climate change.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 69 will reduce red tape, optimize office space, improve economic growth and save taxpayers’ money. This is what our government has been doing since 2018. We’re cutting down red tape. We’re cutting down the regulations. We’re creating an environment for businesses to come and invest in Ontario.

As the Premier has said many times, governments do not create jobs; governments create an environment for businesses to come and invest in Ontario. When they invest in Ontario, they will create jobs, and when businesses thrive, Ontarians will thrive.

My question to the member opposite is, why doesn’t the NDP want to reduce red tape?

Thank you, Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to have you in the chair, and it’s good to be here this afternoon.

It’s my pleasure to address this House today to speak about the importance of moving forward with the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023, which was introduced earlier this week by my colleague the honourable Minister of Infrastructure. This bill confirms our government’s commitment made to all Ontarians in the last election, and that was a commitment to enhance fiscal management, practise good governance, save taxpayer dollars and cut red tape—and I did say “red tape.” There’s a reason why that tape is coloured red. It could be orange, it could be green—anyway, it’s called “red tape.” We’re here to eliminate some of that red tape.

Interjection.

Speaker, specifically, this legislation is taking the necessary steps to modernize the previous Ministry of Infrastructure Act, 2011, along with nine other relevant acts.

But the core objective with introducing the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023, addresses the reason we were all sent to this House. I have spoken in this House on many occasions to advocate the belief that we’re all here to serve our community. It makes no difference what office in government or which public service entity we hold; there always has been and only will be one taxpayer.

The fundamental principle of practising fiscal prudence with public funds, cutting red tape and practising good governance is what we need now and what was sorely lacking from the previous Liberal government. That is what the voters in Ontario overwhelmingly elected our government to do—and that’s our job: to fulfill their wishes to get it done. So the question is, where do we start?

As this proposed legislation would modernize government process and oversight, the first phase of this plan would be to improve the management of real estate and enhance fiscal management, specifically with a focus on the entities that primarily hold already-used office space.

Currently, Ontario has one of the largest and most complex real estate portfolios in Canada. Real estate and industry experts have told us that it is the complexity of this portfolio that has been one of the contributing factors towards unnecessary delays, duplication, higher fees, and overwhelming confusion amongst the public.

The Auditor General’s report from 2017, along with other third-party reports, outlined several inefficiencies within the current structure at the time, but it also outlined opportunities for the provincial government of the day to deliver the real estate portfolio in a more efficient and cost-effective method. The Auditor General recommended a more centralized process and decision-making model that, under the authority of the Ministry of Infrastructure, would improve the management of real estate assets owned by the crown. The Auditor General, at the time, understood that by centralizing the management of the real estate portfolio with the Ministry of Infrastructure—which, by the way, has the expertise to manage it—the government can reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and costs and ultimately save the taxpayers money. The framework, which is outlined in this bill and recommended by the Auditor General, would modify the real estate authority of 14 entities and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with control of real estate that was previously under these entities.

For the benefit of my colleagues in the House, I would like to clarify some changes to the Ministry of Infrastructure Act, 2011—in particular, a new section, 11.0.1, that would be added to the act—and how section 22 of the current act would be repealed and replaced with a new section 22 of the act.

The new section, 11.0.1, would provide that a prescribed entity is not entitled to hold or control, or acquire by purchase, ease or otherwise any interest in real property, such as:

—any land, building or structures;

—any interests in land, building or structures;

—any fixtures or interests in fixtures installed, or placed in, or used in or in connection with land, buildings or structures.

The new section 22 of the act would set out new regulation-making powers for the Minister of Infrastructure and for the Lieutenant Governor in Council in connection with the new section 11.0.1 of the act. The minister would be authorized to make regulations prescribing entities for the purpose of the new section 11.0.1 of the act, as well as prescribing exceptions, conditions, limitations or restrictions in connection with the new section.

The Reducing Inefficiencies Act is, in some ways, interconnected with other important bills our government has introduced since being elected to office in 2018. As dis-covered from one of the many findings from the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, moving forward with the Reducing Inefficiencies Act is the right decision and direction for our government to move our province forward.

