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?

Questions to the member for University–Rosedale.

It’s an honour to rise in the House to speak about Bill 69, the—well, it’s called the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, but it’s actually the reducing public consultation act.

I’m in the NDP in part because I believe in a progressive society. A progressive society is one in which we leave the next generation with better opportunities than we had ourselves. The most important thing we can do for the next generation is to leave them with a healthy planet, and yet time and time again, we see this government weakening the Environmental Assessment Act.

We have a history in this province of environmental catastrophes. I’ll give a couple of examples. In 1976, I was driving with family—my parents, at the time—to Sudbury, and 30 kilometres outside Sudbury, the trees disappeared. This was because of sulphur dioxide, because of acid rain. All of the lakes within a 30-kilometre circumference of Sudbury were dead, and the trees were dead. This was because of the way that nickel was being smelted in Sudbury that released the sulphur dioxide into the environment. It has taken decades for Sudbury to recover. It has taken millions of dollars and incredible community effort to green Sudbury again. I am happy to say that Sudbury—and I’ve been up there over the last decade or so—is a green, beautiful city once again. But this environmental catastrophe could have been prevented if we had known what we know nowadays and if we had had an Environmental Assessment Act in place.

Another example: I lived in a small town in northern Ontario that used to have a mine. The tailings from the mine were laid on the ground, and there was mercury in those tailings. The mercury was leaking into the nearby lake, so even though this town was built on a lake, they could not draw their water from that lake because of the mercury poisoning. Again, it took decades—and this was the town of Geraldton. There was a very visionary mayor of that town, Michael Power, and he sealed in the tailings and built a golf course on that site, just to seal it in, so it was possible to remedy the site.

The other example of environmental catastrophe that we had in this province: Grassy Narrows. For four decades, the First Nation community of Grassy Narrows has been dealing with Minamata disease—mercury poisoning—because of a mine that had been located in that area.

We need to protect the environment. We need to make sure that the projects that we undertake in this province protect the environment for future generations. That’s what the Environmental Assessment Act is about, and that’s why weakening the Environmental Assessment Act with Bill 69 is a step in the wrong direction and it’s a step that leaves our next generation vulnerable.

What this act does is it allows the environment minister to waive the 30-day waiting period after the comments have been received as part of a class environmental assessment. So the community gets together, and they provide feedback to the government about a project from an environmental perspective. Normally, the minister has to consider those for a 30-day period. The idea is that the government is actually going to respect the feedback that they get. But what’s happening with this legislation is, the government could receive a submission from a community member at 5 o’clock on a Thursday night, and that ends the comment period. The next morning at 9 o’clock in the morning, the minister could go ahead with the project without ever considering that community member’s consultation or their input.

And the thing about it is that we in the government do not know everything. We don’t have the local knowledge, and that’s why it’s really important—when we’re passing legislation, particularly legislation that has to do with the environment and the future generations of this province, we have to consider the local input because local community members and agencies and companies have knowledge that we do not have in the government. That’s why it’s important to have this public consultation.

I’ll give you a couple of recent examples where this government has not followed their own legal obligations for public consultation. In January 2019, demolition crews rolled into the foundry site in Toronto Centre, my colleague’s riding, and they were going to demolish the foundry, which is a heritage property right in downtown Toronto. It’s nestled in a bunch of condos, and the city was already working on ideas on how to redevelop this heritage site. We’ve seen in the city of Toronto how successful the redevelopment of heritage industrial sites can be. The Distillery District is a huge tourist magnet in downtown Toronto, as well as a wonderful place to live, and the foundry has that kind of potential as well to be an economic generator. But these demolition crews rolled into the site and were prepared to demolish it. The community and my colleague Kristyn Wong-Tam and the MPP at the time, Suze Morrison, and myself, we organized and we worked with save the foundry; we worked with the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association. And we were able to save that site because the government had violated its legal obligations under the heritage act for public consultation.

The other example that I want to give from my community is Ontario Place. Right now, there’s a proposal that the government is pursuing, and they’re going to be spending an estimated $650 million redeveloping Ontario Place: $200 million to bring it up to scale, and then they’re going to build an underground parking garage for 2,000 cars. The estimated cost of that kind of parking garage is about $450 million. So $650 million of taxpayer dollars is going in to redevelop Ontario Place, only to hand it over to Therme, which is an Austrian spy company—oh, sorry, spa. They’re not a spy company. They’re a spa, an Austrian spa.

