The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour did assent:

An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of St. Thomas and the Municipality of Central Elgin / Loi concernant la modification des limites territoriales entre la cité de St. Thomas et la municipalité de Central Elgin.

An Act to revive Sapore Di Calabria Inc.

An Act to revive 1748317 Ontario Inc.

An Act to revive 933834 Ontario Limited.

An Act to revive Maizal Tortilleria Inc.

An Act to revive 2103890 Ontario Limited.

An Act to revive Woodstock Moose Lodge No. 1141 (Holdings) Limited.

To the member opposite: I think we’re reading the same thing but maybe looking at it differently. But in the end, there is no change to the environmental assessment program—zero, period, full stop.

Good afternoon, everyone. I will be sharing my time with my dynamite colleague MPP Bowman.

The government has big ambitions to cut red tape—and I do like the colour red, to the member of Oakville. What I am scared of is the green tape they might cut along the way.

I am open to hearing about Bill 69. I agree that we should modernize the environmental assessments process, because as we’ve heard umpteen times, it hasn’t been updated in 50 years. What I am not sure of is if waiving the 30-day assessment period between when comments are given during the environmental assessment and when it can proceed is the way to do so.

Limiting the ability to extend comment periods may jeopardize meaningful consultation on projects. Short consultation periods may unfairly affect environmental groups that do not have enough full-time staff to compile research and responses. Believe me, these environmental groups have been scrambling to keep up with what’s happening with this government lately. We have already seen the government suspend these 30-day periods to fast-track its projects, and it seems the bill, if passed, will turn that pattern into law. These periods allow for a thriving and healthy democracy, where Ontarians can have a say on various projects. We must allow for more input from the public, not less, and have ample time to digest the comments made and, if needed, action them to ensure our beautiful environment is protected.

Let’s imagine a scenario where an Ontario environmental expert submits an important suggestion on the last day of the comment period. The government would have no obligation to understand or action the useful advice given.

This all comes after the government has already eliminated the role of our vital conservation authorities in building regulation with Bill 23.

Why doesn’t the government want to utilize the skill set and knowledge of these experts? They continue to give themselves more power and authority, spreading their resources too thinly and creating a system where things fall through the cracks without the tape to keep it in place.

This bill does seem small and administrative; however, it could have potentially damaging effects. It’s a slippery slope for environmental protections, and I must assess and evaluate Bill 69 knowing the government’s track record on maintaining and strengthening said environmental protections.

Similar to Bill 23, Bill 69 is proposing the removal of the need for expertise in place to protect Ontarians from future disasters and financial burdens. Advice and consultation is essential in being proactive to combat emergency preparedness and climate adaptation.

We saw the role of conservation authorities dwindled down by Bill 23.

Conservation authorities were created following the disaster of Hurricane Hazel. This tragedy embarks a memory of Ontario’s past that should not be forgotten. In 1954, over 1,000 homes were destroyed or seriously damaged. The flooding of these homes built on flood plains contributed to the death of 81 Ontarians. As a result, conservation authorities were designated duties to protect and regulate land for the safety of communities. They were one piece of a larger puzzle to protect the ecosystem and environment we have and love in this province.

I worry about the ramifications of Bill 69 now, knowing that the government so readily removed the expertise of conservation authorities in the building process.

By introducing Bill 69, we are taking away protective measures in place for our constituents. I cannot sit back and watch, yet again, the advice of the experts with extensive knowledge on how to protect us be ignored by this government. How are we going to strive to protect our homes and our environment if we continue to take shortcuts? Think about your residents. Without consultation advice from environmental experts, our government will only contribute to the ongoing risks and harm towards the environment.

We know from the Insurance Bureau of Canada that insurance claims from severe weather have more than quadrupled over the past 15 years and that 10% of homes in Canada are now uninsurable relative to flood protection.

Building in certain areas without sufficient environmental consultation will cost the government and Ontarians in the long run.

