This morning, in response to questions about the failure of government to share information with the public about the Eglinton Crosstown line, the minister argued basically that haste makes waste. Yet in this bill, in Bill 69, the government can’t wait to override due process, especially in regard to environmental assessments. Now, we know that the government has repeatedly cut short debate and discussion on environmental issues.

So my question is—really, 30 days is a blink in time. What is the problem with leaving that open for public input?

One of the things I didn’t talk about was the carbon capture section of this, which I think of as probably the poison pill of this legislation because we don’t see any scientific evidence, no consultation with environmental groups. We don’t actually know what the consequences of carbon capture will be, and that, I think, is a very serious concern.

So I think that we need a registry, but we also need changes at other levels so that, if the WSIB was doing what it was supposed to be doing, employers would not be looking for a way to escape from their responsibilities. They would be paying in knowing that their responsibilities would be covered by the system that was originally intended to do that.

The other piece is that there’s no business prosperity without worker safety. One doesn’t come without the other—or there’s no social prosperity. I could say individual businesses, yes, they can make lots of money, but social prosperity needs a balance between the two.

Thank you for the comments on both sides of this room.

First of all, our objections are not about building homes or not building homes; they’re about responsible development and observing democracy.

During your last term, you undermined the ability of regional conservation authorities to manage the lands under their trusteeship and that are part of their mandate responsibility, and because of that, developers are able to go in and build where it is not necessarily wise to build. In other words, they can ignore the local knowledge, which is the best knowledge of every place, and build regardless.

So what we are looking for is responsible development. When the members talk about red tape, they forget that environmental protections are often brushed off as a form of red tape.

The question is, will this government guarantee that environmental protections will be observed when local people with local knowledge will be silenced by not consulting fully with municipal councils?

There’s great concern in Treaty 9 communities about the potential devastation of their traditional territories and thus their traditional land-based economies.

Ontario already carries the shame of the poisoning of the people of Grassy Narrows because of irresponsible industrial development.

What is the government doing to ensure that any development taking place on Treaty 9 territories meets stringent environmental requirements and is undertaken with the free, prior and informed consent of all the affected Treaty 9 communities?