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?

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?

I’m pleased to be here today to speak to this bill, Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act. I love the titles that you folks come up with. It’s always interesting to read what efficiencies and inefficiencies can mean when this government really gets to work.

This bill is pretty short. It has two main pieces to it. One is to essentially give power to the Ministry of Infrastructure to manage government properties, both leases and land that is owned by 14 provincial agencies. Those agencies include Agricorp, EQAO, the Ontario Arts Council, Ontario Creates, Ontario Trillium Foundation, OFA, Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council, Destination Ontario, FSRA, OSC, Human Rights Legal Support Centre, Intellectual Property Ontario, Skilled Trades Ontario and the Higher Education Quality Council.

We’ve reached out to them this morning just to ask for feedback on this bill, because it’s very important when we bring in bills to this Legislature that we take the time to do outreach to the agencies, to the individuals, to the organizations that are going to be impacted by this bill to find out what they think: What do they like? What don’t they like? What kind of amendments do they want to see?

It remains to be seen whether the government did that kind of consultation. I guess I’ll wait and see and find out.

The second piece of the bill is to accelerate approvals of infrastructure projects by allowing the 30-day period for class EAs—by basically allowing the government to waive the 30-day period that exists after public comments have come in. The whole purpose of having a public consultation period—time where people can give their feedback in writing—is for the government to consider what Ontarians think about a bill and how it’s going to impact them. This government is making the decision to stop even the pretense of caring what people think, and just doing away with it altogether, which is a concern.

I’m going to focus on the first section of the bill, which is about the real estate piece, with the time that I have. I’ve listed the agencies that are impacted and, in short, these agencies will be prohibited from owning and managing real estate. It requires all real estate to be handed over to the Ministry of Infrastructure.

The first part of this, and I’ve heard the minister talk about this, is that it would allow the Ministry of Infrastructure to control office leases. You amalgamate agencies; you try and get a good deal with leases so office space is rented out at a good price. On the surface of it, I don’t have a lot of problems with that.

One thing that I noticed when the minister was talking is that this is being done because the Auditor General did an investigation into Infrastructure Ontario, which is going to be the likely agency managing this, and actually found out that it’s Infrastructure Ontario itself that is doing a bad job at managing office leases. That’s interesting that you’re potentially going to be handing over these office leases and all this real estate to an agency that doesn’t have a very good track record of managing these agencies, these leases and these real estate portfolios. So I’m kind of intrigued by that.

The other thing that I was really intrigued by when I went and printed out the public comments section for the regulation for this section was the part that this decision to consolidate real estate is the first step in a broader plan this government has to centralize real estate under what is essentially a single entity. And when I hear about that, I begin to think about what does this government want to do with the public land that Ontario owns and what could we be doing instead with the public land that Ontario owns? That’s where my mind went.

The reason why my mind went there is that Ontario owns a whole lot of public land. And they happen to own public land—not just crown land, but also land in dense urban regions that have extraordinarily high rents and extraordinarily high housing prices. So there’s this real opportunity here to use the land that Ontario has to address one of the biggest crises we’re facing in Ontario today—it’s a generational crisis—and that is housing affordability.

The Centre for Urban Research and Land Development—it’s a department within TMU, Toronto Metropolitan University—did a scan to look at how much land Ontario and the federal government and the city own that we could build affordable housing on. They found there’s 6,000 government-owned properties in Toronto alone that we could be using to build affordable housing on—very exciting. Maybe, maybe the government is looking at moving ahead and building affordable housing on public land. Maybe this is part of that broader strategy.

Then I thought to myself, “Okay, well, let’s take a little bit of a deep dive and look at what the Ontario government, what this government, has done already when it comes to building on government land.” I think about the foundry property in the member of Toronto Centre’s riding where this government made a secret deal with Dominion—a very secret deal; we don’t even know the details of it today—where Dominion was given the authority to build a whole lot of housing, and very little of it, I would say almost none of it, was affordable—

Interjections.

Then I think about Mimico GO Station, which is in the riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. There’s a big development that went ahead there, and, once again, the deal was secret. It was public land and there was no affordable housing requirement with that land as well.

I think about Ontario Place, also public land, and then I see this government moving ahead with making secret deals with for-profit corporations when this is public land that could be used to deal with and address the crises that we have of our time. Because when I speak to Ontarians, they do not say to me, “We need another spa. What’s going to make my life so much better is a spa.” No, no, no. They’re talking about affordable rent. They’re talking about being able to pay the bills.

So that is this government’s track record so far over the last four and a half years when it comes to using government land. They’ve been using it to make secret deals for large condos, lots of housing, and there’s next to no affordable housing requirement. I’ve got a lot concerns about that. The reason why I have a lot of concerns about that is because we should be using this land in ways that will truly tackle the affordable housing crisis.

I think about the value of moving forward with inclusionary zoning so any new development that’s built next to a transit station has an affordable housing requirement. The Ontario government gutted that. I have so many big buildings going up in my riding. We do need new housing, but there’s no affordable housing requirement in these buildings. It’s very concerning.