Bill 69 may speed up the process of getting things built, but we may lose something critical along the way.

At this point, I would like more information about Bill 69—so much that earlier this week, my office contacted the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for a briefing. Unfortunately, the ministry told me they were unable to accommodate a briefing at this time. If they are unable to accommodate a briefing at this time, how will they be able to make comments on environmental assessments within the current additional 30 days? I worry about them managing their workload. Thankfully, the Ministry of Infrastructure has agreed to do a briefing.

At this point, in 2023, the risk is too high to eliminate any tools we need to protect the environment and the people of Ontario from emergencies. We may be cutting red tape, but at what cost? Building sustainably with proper care and consideration of our environment protections is the right and fiscally responsible thing to do.

I’m handing over my time to my colleague.

Thank you very much to the member from St. Catharines—a beautiful riding—for that very vital and important question about trust with this government on the environmental front.

On my first day here, basically, we had the beautiful throne speech, and climate change was not mentioned once. As my Irish nana would say, start as you mean to go on. That’s how we started here with trust on the environmental front. And then we have gone to—lucky me, because most of these wild bills have come to my committee—Bill 23, Bill 6, Bill 39. We have the destruction of the conservation authorities. We have the destruction of the Toronto Green Standard, which the Premier actually voted in support of when he was working with me at Toronto city hall back in the day. And with the destruction of the Toronto Green Standard, we also lose green standards from other municipalities. Many members here would have great green standards in their own municipalities. We’ve lost that across Ontario. So, essentially, we’re not starting as we mean to go on.

There’s a huge lack of trust with this government on the environmental front amongst many Ontarians and many in this chamber. It’s unfortunate.

There are many examples right across Ontario of how and why we need that 30-day period and we need to listen to experts.

I think this has been the problem with some of these bills and what the government hopes to accomplish.

I would say this with all due respect: We are not the sharpest knives in the drawer; we are not the experts in every single area of expertise. That is why we rely on experts such as the conservation authorities. They have institutional knowledge. They have a wealth of history, a long history in protecting Ontario from flooding and other natural disasters. So it is up to the government to listen to experts and then formulate proper legislation that respects Ontarians, that respects the environment.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite keep talking about the environmental assessment. This bill clearly states, and the Minister of Infrastructure has covered in her speech, that the environmental process is not being compromised, and the proposed legislative amendments are minor and will not have any impact on the existing class environmental assessments or environmental protection.

What this bill will instead do, as I said, is, it will reduce red tape, it will optimize office space and improve economic growth, and it will have tangible savings for the government in the mid-term and the long term and will save taxpayers money.

Why are the members opposite against building infrastructure that the people of Ontario need and deserve?

Again, returning to my friends from the Liberal caucus: I think it is worth thinking about the context of the last four years. We’ve been asking this question about environmental assessments and the importance of them. We’re seeing that schedule 1 of this particular bill gets rid of that 30-day waiting period, and I’m wondering if you have any examples from your own communities about when having that 30-day waiting period could actually add some value—in seeing that moving ahead with something may not be in the public’s best interest.

Now we’ll have questions to the members who just made their presentation together.

Thanks to the members opposite for their comments on the bill.

I want to follow up with the member for Don Valley West about real estate. I value her commercial experience and perspective on this.

Your perspective was, let’s let the agencies themselves manage the real estate under their mandate. You could equally argue, and I have sympathy for the argument that says, that if you’re in government—that means there are 14 or more different agencies, all with their own portfolios, all with their own objectives. That can result in conflicting approaches, inefficiencies, on and on and on. Gathering them together under one ministry, which undoubtedly will consult these agencies, seems to me a much more efficient and effective way to manage a portfolio.

I’m curious about the member’s thoughts on the real estate elements of this bill that you mentioned.

To the member from Beaches–East York: This legislation creates loopholes to expedite environmental assessments. That might be okay, but it comes down to trust—trust that the government will use it properly.

Can the member expand on why there might be a lack of trust relating to the government on the environment?

