Yes, that’s a good question. I applaud the member. That’s a very good question. A number of parameters: If there is outstanding public concern that is substantiated. We’ve had ERO postings—measures and permissions are still subject to our duty to post on the Environmental Registry of Ontario, and issue decisions.

Something I would add: This government has reduced the backlog from the previous government significantly—by 95%, in fact. That ability for massive projects still exists, and I think, again, public. If, in the opinion of officials—I don’t want to presuppose what a deputy or what an ADM or director within my ministry may or may not say, but, on numerous occasions, they recommend or flag a number of challenges.

Again, I would go back to what is done within the EA process where it’s a living piece, where they’re back and forth with proponents. Once that’s complete, on every process I’ve seen, all the conditions have been met—it’s, again, just waiving the sitting on the hands. I think it is a very important piece, giving the minister the ability to do so.

I have to set the record: Everyone here heard him say “elimination.” That’s not what’s happening. It’s the ability of the minister to waive that waiting period and if that member honestly can look himself in the mirror and think that, for the EA process, the minister closes his eyes and ears? The public comments start months before. It’s a back-and-forth with ministry officials.

Please come to 777 Bay. Let me educate you on how the actual EA process is being done. We’re not eliminating the 30-day waiting period. We’re giving the minister the ability if, in his or her opinion, public comment has been responded to and there’s been a robust process that warrants not sitting on our hands for 30 days—as he’d be content to do, given that he supported it when the previous government did it for 15 years.

And on that project, I know that the public were engaged, that this was a long back-and-forth project, that engineers are involved, that that comment has been captured and that there was no willingness from the community, from the engineers or from anyone in this project to sit on our hands for 30 days and do nothing while the minister plays euchre or cards. This is outrageous, that we would sit when all metrics have been met, when it is the opinion of scientists and others in the ministry that permissions have been followed, that we can move—just give the ability to continue with the process and to get things moving. That’s all this is doing.

This ability to waive that 30-day waiting period—they’ve said “waive and eliminate.” All we’re doing is giving the minister the ability, should conditions be met, to not sit on our hands for 30 days, a needless 30 days, which is the difference for vital waste water treatment plants that could get in ground today for cleaner water tomorrow and not waiting tomorrow to start those projects. I say, “Yes, let’s start it today”—in her community, in my community, in the growing communities of Ontario.

I really hope she will take me up on that offer to come meet with some of our officials to talk a bit about that.

Not that member, but that’s the reality for so many. I spoke to a young mother in my riding over the weekend who is so desperate for home ownership and wonders if she can ever move beyond trying to find affordable rental units in Cobourg.

The members opposite voted against when we waived development charges for purpose-built rental units. I spoke to Trinity Housing, a housing co-op in my riding, on what waiving development charges meant for them. It’s that minor bit between making a project viable and making it not viable. Waiving development charges mattered for them. We codified what the town of Cobourg—and a shout-out to the town of Cobourg—is doing to ensure that we can get these purpose-built rental units built.

I know, for quite a few around here, it has been quite some time since quite a few around here lived in rental units. It’s not so far for myself. I recall with my wife really saving for years to be able to put that down payment on a home, to be able to become a homeowner. For too many that’s become a lost dream. We have to acknowledge that there are processes and there are realities that are a fundamental barrier, that are doing nothing to actually protect the environment, nothing to provide more affordable housing and nothing to make that dream of housing come sooner.

As I said, water and sewer mains, important infrastructure projects to bring cleaner water, to support waste water discharge for growing communities: These are all things that we’re working on with the sector, working with industry, not taking the approach of previous Liberal governments of driving those manufacturing jobs out or, in the skilled trades with the ratios, of making sure that we don’t have those workers. We had Happy Bucks at Rotary this past Friday, where Stadtke Plumbing acknowledged the number of youth they’ve been able to get into plumbing because of changes this government has made.

I’m going all over because I’m connecting the dots here. You need skilled tradesmen and tradeswomen to build the critical infrastructure we need to support a better environment, to support cleaner water discharge, cleaner water when you turn on the taps. Why do you need that? Because you need homes.

