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?

Thank you to the member for London West for your excellent comments, as always.

In Ottawa, we have really seen the cost of natural disasters to taxpayers and to residents. We’ve heard a lot from the government this afternoon about saving taxpayers’ money. Let me tell you, when you have a once-in-a-century flood, that is incredibly costly to taxpayers. It is incredibly costly to homeowners as well.

One of the things that we’ve seen, as well, is that environmental assessments are incredibly important for knowing where and when it is safe to build and when it is safe to have a building project. When you don’t take the time to do that right, it is going to have more costs for taxpayers and more costs for homeowners when that natural disaster occurs.

Can the member speak a little bit more about why it is so important to have these environmental assessments done, from the perspective of the residents in Ontario?

I appreciated the comments from the member from London West, especially early on in her presentation.

She expressed concern about the supposed speculative nature of the efficiencies that are proposed by this legislation—and yet, when referring to the attached schedule, says the minister may waive the 30-day holding period if it’s not needed. The opposition speculates that this may prevent the minister from extending the comment period if that’s deemed beneficial, and ignores the statement from the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks earlier today that this would allow the opportunity to expedite a project, to get it done in that construction season and not create that artificial delay to the next construction season.

Will the member acknowledge that there are benefits to getting positive projects done faster, more efficiently and with more respect for our taxpayers’ money?

Thank you to my colleague the member for Ottawa West–Nepean for highlighting the financial costs of failing to act on climate change.

We recently received a report from the Financial Accountability Officer that failing to act on climate change, even in an optimistic scenario, would mean about $171 billion in costs over the rest of the century to deal with road, rail and bridge repairs alone. The Financial Accountability Officer also highlighted that that is the optimistic scenario, but costs could climb to as high as $322 billion because of damage to transportation infrastructure and other costs if there is an increase in heat, flooding and extreme weather events.

The problem is that environmental protections are not red tape. That is an issue that this government continues to fail to understand. You can’t erode clean water protections, you can’t gut conservation authorities’ responsibility for flood control, and you can’t water down the environmental assessment process in the name of eliminating red tape. That is not red tape. That is a threat to the health and well-being of the people of this province.

Next, the member for Scarborough–Agincourt.

Thank you to the member opposite for her passionate presentation and input.

Since 2018, our government’s stated goal was to reduce red tape, and we have worked so hard on making red tape our top target, to make it easier for various kinds of industries and businesses to be able to do business, to establish business, and to help improve the way of life of Ontarians. The Minister of Economic Development, on many occasions, stated the benefits of our policies so far: $7 billion in annual savings for businesses.

My question is, what’s wrong with reducing red tape? Why is the opposition adamant on creating more red tape? We have seen the catastrophic result of having red tape, where hundreds of thousands of people were unemployed. Companies left Ontario because of this policy, and we are trying—

As I rise in the House today to speak on this important bill, Bill 69, I want to be crystal clear: This is the bill which is going to make sure Ontario is reducing red tape. It’s going to save taxpayers money. It’s going to boost economic growth in Ontario, and it’s going to make Ontario another great example as a place to live, raise a family and thrive. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am supporting this bill.

Speaking as somebody who came to this great country as an immigrant—and I know that as an immigrant, when you arrive, you have limited resources. You have limited resources, but you have immense faith in the Canadian dream. You must exercise fiscal prudence. Every dollar matters.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what this bill is doing. It is about our government’s unwavering commitment to restore Ontario’s promise to its people to get it done and do it in a fiscally prudent way.

If you really look at it, since 2018, this government’s action under the leadership of Premier Ford has been guided by this commitment. Mr. Speaker, this bill is another step in that very direction.

Ontario has the largest real estate portfolios in Canada. If we talk about Ontario, we’re responsible for 42% of the economy, 40% of the people and 30% of the land mass—right here. The value, if you really look at the Financial Accountability Officer’s estimate in 2020, the replacement value of the province’s infrastructure was $265 billion. By the way, when we talk about that, this $265 billion, the government of Ontario is not the owner of that $265 billion; it is the Ontarians. The people of Ontario are the owners of that $265 billion. The government of Ontario is the custodian of the taxpayers’ dollars that build, improve and service these assets. That is why it is an important duty for the government to make sure that we can optimize the spending, reduce the red tape and reduce the cost, to make sure that the people of Ontario, who have sent us to take care of their assets as the custodians, the people who put trust in us—we give back that trust. We give back that example by making sure that every penny is saved. That is what this Bill 69 is doing, Mr. Speaker.