I’d like to thank the members for their comments about Bill 69.

I want to return to the Auditor General’s report, where it was pointed out how Infrastructure Ontario management was deemed ineffective—that there were no standards of performance, no timelines, and even that there were invoices that were non-specific to the location as well as the services that were provided.

Is it good business to continually reward organizations that do not have performance standards, that do not have timelines, and that are unspecific on invoices?

It is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the people I represent in London West to participate in the debate on Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act.

Speaker, this is a bill that the government claims, in its news release, will reduce red tape, save taxpayer money, and boost economic growth. Yet in the six hours of debate we have had so far in this place, we have heard absolutely no evidence from the government that the measures set out in this bill will achieve those goals.

This is a relatively straightforward bill. There are two very distinct schedules. Schedule 1 deals with the 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessments. Schedule 2 deals with the government’s real estate holdings—certain real estate holdings—and the holdings that are held by prescribed entities.

We have some concerns about these measures, as innocuous as they appear, because we have seen this government in action.

It’s interesting to read the press release that accompanied the government’s introduction of this legislation, in which they state that schedule 1 is necessary because the environmental assessment process is too slow, too costly and too burdensome. They also state that schedule 2, the schedule that deals with real estate holdings, will address the 2017 Auditor General’s report. I’m going to go through those two statements in some detail and explain why we have reservations, why we have concerns, and why we will not be supporting this bill.

Schedule 1, as I said, changes the 30-day waiting period for environmental assessments because the government feels that environmental assessments are burdensome red tape. That is not a view we share, and I can tell you that is not a view that is shared by the vast majority of people in this province, as we live in the midst of a climate emergency that is just getting worse.

We heard, interestingly, from a member across the way earlier this afternoon that this bill actually changes nothing with the environmental assessment process, which is curious to understand—if that was the case, why the government would bring in legislation that apparently the government believes will do nothing. But that’s another issue.

When we read the legislation, we see that schedule 1 of the bill allows the minister to waive the 30-day waiting period that is currently required under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Let’s review why the Environmental Assessment Act includes a 30-day waiting period. That period provides the minister with time to consider public comments that may be received after a class environmental assessment process, before making a decision whether to issue an approval to proceed. Waiving this waiting period would mean that the minister doesn’t really see any point in taking those 30 days to consider those comments. We know that the Environmental Assessment Act was introduced in this province decades ago in order to provide that important opportunity for sober second thought to assess the impact of environmental projects on the environment, sensitive wetlands, flood plains and other public places. This schedule just waives that 30-day waiting period and allows the minister to move much more quickly than they would have in the past.

I do want to make the proviso that we have seen this government repeatedly ignore public input, so I have to say that in many ways what this schedule does is to allow the government to just ignore public input faster. They can ignore it from the day that it is provided, rather than having to wait 30 days before they decide to ignore what the public has to say.

We also have seen this government twice be found by the courts to have violated the Environmental Bill of Rights in terms of the notice period that they give the public on matters affecting the environment. They have also violated the Environmental Bill of Rights in terms of the public’s right to have their comments considered by the government prior to the government making a decision or introducing legislation. We saw this numerous times under the Ford government, with legislation that has been brought in either before the 30-day waiting period has ended or without any regard to the responsibility to put legislation out for public input before it is passed.

I want to quote Environmental Defence’s Phil Pothen, who is the Ontario program manager—a great champion of the environment and an honest critic of this government. He has raised the concern about the elimination of this 30-day waiting period, that it’s worrisome, because, he says it’s a time when the minister is supposed to be considering—by legislation—and the public is supposed to be debating, whether to refer a project for a more detailed assessment. I understand that in response to some of these concerns that were raised by Environmental Defence, the environment minister’s office clarified that large transit projects in this province—not to worry—would likely still be subject to a full environmental assessment. The government also reassured Ontarians that the waiting period would only be waived in certain circumstances. I have to say that that is cold comfort to the many Ontarians who have seen the track record of this government in taking into account the impact of their legislation and policy decisions on the environment, and in particular the environmental assessment process.