There’s nothing wrong with this Austrian spa, except that it has nothing to do with Ontario. Ontario Place was designed to celebrate this province. It was supposed to be a showcase for the province. John Robarts, who was the Premier who announced the project, said that every piece of steel at Ontario Place is being mined and smelted in Ontario. It was designed—it had silos representing our farming area. It had areas representing the Canadian Shield. It was a showcase for the world to come and see what Ontario was all about. Now this government is leasing it out to two private, for-profit companies, neither of which have anything to do with the province of Ontario.

And the other thing about their project is that they’re exempting the Therme project from the required environmental assessment because they’re arguing that this is being done by a private company and therefore they’re exempt from the environmental assessment requirements, when, in fact—and this is the contradiction here—the government, Infrastructure Ontario, the government’s own agency, is the one that submitted the plans for that spa to the city of Toronto. So the government is making two different arguments here, and they’re trying to avoid the need for an environmental assessment.

The concern that we have in the community and across Ontario is, first of all, what is the environmental assessment of building what is essentially a 12-acre greenhouse on the waterfront? And the government is also not following its own obligations under the heritage act, and it’s skirting its obligations under the Environmental Assessment Act, so it’s a real concern that before us in the House today is Bill 69, which further weakens the requirements for environmental assessment.

I ask the government to reconsider, to actually respect and make sure that future generations have a healthy planet to inherit and stop weakening the Environmental Assessment Act.

Further debate?

I really want to thank the MPP for Spadina–Fort York for reminding us of some of the environmental disasters that we are still paying the price for and reminding us of the importance of why environmental assessments are in place.

I also just would like to highlight that this is a government that doesn’t believe in environmental assessments and calls them burdensome. The Minister of the Environment said that, in fact, they’re nonsensical this morning. And they’ve exempted themselves from the Bradford Bypass, a huge highway project that goes through the greenbelt, that bisects rivers, that goes through the Holland Marsh, and they don’t feel that an environmental assessment is necessary.

It’s bad enough that they disrespect the environment, but the fact that people take the time to care about their community, they take the time to give public comment, and this government is clearly thumbing their nose at them by deciding that they will not take that into account when they make their decision.

Would you like to speak a little further on how people feel outraged by the betrayal of the environment and of their transparent opportunity to have public input into their communities?

Thanks to the member opposite for his presentation.

As we all have been discussing about this bill, this bill makes it very crystal clear that the environmental assessment standards will remain in place. For example, assessing potential environmental impacts remains in place; identifying mitigation measures are in place; and, of course, the consultation with Indigenous communities, the public and stakeholders are in place.

What this bill does is, after the successful completion of an environmental assessment, if there’s no other outstanding concerns, it will allow the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to waive the 30-day waiting period. That’s exactly so it is cutting the long red tape here.

My question to the member opposite is, why does the NDP want to add red tape and slow down the government?

My question to the member opposite, the member for Spadina–Fort York, is: Why does the NDP want to slow down the process for 30 days after the full completion of the environmental assessment, after there are no outstanding concerns? Why do they want to slow it down?

I just want to recognize Kevin Modeste. He’s come to visit us. Hi, Kevin, nice to see you here. He can’t stay away; it’s so exciting here.

My question is to the member for Spadina–Fort York. You’ve talked a lot about the environmental assessment process and, like you, I really wonder why you would want to get rid of that 30-day period just to read some of the comments that people give. They take their time to give them.

I also was wanting to ask your opinion on the second piece, which is really around consolidating real estate into the Ministry of Infrastructure. Why would they be doing that? Do you have any concerns about that?

Is he okay?

Questions?

I have to say, I’m surprised the government isn’t standing up defending this substantial bill before us, but they aren’t, so here I am.

There are a few things I want to say about the bill before I go into detail. One is that environmental assessments are one of the few tools that people have to protect their interests and to protect the larger interests of Ontarians around environmental issues. When you propose changes that don’t, in fact, enhance protection of the environment or the population, one has to be very suspicious about what those changes really will deliver on.

We believe that the environment, those of us who depend on the environment—so all living humans—should be protected, and we have grave concern about this proposal to reduce the period for consideration of commentary by people on environmental initiatives.

I have to say, Speaker, you’ve sat through question period on a regular basis. You, for your sins, have sat in that chair when we’ve debated bills. You have heard what goes on or does not go on in committees. And as you’re well aware, interest in commentary or public input is extraordinarily low. This government, in its behaviour towards environmental matters, has a very consistent record, and that is one of ignoring environmental concerns. This is a government that’s involved right now in carving up the greenbelt, involved in deals that are generally seen as shady, smelly, smoky—take your pick.