Speaker, our government has introduced legislation that will build 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years.

We have introduced legislation that will invest in new infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges, waterways and public transit.

As well, we have introduced legislation that will reduce red tape and high taxes that burdened business and crippled growth in Ontario from 2003 to 2018. During that time period, manufacturing jobs left the province of Ontario in droves. They left because there was a government that was not committed to helping and supporting businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses. They had written off manufacturing as something we don’t need to be a part of here in the province of Ontario—“let’s just focus on service.” Yet nothing could be further from the truth—and today is a witness, as we rebuild our manufacturing sector and are undergoing a manufacturing renaissance in the province of Ontario right now.

This bill, if passed, will be critical in that plan to continue rebuilding Ontario. That is why our government continues to take decisive action to move our province in the right direction. The Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023, is one of the solutions that is needed.

I would like to recap for this House similar red tape reduction legislation that has had similar outcomes that this bill will have. Our government has introduced and passed eight red tape reduction bills. We have taken 400 individual actions to reduce Ontario’s total regulatory burden. To date, our red tape reduction efforts have saved businesses and organizations $576 million each and every year in compliance costs. This is helping to make our province a better place to live, work, raise a family, start a business.

When our government took office in 2018, the province of Ontario was not only the most indebted sub-sovereign government in the entire world, thanks to Liberal and NDP overspending, but it also had the most regulations—over 300,000—of any jurisdiction in the world. By comparison, British Columbia has 180,000 regulations. There’s no need for our province to have almost double the number of regulations. BC is a great place to live, work and raise a family—Ontario does not need 300,000. We need to support and encourage businesses to come here and people to live in this great province, so eliminating a lot of these burdensome, duplicative regulations is setting the province on the right path.

As the goal of this bill is to enhance Ontario’s fiscal management, cut red tape and improve good governance, it only makes sense to move forward and pass this bill.

It is also worth noting that this bill will look at how we can reduce the administrative burden on standard infrastructure projects while maintaining our province’s strong environmental and consultative processes.

Our government has and will continue to meet with municipalities, First Nations, local stakeholder groups and subject matter experts to ensure that all proposed changes will be in the best interests of all Ontarians and are consistent with our government’s plan to build.

One identified efficiency this proposed legislation would implement is to formalize an existing mechanism that waives the 30-day waiting period after a successful class environmental assessment has been fully completed and consulted on. This recommendation would allow the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, on a project-specific basis, the authority to alter or waive the 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects.

If you are wondering what a class environmental assessment is, it is defined as a simplified process that sets out requirement for consultation, impact assessment and mitigation for projects such as municipal roads, sewers and drainage.

The government of Ontario and the Minister of the Environment take the beauty of this province and the environment very seriously, and I want to stress and underline, contrary to the messaging of the opposition, that there are no changes to the environmental assessment. This assessment process that we currently have in place is 50 years old. The Minister of the Environment, this morning, mentioned in his speech that he wasn’t even born when this particular assessment process was put into place—probably half of the members in this Legislature weren’t born; I was, but I was young.

So why are we doing this? Why are we modernizing? Because like so many other government policies and processes, the existing assessment is too slow, too costly and too burdensome. We have a problem in this province when people who want to build infrastructure, build homes for people to live in, build condos, high-rises, single detached homes—when they are not able to get shovels in the ground for 10 years from the time they first purchased that land, that is part of the problem. That is going to drive up prices. It’s pretty simple math. Holding multi-million dollar real estate portfolios over many years costs money. It delays building of houses. It makes it more unaffordable. It’s not good.

We need to speed up the process within the constraints of keeping the same environmental assessments in place. Formalizing this ability means that standard municipal projects that occur across the province, like the creation of new municipal roads and stormwater infrastructure, could be ready almost a month earlier than were previously completed before.

Again, I want to emphasize, contrary to some of the messaging from the opposition, that there is no change to the environmental assessment. We are eliminating duplicative and unnecessary regulations, period.