This is a government that, in 2020, completely overhauled the environmental assessment process, completely eroded the protections that had been built into the environmental assessment process with Bill 197. That bill said that public sector projects which previously had been automatically subject to an environmental assessment would now only need one if the government decided that it was necessary. That bill also eliminated the mechanism that citizens had available to them to call on the Minister of the Environment to conduct a full assessment on projects that would otherwise be exempt. Under that legislation, which this government passed, prior to the 30-day period that was required by the Environmental Bill of Rights, there is no longer that ability to conduct an environmental assessment on projects that are exempt.

Frankly, as I mentioned, we are in a period in our history when we are facing a dire climate emergency.

I want to give a shout out-to the people of London, to the city councillors in my community of London. London was one of the first communities in Ontario to actually issue a formal declaration of climate emergency. That was back in April 2019. Londoners take the responsibility to act on the climate emergency very seriously. There has been an extensive period of public consultation since that declaration of climate emergency was issued in London. And just last year, a climate emergency action plan was released that outlines more than 200 specific strategies and actions to deal with the impact of climate emergency, to deal with those extreme weather events that are causing catastrophic flooding, freezing rain, extreme temperatures and heat waves that are creating so much pressure on our health and food security in this province.

Also, we heard this morning about Windsor—you can’t even get insurance anymore in Windsor. The cost has just skyrocketed because of the impact of the severe flooding that community has experienced, which has caused billions of dollars in property damage.

We have an obligation to take our responsibility to deal with the climate emergency seriously. And what does this bill do? It further waters down Ontario’s environmental assessment process. That is one of the reasons why the official opposition is so concerned about this bill.

The other schedule of Bill 69, as I said, deals with certain real estate holdings of a number of arm’s-length corporations of the Ontario government.

It’s interesting that the government claims that this bill was drafted in order to address some of the specific recommendations that the Auditor General had made in a 2017 report. I have that report in front of me, and I was curious to know what those recommendations were that the Auditor General had made dealing with Infrastructure Ontario real estate services. What the Auditor General pointed out in that report were numerous problems, a litany of problems, related to Infrastructure Ontario’s oversight of its real estate holdings, and most of those problems that are outlined in the Auditor General’s report concern the policies and processes set in place by Infrastructure Ontario. Yet this government’s response, apparently, to that report is to bring in 14 of the 34 agencies that currently manage government-owned property under the auspices of Infrastructure Ontario, the very agency that was highlighted by the Auditor General as having completely inadequate controls on its management of real estate services.

What were some of the things that the Auditor General highlighted in her report? She highlighted that the design of the RFP approach by Infrastructure Ontario—

The next question.

Thank you to the member from London for the question.

I would say no, that is not good business practice, of course. I think that was a nice friendly question over here, so thank you.

Again, that’s the crux of some of our questions about this bill.

Certainly, the Auditor General had some strong recommendations for Infrastructure Ontario and how it does its procurement, how it manages its suppliers—and that their tenants are not getting the services they need on a timely basis or perhaps in a cost-efficient way.

I’m still trying to understand why this bill is specifically only focusing on one particular recommendation, which was number 10, where the Ministry of Infrastructure says they will undertake a review of the realty operating model and associated financial model in order to study and implement improvements to the management of government properties, and that they will work closely with Infrastructure Ontario and all ministry tenants to examine different options for effective service delivery and the management of government properties—so again, I would say that that is really what the focus should be, as opposed to a recommendation to immediately seize control over these properties.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I was highlighting some of the findings of the Auditor General’s 2017 report, which nowhere included a recommendation that 14 of the 34 agencies that manage government-owned property should be consolidated under the auspices of one entity, presumably Infrastructure Ontario. But the auditor pointed out a number of concerns dealing with the design of the RFP approach, 7,500 capital projects across the province, the way that the bids were issued, generated—three bids received by the government, two proponents selected.