The provincial oversight of our sprawling realty portfolio, as Minister Surma pointed out, is distributed among five ministries and 54 entities. So as of legal right, these ministers are free to follow their own protocols and manage their own real estate affairs, resulting in sometime inefficiencies, higher costs—something we’ve seen as a legacy problem.

And it’s not we’re saying this; let’s look at what, in 2017, the Auditor General’s annual report pointed to. The Auditor General said the Ministry of Infrastructure’s real estate portfolio could be managed more efficiently to centralize authority and decision-making. The report found that almost $19 million was spent as rent paid to third parties, property taxes and operating and maintenance costs for 812 vacant buildings across the province in 2016-17. It further added that 600 of the 812 had been vacant for an average of almost eight years. It found that the amount of lifecycle maintenance that has been deferred has spiked—$420 million in March 2012, to $860 million in March 2017.

So Mr. Speaker, if you really look at it, the Auditor General acknowledged that it is unsustainable to manage the real estate portfolio in the model which has been here since 1998. According to the report, the Ministry of Infrastructure even admitted variations and inconsistencies in managing their real estate. That is what this bill is trying to correct.

To begin with, the proposed bill will modify the real estate authority of 14 other entities under eight ministries and give the Minister of Infrastructure control of realty property under these proposed entities. What is the benefit? The benefit is going to be that this will streamline management, end duplication, align decision-making with government objectives. Simply put, it will reduce red tape, optimize the office space, enhance fiscal management and, above all, save taxpayers money.

Madam Speaker, when you see that you have a problem, you have a choice: You sit and watch, or you fix it. Bill 69 is going to fix it. We’re doing it through a consultative process with the eight concerned ministries. We’re doing it through a thoughtful process. The partner ministries have been engaged since 2020, and even after the bill goes through, they will be part of the consultative process and free to express their real estate needs.

We’re not the only one. We have seen it in the past. We have seen it in Toronto, for an example. The city of Toronto adopted a centralized real estate model in 2017. In 2023, a review by the city claimed that its whole-of-government approach to real estate portfolio management had unlocked land value of $1.5 billion and saved $26 million per year in operating costs and $4.5 million per year in capital costs. Madam Speaker, in a few years, I hope and I wish that I’m going to be standing again, getting an opportunity to talk about another bill where we will be modernizing the processes and I will be able to showcase what we’ve achieved through Bill 69.

By the way, we’re not the only one. When we know there is uncertainty across the globe, the other countries—for example, United States, Ireland, South Korea, New Zealand—are looking at modernizing public real estate portfolio management, something that as a custodian we need to continue to work on, to strive to make sure that we give value back to our residents.

The Minister of Infrastructure pointed out a Deloitte report which was written in 2019 that found that centralized real estate decision-making would improve management, and there is an abundance of evidence and research that bears out that we are moving in the right direction.

And it’s not just, when we talk about this Bill 69, that we’re going to reduce red tape. We’re going to save taxpayers money. We’re actually going to boost economic growth as well.

I’ll give you a small example. Let’s say, for example, there is an entity who is in the greater Toronto area, maybe downtown Toronto. When we know that the cost of renting is high in downtown Toronto and there’s a lack of housing, there is a lack of labour force, when we move this entity into our smaller communities, communities like London or maybe Guelph, Cambridge, Waterloo, what happens with that? Number one, you’re reducing the cost of renting. You’re saving the money and you’re spreading the opportunity. And it’s not just spreading the opportunity. For an example, if 10 employees move into those smaller communities, their families are joining them. When their families are joining them, they’re going to solve the problem with the labour force there. There’s economic benefit in these smaller communities. All these families are going to go eat. They’re going to watch movies. They’re going to go out to take their kids to the hockey game. They’re going to teach all those activities like karate, swimming. That’s going to increase the economic benefit to these smaller communities.