In implementing these proposed changes, we will get more projects built faster, at a lower cost to Ontarians. And who would not want more housing, more transit built quicker and more efficiently? Most importantly, these projects will be completed without compromising any environmental standards and protections that are currently in place.

This is a perfect example of how streamlining the process will save municipalities and taxpayers both time and money for essential projects that are needed and that will help build Ontario. That is our objective. As a government, we have put forward the most bold plan to build infrastructure in this province in decades, and it cuts across different facets of infrastructure. Whether it’s stormwater pond projects, water facilities, public transit, the electrification of the GO line, new subway lines, highways, bridges, it’s all part of the package; it’s not an either/or.

We want to encourage people to take public transit when we can. We want them to take the GO train, the TTC, Oakville Transit, Brampton Transit. But we also recognize that not everybody can always take their kids to soccer practice or go see their friends in the other part of the city on transit. Sometimes they’re going to need to take a car. If they have a car, we want them to go on less congested roads. We want businesses to be able to get products closer to market quicker, sooner, with more efficiency and less traffic. And we would love them to be buying and supporting and driving electric vehicles, which is why our government has been committed to making Ontario a global hub in making electric vehicles right here in this province.

The Speaker will know that in his own region of Halton, in the town of Oakville, Ford of Canada will be retooling their facility in the next couple of years to build electric vehicles. I can tell you that Ford of Canada was very close in considering moving their facility elsewhere and shutting down that facility. Why? Because of the actions of the past Liberal government—high energy costs, high regulations. Our government has come in and worked in collaboration, I might add, with the federal government to be able to support Ford of Canada to stay here for decades to come, to build electric vehicles, to have great, high-paying jobs and build vehicles that are great for the environment.

We would rather build electric vehicles right here in this province than spend money subsidizing millionaires, buying vehicles built in California. That’s the way we work in this government. We want vehicles built here in Canada, here in Ontario, and we’re going to support those businesses and create that environment for them to be built here.

As someone mentioned, as well, we have the critical minerals, and we’re going to need to build the infrastructure to get to those critical minerals over the years so we can create that wealth and prosperity for our province in all regions, especially some of the less developed regions where they need it the most, and we certainly hope the opposition will support us in that.

We’re confident that this bill will be part of the process. It’s not the only bill that’s going to move Ontario forward, but it’s part of the process; it’s part of a package from the government.

Earlier this week, we saw all members from both sides of the House come together like true parliamentarians and do what is best for Ontario.

And what is best for all Ontarians? I believe it is to fulfill our promise to practise good governance and fiscal responsibility, to eliminate duplication and waste, and to move forward with a plan to build Ontario.

I hope that a bill like this is a bill that can be supported by the opposition. I understand that the opposition have a role to oppose; I get that. They have a role to oppose and question what the government is doing. But at the end of the day, if there’s good legislation and the people of Ontario are supportive, come and join us—support us. I think the people of Ontario would be thrilled to see our opposition friends across the aisle here say, “I disagree with the government on some issues, but I’ll tell you, this is some good legislation.”

This is in the best interests of the people of Ontario. It’s going to get things built quicker, reduce red tape, reduce unnecessary regulation, and help make Ontario—which is well on its way to taking back that title as the economic engine of Canada, which we lost under the Liberal regime of 15 years. Ontario is back. We’re back in business. We’re creating that environment, getting things done, building housing, transportation. There’s a lot to build.

I urge my colleagues from all sides to do what is best for the taxpayers, for the great citizens of Ontario: Support this legislation.

I’d certainly like to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for putting forward this legislation.

I’d like to thank the Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

I thank the member from Oakville for his comments. I listened intently.

We had the opportunity to travel on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and we heard from many folks and organizations across the province who underscored the importance of housing as a social determinant of health.

Here on the opposition side, we believe in stretching a dollar as far as it goes. We believe in upstream investments, such as the province creating affordable housing, making sure that there’s robust primary care infrastructure, making sure that we have nurse practitioners and family health teams.