I think about what’s happening in the city of Toronto right now with Housing Now. It’s a very innovative program. They’re looking at using 21 government-owned sites to build 13,000 homes, and 5,400 of them are affordable. That’s a great example of how we can be using public land to tackle the housing supply crisis that we have and the housing affordability crisis that we have in a way that keeps our resources under public control. I’m not seeing it with this government and I’m very concerned about that.

The second bit which I’m just going to conclude on is the government’s decision to waive the 30-day waiting period after public consultation has been done on a class EA. This just falls totally within the playbook of how this government treats the natural environment, treats people who don’t agree with their values and them, and really has contempt for democratic processes. It falls in line with all that we saw in Bill 23 with the gutting of conservation authorities to share their expertise; with the decision to eliminate planning by upper-tier municipalities; by the decision, with Bill 39, to bring in strong-mayor powers and do away with representative democracy on some of the most important legislation that Toronto passes, including the city budget. I have a lot of concerns about that and I have a lot concerns about this bill.

Further debate?

I do not believe that public consultation is red tape. I don’t believe that we should be doing away with democratic processes because we want to make things more efficient for some people—many of them might be donating to the PC Party—in order for them to make a whole lot of profit.

Often this is done in the guise of building new homes. This party is very much in support of the commitment of building 1.5 million homes across the province. In fact, a recent report came out by a planner from Waterloo, making it very clear that we already have more than enough land already zoned for development.

I also am not a fan of this idea that just because we want proper public consultation—and I want to respect the fact that we live in a democracy—we do not want to build anything. It’s just a wrong correlation.

I think about this government’s decision to move forward with Bill 23. There are a lot of flaws in Bill 23. I think about this government’s decision to move forward with opening up the greenbelt, even though everyone from local municipalities to the farming sector to citizens who care about their natural environment are telling you, “Hey, hold on. We don’t need to open up the greenbelt for us to build the homes that we need for current or future Ontarians.”

So there is, yes, a lot of skepticism and mistrust when this government starts talking about doing the right thing for the environment.

It’s 30 days. People take the time to write public comments. It’s municipalities that write public comments. It’s expert planners. It’s the cement industry. It’s stakeholders. It’s a whole lot of people who take the time to write, and the reason they do it is because they’re concerned about how this project or this regulation is going to affect them.

You’re government; our job is critics, but I think it’s our responsibility to take the time to read it and give it good thought. Waiving that 30 days entirely gives the attitude that you don’t really care about what people have to say.

The Auditor General’s concerns were very much focused on Infrastructure Ontario’s failure to get a good deal for taxpayers and not properly doing their job, so I’m not seeing this solving the Auditor General’s concerns in that 2017 report.

My point is this: It’s our job to look at this legislation that you’re introducing and moving through the House very quickly, and to say, “Hey, look, we’ve got some genuine concerns with this.” When we’re talking about public consultation, I’ll use Bill 23 as an example. Much of the feedback that we got with Bill 23 was how it would affect one of the biggest sectors that we have in Ontario, which is our farming sector. So when we’re talking about growing our province, improving our industries, taking feedback from key stakeholders like the farming sector is pretty important, and that’s not about saying no; that’s about making sure we make the kinds of decisions that benefit the vast majority of people, so I reject your point a little bit.

The question to the member from University–Rosedale is that the government claims that the bill is largely in response to an Auditor General report regarding its management of real estate services. In particular, the Auditor General cited that Infrastructure Ontario has not done a good job of managing real estate assets on behalf of the people of Ontario, in particular its management of private contractors and its uncompetitive bidding process, as well as the lack of managerial oversight of those private contracts.

Is there anything in the bill that actually addresses the concerns that the Auditor General raised, based on her 2017 report?

Just a question for the member: About 15 years ago, under changes to the environmental assessment process for municipalities, cycling infrastructure was exempted from a number of the consultation measures that had previously been required, and that was a way to ensure more got built faster to help promote active living and environmental protection in many ways. You don’t see reforms like this as being on par with some of those changes that had happened under the previous Liberal government?

I do recognize the loyal opposition and their opposing views to the government side of the House, in terms of bringing their perspective and point of view to what we are discussing here today. I’ve heard many comments from my government, from the minister to many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and strongly believe that we are taking steps in the right direction, from the Auditor General’s report that we keep talking about, looking to deal with efficiencies.

To get efficiencies, we have to look at that report and work towards saving taxpayers money. If we don’t do that, it’s saying that we are not doing what the Auditor General’s report states. We have zero effect on just about everything in terms of the environment. My question is: Why can’t the opposition come along with us on this very vital—why can’t the opposition support this bill? Because it’s moving in the right direction of more efficiency.

There’s nothing in this act that compromises the environmental assessment—

Interjection.

Does the member not believe that improvement to processes is necessary and needed so we can continue to develop this province?

I appreciate the opportunity to pose a question to my colleague from University–Rosedale. In the course of reviewing this bill, you, like I, have felt a great deal of concern about whether or not the government is acting on a good-faith basis when it is trying to reduce environmental protections. Could you cite one or two of the main experiences you’ve had or seen that would give rise to a person feeling they can’t trust this government on environmental issues?