Now, of course, when we talk about modernization, when we talk about doing something, change management, somebody is going to come up and say, “Hey, what’s going to happen with Toronto? What if we move too many people from here? Will that create a vacancy?” Mind it, Madam Speaker: We’re going to embrace 300,000 new Canadians in the future. We need to make space for them as well. It will help to create that space, because typically, what happens when a new immigrant comes is they want to go to a place which is comfortable, an urban area, rather than going to the smaller communities. By having this movement, we’re actually not just supporting smaller communities; we are making sure the whole province is growing together. I think this is why I truly believe this is something which we need to do and make sure that not just the urban centres but the whole province grows together.

Now, I know, Madam Speaker, it’s not only one aspect of this bill. There’s a second aspect of the bill, which I’ll be talking about: reducing administrative burden on standard infrastructure projects. The current environmental assessment process requires a 30-day review period between when a class environmental assessment is completed—and I mean completed, after it is complete—and when the property may begin project activity. So just like this—we’re not changing. We’re not saying that you don’t have to do the assessment. You still have to do the assessment. There’s no change to the environmental assessment.

What we’re changing is—after the assessment, you have to wait for 30 days. Rather than waiting for 30 days, you can start the project activities earlier. This 30-day period provides the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks with an opportunity to require the proponent to undertake a high level of environmental assessment. For those 30 days, once a project—and again, I’m going to use the word—once has a project has completed a class EA requirement and there are no outstanding issues, the project, as we stand now, cannot proceed further.

You have an obligation to do an assessment; you did the assessment. You found out there is nothing which is pending, and then you’re excited. Okay, now it’s time to build. No, no, no—wait a second. You can’t build. You have to wait for 30 days. Sleep, go out, take vacation. No, no—wait a second. It’s not a vacation; it’s a vacation for not building.

And Madam Speaker, I talk about reducing red tape—saving taxpayer money. But I did talk about boosting economic growth. We’re talking about what we’ve done here, this government—we’ve invested into Ontario. We’ve seen the results. We are building $160 billion of capital projects over the next 10 years. We’re making sure that we are investing in health care. And to do all these things, we need to take action and we need to do things faster.

For those 30 days, once a project has completed a class EA requirement and there is no outstanding issue, the project cannot proceed. For 30 days, permits cannot be issued. To me, Madam Speaker, this is an unnecessary delay, and many times it’s an unacceptable delay.

Just imagine, for an example, a municipality is looking for a much-needed infrastructure project like building a bridge or widening a road critical to the lifeblood of their town. Imagine that municipality being ready and able to start the project. School is about to open up. It’s the end of August, September. They’re wanting to get it under way and make progress while the weather is still warm. And then imagine: You’ve done your class EA—there is no requirement—and still you’re told, “I apologize. You’ve done your part, but you cannot start. You have to wait for 30 days.” Madam Speaker, the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks has absolutely no reason or plan to require you to undertake a high level of environmental assessment. And you have to wait for no good reason.

So I think it’s a great example. Rather than waiting, let’s reduce the red tape. Let’s make sure we follow the class EA assessment, and we make sure we don’t change that. We make sure that there’s nothing pending. But we make sure of this also: If nothing is pending, let’s start constructing and give back to the communities the support for infrastructure they need. And that is exactly why this government is committed to cutting unnecessary and burdensome red tape through Bill 69. That very reason—Madam Speaker, I’m asking the members of this side and the members on that side, if you believe that Ontarians deserve custodians who take care of Ontarians, if you believe that we have to make sure that we’re fiscally prudent, and if you believe that we want to make sure we do not become a hurdle in the economic growth of Ontario, I am asking everyone to support this bill: a bill that would eliminate unnecessary red tape, a bill that would be welcomed by municipalities and other proponents looking to provide much-needed infrastructure to our province, a bill that would build Ontario, a bill that will continue our path to prosperity. I’m going to support this bill, and I hope and wish, if you believe in Ontario, if you believe in the economic prosperity of Ontario, you are going to support this bill as well.

Thank you to my colleague from Mississauga–Malton, a wonderful riding. Thank you for your hard work.

Madam Speaker, Ontario expects our government to practise good governance. We were re-elected with the promise to work for the people—the people of Ontario. This legislation cuts red tape by streamlining the oversight of 14 real estate agencies and reducing the waiting period in an EA process. It will save taxpayers’ dollars and reduce inefficiencies, which the people expect us to deliver.