My question is specifically about business. I would say that it is bad business—is it not?—to reward somebody who does not deserve it, somebody who has not earned it, somebody whose track record actually means that they are not doing the correct job. When we look at the example of Infrastructure Ontario, we have heard, in the Auditor General’s report, about how ineffective they are. My question is, why is the government cherry-picking only the things that they like out of the Auditor General’s report and not responding to all the things that need to be done?

This bill will directly affect how we protect the environment. It will impact the environmental assessment process.

Frankly, Speaker, this government has a terrible record when it comes to the environment.

If the government is so confident and so willing to push forward the bill to reduce inefficiency and thinks that this bill will actually serve in the interest of Ontarians, then why did the government provide barely any notice, little to no communication, no briefing for the opposition, no public consultation?

What is the government’s plan when it comes to ensuring that the public will have a say in this bill?

With the uncertainty in the world right now and the cost pressures on family budgets, I’m wondering if the member can tell me how this will better the lives of Ontarians.

Questions to the member for Oakville?

Member for Oakville.

Thank you to the member opposite for his discussion about this bill.

The government’s news release about this bill talks about this being in response to the 2017 Auditor General’s report.

I’m wondering if the government has had consultation with the Auditor General about this legislation in advance and what their office’s response was, i.e., does this actually meet their recommendations; does it fulfill all of the recommendations from that report? If not, what other steps will the government be taking to close those other gaps found by the Auditor General?

Thank you to the member opposite. It was great travelling across the province with you. I got to know you a little better, and I appreciated getting to know you better.

I will disagree with you, though, on what you just mentioned with respect to Infrastructure Ontario. Having had the pleasure of working as a parliamentary assistant in the last Parliament for some time in that ministry, I can assure you that Infrastructure Ontario is a world-class organization—so much so that we had people from all over the world and Europe coming to visit Infrastructure Ontario to learn about all the great things we’re doing. But as you point out, the Auditor General did point out some issues. There’s always room for improvement. Every human being, every government, can always improve things, so there are certainly some things that the Auditor General pointed out, perhaps rightly, that they can improve on. But overall, I can assure you that we have one of the best organizations in the world right here in Toronto.

Part of being a government is that there are bills put before that Parliament and debated on a regular basis—and no one bill is going to solve all the problems of our province; there are so many components to it.

This bill, I think, has some very specific goals, targeting getting building done quicker and more efficiently. If we can do that, I think it will make industry more competitive. I think it will make housing more affordable. It will help municipalities be able to get the facilities they need built quicker, more efficiently. I really believe this is legislation that very well could be supported by the opposition. We’ll have to see how they support this, but I think in the best interest of Ontarians they may well support it.

This is the people’s House. We debate bills and we have the opportunity—we’re on live TV right now, in front of the people of Ontario, so we’re debating and we’re discussing.

The government of Ontario has been very forthright and open with the legislation that we are now proposing to put through.

You did mention some of the issues related to the environment. Well, I will add that it’s our government that increased the renewable content in ethanol gas from 10% to 15%. We’ve added acres to the greenbelt—in fact, it’s the largest expansion in the history of the greenbelt since its inception. Over 2,000 acres are being added to the greenbelt—I don’t hear that from the opposition questions too often. And we are now going to be a global hub for EV vehicles.

We are doing so much more. We have the opportunity to talk and debate today.

The legislation that we’re putting through in reducing inefficiencies is going to have no negative impact on the environment whatsoever—period, full stop.

You did mention what are we doing in a positive way for the environment, that we don’t often hear in the media and in the House: the largest investment in transit in Canadian history. People forget about that.

I talked about Infrastructure Ontario being a global leader in P3s and infrastructure development, which we should be very proud of. That’s one thing I think Canadians and Ontarians need to do more—show the world what we’re doing.

Ontario has over 90% emissions-free electricity, most of which—or a lot of that, a very high component—comes from nuclear. I’m not sure where the opposition NDP stands on that; I think there might be some division in the party, because I don’t hear them talking too much about that.

We’ve got great programs in place. We’re going to continue on this path to build Ontario and make it a great place to work, live and raise a family.

I thank the member from Oakville for his terrific remarks.