When you have a government that is undermining its own credibility by not trying to appear above reproach, you have to ask substantial questions about what actually is going to happen when even the smaller changes to environmental protection are undermined.

We’ve seen in the past the abuse of ministerial zoning orders to ram through developer deals despite the opposition of local communities, except, of course, when a minister’s interests are involved, as a minister in northern Toronto was upset about some low-income housing—that being put on the back burner.

And as my colleague from Spadina-Fort York can attest in great detail, this is a government spending about $650 million of public money which is going to enable the giveaway of a massive chunk of Ontario Place to a for-profit company based out of Austria. Ontario Place is a lakefront park meant for all Ontarians, not to be sold off. Any other park that you start selling off chunks of, in this city or anywhere else in the province, raises substantial questions. This government is just acting as if this is normal, and to be fair, for them, it is normal.

So let’s look at what’s in the bill. Schedule 1, the Environmental Assessment Act: It’s an amazingly small bill, so I’ll just give it the quick treatment. The changes to the Environmental Assessment Act allow the environment minister to waive the 30-day waiting period currently required following the end of a class EA comment before granting an approval to proceed with an undertaking.

Speaker, the reason you have a waiting period is the assumption that the minister will actually think about what came in. It will provide a period when those who have participated in any consultation process will have an opportunity informally to go to the minister and say, “An awful lot of people have concerns here. You have the power to address those concerns. We ask you, Minister, to address them.”

The other part of this bill, Ministry of Infrastructure Act, allows the ministry to assume control of real estate interests of prescribed entities that currently manage their own real estate interests. Now, this is fascinating: The real estate services for these entities will presumably move to Infrastructure Ontario, which oversees real estate services for most government properties.

What’s interesting here is that apparently the government claims that this change—giving more power to Infrastructure Ontario—is a response to the Auditor General’s 2017 report on real estate. I went and looked at the Auditor General’s report. She was pretty tough on what was going on, on what was being done by Infrastructure Ontario, and I don’t see anything in this bill, nor have I heard any public statement from the government, that they’re actually going to deal with the problems at Infrastructure Ontario. Manifests that were called out, pointed out in 2017—I’ll just note a few. In 2017, the Auditor General found that “Almost $19 million was spent in” one year “on operating and maintaining 812 vacant buildings.”

That’s a lot of buildings, if you’re just pouring money out and you’re not using places—money that could be used for housing, could be used for upgrading other buildings. Possibly the vacant buildings could be used to relocate government services so that we aren’t paying rent to someone else. That doesn’t strike me as a very well-managed portfolio.

She noted, “Capital repair funds” were being “used to fund operating costs for managing government properties.”

I used to be a property manager in the co-op housing sector. I didn’t use capital funds for operating. And I’ll be honest; I mean, I picked it up as I went along. I went to a few workshops. I talked to others, talked to property managers, and they were all pretty clear: You don’t mix the two streams, not if you’re running an above-board shop. So that is a real concern.

The Auditor General also noted, “Office space per person exceeds the Ministry standard.” So we were spending more overall on real estate than we needed to. That’s the agency that the government wants to move more real estate control into.

I haven’t heard—and maybe I will be surprised. Maybe I will be shocked, Speaker, and go home tonight and say, “I had no idea.” Maybe the government has dramatically reformed Infrastructure Ontario so that none of these things would be repeated. However, I have my doubts.

I also want to say a bit more about the environmental assessment end. As I said before, the reason for the 30 days is to give people an opportunity—sorry, bureaucracy and political decision-makers—some time to think about what’s at hand. One would hope that having explored, having investigated, having listened to the people, that a thoughtful bureaucrat, a thoughtful minister would take corrective action where necessary or conclude that the information given has validated the initial assumptions. One of the questions that came up earlier to one of my colleagues was about the need for efficiency and deregulation. I don’t know about you, but I was around when the Walkerton water crisis happened. Deregulation—voluntary rules instead of actual regulation—were central to that crisis, that catastrophe, that loss of life. An initiative to peel away regulations that protect life and health make no sense to me. That is not efficiency; that is irresponsibility.

I’ll give you another example of deregulation on a larger scale that didn’t involve tainted water but did involve tainted finances. You were here, I think, Speaker, in 2008, during the international financial crisis. We grilled the government of the day about their behaviour. They actually bought into it. They had hundreds of millions of dollars of—what can I say?—paper assets that were of no consequence anymore, and we went after them on that. People should understand that that crisis at heart was a failure of the regulatory system, that the companies that packaged and sold those junk financial products were unregulated.