I will ask the member, how is this legislation going to better the life of Ontarians?

Questions?

Change for the sake of change doesn’t make sense. I think we can all agree to that. But change for common sense, change for good financial sense and change for good governance do make sense; at least, it always has in my life. To me, when you read this bill and understand what we’re trying to accomplish, centralizing the oversight of 14 different agencies I believe will help optimize space and efficiency and reduce red tape for the province of Ontario and the people of Ontario.

We’ve got one of the largest and most diverse real estate portfolios in the nation, and we need to manage it more effectively. Giving the Minister of Infrastructure the ability to oversee and manage real estate property previously under control of different entities is not efficient. But with that comes accountability. I think we all agree that we need accountability in this House and in this government—any government. That is in keeping, in fact, with the 2017 Auditor General’s report and other third-party reports that have identified opportunities for real estate improvement.

To the honourable member: Measure twice, cut once; do you agree?

I would like to say thank you to the member opposite for the question. The environmental assessment process: As I stated earlier, the first step with any proponent, any municipality that is looking to start the project, is, we want to make sure that they follow the class EA process and there is nothing pending. What this bill is going to do is not going to compromise anything on the environment assessment. But what it would do is the proposed legislative amendment will make sure that it will modernize the process. Rather than waiting for 30 days to deliver those important infrastructure projects, you’re able to deliver it in time to the people of Ontario.

In 2017, you talked about 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. Again, this government is not the owner of the assets; we’re the custodian of the assets. We want to make sure we give the best value back to the people who gave their trust on June 2 and make sure that we keep that trust and we keep that confidence they gave to us. We just want to say thank you—

The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks would continue to have the ability to consider section 17 order requests, which may be made on the grounds that the order may prevent, mitigate or remedy adverse impacts on constitutionally protected lands and rights, Madam Speaker.

Ontario will continue to ensure strong environmental protection and standards while protecting good governance and reducing inefficiencies, and that is exactly what Bill 69 is doing.

What our government is doing is our government is building Ontario. We are formalizing the ability, meaning standard projects that occur across the province, like the creation of new municipal roads or stormwater infrastructure, could be ready almost a month earlier than previously. Sometimes if you’re starting somewhere in August or September, it’s not just one month; you’re just doing one or two seasons ahead.

That is why the legislation we introduce today is another great step in fulfilling our promise to Ontarians of good governance, fiscal responsibility, a plan to build. If you’re looking to come and live, Ontario is the best place.

I’d also like to welcome the fine folks from Forest Hill in St. Paul’s. Welcome to your House.

My question to the government: I’m wondering how the government feels that this piece of legislation is going to build trust in community with regard to the environment when we have seen this government slash the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. We have seen this government sell off or attempt to sell off parts of the greenbelt. We have seen this government not support nature in a way that actually allows our upcoming generation of leaders to be safe without climate crisis anxiety. What is there in this piece of legislation that’s going to ensure that Ontarians can actually trust what this government has to say about the environment?

Before I pose my question, I want to take the opportunity to welcome guests that we have in the Speaker’s gallery. We have the Forest Hill community group joining us here this afternoon. Thank you very much.

My question is about an enshrined right of the people of Ontario. We have the Environmental Bill of Rights, which is a right that we have access to. Your government is taking that right away. You’ve also been shown in court to have violated people’s rights a number of times. The Minister of the Environment has said that these rights are nonsensical and that they are burdensome.

Part of the rights that people have under the Environmental Bill of Rights is a part II bump-up request. In Hamilton, we used that to make sure that a gasification plant in a neighbourhood in Hamilton was not approved.

What do the changes you are proposing do for part II bump-up order request?

I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Malton for his presentation. I think it’s important that we recognize that trust is not something that is freely given; it is something that is earned, and it’s earned based on reputation and based on past behaviour. Frequently with this government, we see many pieces of legislation that are very concerning. We see a government that is very interested in backroom deals and escape hatches. There are many workarounds that this government has created with legislation, such as Bill 124 to trample on the rights of health care workers, as well as Bill 28, the bill that was until it wasn’t, with the “notwithstanding” clause. Also, MZOs are yet another example of this.

Does the member think that environmental protections are worth protecting? Why are you creating an escape hatch to override environmental protections?