The Auditor General recommended better oversight of procurement methods for capital projects. She recommended better incentive structures for project managers to manage costs. She recommended incentives to complete projects on time. She recommended better information on operating and maintenance services for client ministries. She identified a problem that office space per person exceeds the ministry standards.

There were a number of issues that were identified by the Auditor General, mainly dealing with the outsourcing of property management to private contractors and criticizing the uncompetitive procurement process that IO engages in and the poor oversight of these private contracts.

We have heard nothing from this government to explain why they believed that the appropriate response to the Auditor General’s report is to bring 14 of the 34 agencies that manage government-owned property under the umbrella of a single entity. And it’s particularly worrisome that that single entity is Infrastructure Ontario, which has been noted by the Auditor General as being not able to manage its own processes and real estate holdings.

This is a case of the government bringing forward legislation without providing a sufficient rationale for why they are taking these actions, and without providing any evidence that these measures will actually achieve what the government says they are hoping to achieve with this bill.

As I said, it is really difficult to put our faith in the government and give them carte blanche to just take these legislative changes that they are putting out here—and act in the best interests of the people of this province—because that’s not what we have seen from this government. We have certainly not seen this government acting in the best interests of the people of this province on environmental protection. We have certainly not seen it with Bill 23 and the government’s decision to carve up the greenbelt to build more homes, when experts are telling us that the government could exceed the affordable housing task force target of 1.5 million homes in a decade—they could actually build two million homes in a decade—without going anywhere near the greenbelt. That’s what experts are telling this government, and yet they’re plowing ahead with this decision to carve up the greenbelt in the face of tremendous public opposition.

So I think that you can understand and appreciate, Speaker, why we have reservations about the measures set out in this bill, why we would not support any further erosion of the environmental protection process, why we are skeptical of consolidating a number of real estate holdings under the auspices of an agency—Infrastructure Ontario—that has a very poor track record in managing its own properties, and why we have stated that we will not be supporting this bill.

People deserve a government that’s going to protect the environment, that’s going to take concrete and effective action on climate change, and that’s going to be a responsible steward of public dollars and manage public agencies appropriately.

I apologize to the member. I have to interrupt her to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader or his designate directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity.

Please continue the debate.

Thank you to the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington for his question.

I did hear the minister make that statement, but I tend to look at someone’s track record before I believe what’s coming out of their mouth. And what I have seen from this government is a track record that gives me no confidence whatsoever that this government will act responsibly and take environmental impact into consideration when it is deciding to fast-track municipal projects. I mentioned the city of London’s climate emergency action plan—more than 200 specific strategies. Not one of those strategies included watering down the environmental assessment process for municipal projects.

We have seen a government that has basically shown complete contempt for environmental protections in this province that have been established for 30 years.

Under an NDP government, in 1993, we brought in the Environmental Bill of Rights to require the government to consult with the public on public sector undertakings.

What we have seen from this government is the most massive overhaul of the environmental assessment process that has ever occurred in Ontario. This is just one step further to water down the environmental protections that Ontarians rely on, that Ontarians need, that our climate needs if we are to make it through this climate emergency.

I fail to understand how a bill that consolidates 14 public agencies that manage properties that are owned by the Ontario government under the auspices of an agency—Infrastructure Ontario—that has been so roundly criticized by the Auditor General for its inability to efficiently and effectively manage government real estate in any way benefits people of this province.

We have not seen any evidence from the government side that schedule 2 of this bill will do anything to actually save taxpayers’ money.

Question?

Thank you to the member for London West. It’s always great to hear what she has to say on bills; it’s very educating.

Time and time again, the government has shown that they are willing to water down environmental assessment policies—whether it is selling off the greenbelt to make it easier to build on, or to build on wetlands.

How worried are you that the policy change to eliminate environmental assessment wait periods, so the minister can evaluate public comments, will be misused?