So when a government pursues a deregulation strategy, I see both tainted water and financial chaos. And in both cases, in the aftermath—at least with the water, some steps were taken substantially to protect people’s health. I think with regard to the financial crisis, not as many steps were taken. That remains a work in progress—well, a work unfinished and untouched.

Speaker, I don’t support this bill, and I don’t have confidence that the government will protect either our real estate holdings or the environment.

Further debate?

Thank you to the member for Toronto–Danforth for taking the time to look into the Auditor General’s report and sharing with the House what the Auditor General found when they did a deep dive into Infrastructure Ontario.

I’ve just got a general question: When this government is looking at changing the environmental assessment process again—I would call it weakening the environmental assessment process. What are the consequences of weakening the environmental assessment process? What happens when you start doing things like that?

Questions for the member for Toronto–Danforth?

I thank the member for Essex for the question. It’s a good one. I don’t know what the optimal number is. I do know that the agencies that are listed, generally speaking, have negligible holdings. And I do know Infrastructure Ontario in 2017 was the object of a scathing report by the Auditor General on poor practice.

So if you’re in fact moving real estate holdings, and maybe relatively small ones, to an agency that has been found—let’s be generous—wanting by the Auditor General, I have to ask, why on earth are you doing it? Why are you not taking steps in this bill to set standards for management of real estate so that we aren’t paying millions of dollars for vacant properties, so that we aren’t over-housing our workforce, so that we aren’t mixing our capital on our operating funds? If you were doing that, I think that would be a far more interesting debate. I don’t think 14 or 20 or five is the critical thing; I think the critical thing is, do you have good management practice? I have no assurance that, in fact, is what will come out of this bill.

You may well be aware, Speaker, that within the past few years, in New York City, a very severe storm caused about a dozen people to drown in their basement apartments. So if you do not actually pay attention to environmental standards, environmental issues, you put at risk life and property—and health, may I add. So undermining those protections that, over decades, we’ve built up makes no sense at all.

I’ll just note, again, if I have time, the recent example in East Palestine, Ohio, where the railroad disaster, in many cases, is being attributed to deregulations by the Trump administration. Environmental assessment, health and safety regulations are all part of the same package. If you neglect them, you put people’s lives, property and health at risk.

I was talking to a small landlord last night. He’s got a condo on Carlaw Avenue in my riding, and he can’t get a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board. Why is that? Because you guys didn’t appoint people at the level necessary to have proper functioning of that board. That’s not efficiency; that is neglect. That means tenants are getting beat up. That means that small landlords are getting beat up. That’s not efficiency. You know what that is: That’s chaos.

When you bring forward a bill that says that you’re going to sort out the real estate issues, do you actually have standards within the bill saying that you can’t have a huge portfolio of vacant buildings that we’re paying for? That we’re going to have a standard for space per employee that doesn’t mean we’re overhoused and, thus, wasting money—which is what you’re doing. You’re not setting a standard. You’re turning it all over to an agency that the Auditor General raked over the coals.

If you want efficiency, set smart standards and enforce them. When you actually start doing that, I might think that you’re trying to deal with efficiency. Right now, all you’re interested in is deregulation, and making some people incredibly wealthy and making other people eat that in terms of risk to their lives and property and in terms of their health.

I thank the member from Toronto–Danforth for his comments today. This government has got quite the record on real estate holdings, and these are the holdings that actually belong to the people of this province.

We’ve seen them try to pave over the Duffins wetlands for a deal that they’ve made, apparently, with the developer, who’s going to be leasing it out to Walmart or Costco. Then there was another deal, the foundry. They’ve made a deal with the developer to demolish these heritage buildings at the foundry.

At Ontario Place, they’ve made a deal with two international private, for-profit companies that have nothing to do with Ontario, and they’ve committed Ontarians to spending an estimated $650 million to prepare the site, only to hand it over on a long-term lease to this private, for-profit company.

The second part of this bill actually consolidates the real estate holdings of the people of this province in one agency. Do you have confidence, based on their lack of stewardship of public property, that this will lead to better performance, that this will lead to actual proper stewardship of the land and the property that belongs to the people of this province?

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to address this bill on an impromptu basis yesterday. I was really struck by the long list of different government agencies that had real-estate-making authority. In fact, the list was so long that somebody had to actually write it down for me and pass it to me so that I could read the list. It was so long I couldn’t remember it. There were 14 agencies on it, and it really struck me, gosh, that’s a lot of organizations, all that have real-estate-making authority for the government of the province of Ontario.

So my question to the member from Toronto–Danforth is the following: Is 14 different government agencies making real estate decisions too many, is it too few or is it just the right amount?