You mentioned 50 years and what an extraordinarily long time that is—some folks here not born yet. I can tell everyone that I was born—I was 13 years old 50 years ago. You can do the math. In fact, 50 years ago, I had just finished being a page the year before, so there you go. In fact, 50 years ago, the Toronto Maple Leafs had just won the cup six years earlier—wow.

The environmental track record of this government has been mentioned. I’ve got to say, I’m very proud of what we are doing, whether it’s the biggest transit investment in the history of the province, whether it’s over 90% of our electricity production being clean, whether it’s what we’re doing in the steel industry, cleaning that up—and on and on it goes.

I want to ask the member, consistent with those measures and the upgrading of the environmental assessment process, how will this help achieve our goals for Ontario?

My friend from Oakville said on several occasions that there’s no impact to environmental assessments.

I just want to direct his attention and hear some comments about schedule 1, where this bill actually allows the environmental minister to waive the 30-day waiting period that’s currently required following the end of the class EA assessment.

I’m wondering, am I not reading the legislation correctly, member? Is there not a significant change that would allow some—

I appreciate this government’s goal to reduce red tape. If a regulation is unnecessarily burdensome, then we should consider amending or removing it. For example, I am supportive of changes that allow businesses to submit information to the government digitally when possible.

But I have to say that I and others on this side of the House still have a lot to learn about the goals and outcomes the government hopes to achieve through this bill.

I was very confused upon reading schedule 2, because while this bill purports to reduce red tape, it may in fact actually add to it. As it stands, Ontario’s crown corporations are able to manage their own real estate. Often, they rent space in an office building, as many small and medium-sized organizations do. But if this new legislation is enacted, these crown corporations will have their real estate authority stripped from them and placed in the hands of the mega Ministry of Infrastructure.

For example, today the EQAO can decide for itself, within its approved budget, where its couple of dozen employees will work. If they needed help with that decision, I expect the Ministry of Infrastructure staff would be happy to offer advice; instead, now the ministry will decide. So if I understand correctly, the EQAO will have to go to the ministry to say that their lease is up for renewal, and a decision will have to be made by the minister whether the lease is renewed or they will need to relocate. It seems to me this could in fact add layers to this decision. For example, an employee in the ministry will consider the issue and go to their superior, who will go to their superior, who will go to the deputy minister. Because of possible bottlenecking, this decision could actually take longer than it does today, and if there is a bottleneck with approvals and decision-making, I can envision a scenario where the deputy minister will have to hire a contractor who may even end up making the same decision the EQAO would have in the first place. Instead, this decision will have taken longer, will have cost the taxpayers more money, and will have been done with less transparency.

This government does have a clear track record of making decisions without consultation and without being transparent with the voters of Ontario about their rationale—for example, the strong-mayors legislation; reducing conservation authorities’ ability to protect the environment; invoking the “notwithstanding” clause; and, of course, opening up the greenbelt after saying that they wouldn’t.

When I say here today that my constituents have become skeptical about decisions like this one that come from this government, I hope the government will listen and be more transparent about the rationale for this bill. The only explanation provided is that it stems from an Auditor General report. The member from Oakville could not say if the Auditor General had been consulted in advance of this legislation being developed.

The Auditor General did indeed recommend that Infrastructure Ontario work with ministries and agencies on how to more efficiently use their real estate. She did not recommend this heavy-handed approach of seizing real estate powers.

I am keen to hear more about how this bill will reduce red tape, what the financial business case for this bill is, and what actual dollars and efficiencies the government hopes to achieve.

I will also be looking to learn more about whether or not they did consult the crown corporations affected and the relevant public sector unions that may also be affected, to see if this really is the best course of action. Perhaps this is an opportunity to move these organizations to locations that are lower-cost, but it may not help them fulfill their mandate.

Speaker, I also have requested a briefing from the Minister of Infrastructure. I’m happy to say that I’ve been told I will be meeting with him next week, and I look forward to learning more about this legislation.

I don’t really see this legislation as being about red tape. It seems to have a different rationale, and I do hope we get transparency on that.

Thank you very much. It can be done.