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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

If there are no outstanding concerns, if the community has not put in any comments to the consultation process, then the project can go ahead. But that’s not what’s in this legislation. What’s in this legislation is that the minister no longer has to consider the comments that they’re getting and the feedback that they’re getting from the community.

Cindy Wilkey, a community member in Spadina in my riding, talked about this. She’s also the head of Ontario Place for All. She says this bill “is a further step in making public consultation an empty formality.” It means that the government will not be benefiting from the local knowledge that people have. It’s disrespectful not just to my community, it’s disrespectful to community members across this province because this government will not actually be considering the local knowledge that they could bring to these projects.

This is the lesson that we learned from Hurricane Hazel. There were houses in Etobicoke floating down the Humber River and people died because of Hurricane Hazel, because we built in the ravines. So then, in Toronto, we protected those wetlands and created the ravines, including the Humber River, the Don Valley, the Rouge River—all these protected wetlands.

If you don’t do the environmental assessment, the next time there’s an environmental catastrophe, it will be magnified because you didn’t do your homework.

You think that you’re saving money, you think that you’re being efficient, but in the long-term, future generations are going to pay billions of dollars for the mistakes that this government is making right now.

When this government is consolidating all of the government’s land holdings into one body, it’s deeply concerning. Because the record of this government is that they make secret deals with developers—like they did with the foundry—and then they start to demolish heritage buildings and they start to pave over wetlands.

My question to the government is: Are you consolidating all of the people of Ontario’s land holdings into one body so that you can more efficiently sell it off?

So if you’re not going to actually consider it, why bother doing it? If it’s just a rubber stamp, if you’re just going to take the consultation submissions but not actually listen to them, not actually read them, then what’s the point in doing the consultation at all? I think it’s incredibly disrespectful, and I think this legislation is disrespectful to local community members who actually take the time to give feedback to the government.

I thank you for the sincerity of that question. I would like to respond, in all sincerity, that I’m not sure that taking out potential time in the comment period is an improvement, because the consultation period in the waste lagoon didn’t work, because it was over and no one knew what was happening. So I’m not sure if this is an improvement, and I say that with all sincerity.

I’m not saying that’s with every project, but that’s what this bill says to me, as someone who has experienced, twice in my life, problems with the MOE. I’m concerned that this bill is not sending the right message to people—not for the government, either. They need to believe that the assessment process works.

I always enjoy our conversations, both here and outside of here, with the member from Timiskaming-Cochrane. In fact, as I look around the room this afternoon, I am so pleased to know that everyone I see in here is in here for the right reasons, and that’s because they care about their communities deeply. That kind of goes against the grain of what you read in the media today, actually, about how all politicians are liars and in it for bags of money and things like that. But I appreciate knowing that I have colleagues on the opposite of the side of the House—even though we’re on the same side of the House—who feel the same way about their communities as I do.

My question is—continuous improvement. What I see in this bill is a small step on the path—a thousand miles starts with one step—of continuous improvement. I was just wondering if the member could say that looking for continuous improvement in the actions that we take as government is a good thing and that we should continue to do so?

What I don’t see is a connection between the amount of time that EA consultation took and the fact it wasn’t done correctly, from what you said. I don’t know if changing the time frame on that would have had a negative impact on that so much. So I was curious what his link is between his presentation and what we’re trying to do to speed things up as far as timing goes. I mean, if the process isn’t done right, it’s not done right regardless of the time, and so I was wondering if he could connect those dots here in debate.