We know there are some in this Legislature who just don’t want to build those homes, who just don’t want to build rental units, who don’t want to build subways. It’s not surprising, given that when the previous government held the balance of power for 15 years, and when that balance of power was in a minority government, supported by the NDP, they didn’t build the subways. They didn’t build the purpose-built rental units. We have a record year in rental starts last year, thanks to this Minister of Housing.

And we’re doing it, Madam Speaker. We’re doing it while also launching one of Ontario’s largest-ever freshwater initiatives, plastic-capture technology in Lake Ontario. These sea bins are all over, including in harbours like mine. We’re building the vital water and waste water infrastructure we need to support a growing Ontario. This vital technology, this modern technology—when I visit a waste water treatment plant today, it’s like going onto the bridge of the Enterprise. It’s so modern. They’re using technology, but members opposite would rather have us using the same infrastructure from decades gone by. I say no. We need to leverage the technology today. We need to build modern infrastructure to support growing communities.

They also didn’t support the previous government in building any new public transit. You think about the Ontario Line, arguably one of the largest low-carbon public projects in North America today. That’s done by this Premier, by this government. It’s going to be incredible—hopping on that line, the crown jewel at the end, a modernized, revitalized Ontario Place. I remember my parents taking me to Ontario Place ages ago and enjoying Ontario Place with my nana, my papa, my mom, my dad. And since, what is it, 2012, the doors have been locked? You’re lucky if I can get a dog walk in with my dog Max there. It’s dilapidated. It’s stale—stale like the attitudes of the previous government.

But we’re building a stronger Ontario; a hopeful Ontario; an Ontario where a young boy or girl can receive an opportunity in the skilled trades, where they could become an entrepreneur or start their own business—a sense of fulfillment in building and completing projects that are going to support a growing Ontario, that are going to protect our environment; an Ontario, a Canada that welcomes half a million immigrants, and the disproportionate number, over 250,000 or 300,000, of which choose Ontario. And where do the majority of those immigrants come? They come to the GTHA.

So again, we welcome that. I think to my own family experience, as do so many in the place. I think to stories of one of my grandfathers, who came off the boat from Italy with no money, who built a career in the steel sector—I’ve often referenced that before, but it bears repeating—building a future; my father, who was the first to go to university on that side of my family; and now his grandson, who is sitting in this place. That is the Canadian dream. That is the opportunity that this great province offers new Canadians. I think they would be happy.

I remember the member from Danforth, when we spoke a bit about clean steel. I think we can all acknowledge, and that member as well, that that steelworker today—those jobs have been protected and secured in this province, not through driving industry out like we saw in years gone by but through partnering with industry to build the cleanest steel on planet earth right here in Ontario, good union jobs right here in the province of Ontario.

I think to opportunities I’ve had to tour on what Stelco is doing. It is not the Stelco, for example, of my grandfather’s yesteryear. It’s not the Dofasco of generations gone by. They’re doing incredible work—and a big shout-out to the men and women of Algoma, Dofasco and Stelco and work that they’re doing. We’re proud to have those industries here in Ontario, and we’re securing jobs for generations to come. Clean steel; it’s incredibly exciting.

And, Madam Speaker, I think to when this government was elected, the fact that building in the province was one of the records that I think was unfortunate. Usually, you want to hold records. But I’ll contrast two records: The time it takes to get permits and to build in this province was one of the worst on planet earth. That’s unacceptable when we have to build modern infrastructure not only to support a growing population but to protect our environment at the same time.

Now, today, we hold the very prestigious record. I think last year alone was one of the largest years for projected areas in Ontario’s history. Don’t take my word for it; our federal database that compiles protected areas that is released every March shows what Ontario has done for protected areas.

You ask, “How do we do that?” You think to programs like the Greenlands Conservation Partnership program that has protected Vidal Bay, that has protected the Boreal Wildlands, the largest protection for boreal forests in Canadian history; the South Shore Joint Initiative for migratory birds, so that we can support a growing Ontario with active and passive opportunities for Ontarians to get out and enjoy and appreciate nature to better connect with the birds and the bees and the species that we’re so blessed to live alongside.

Yes, we have to do more. We do have to do more for those species and for protected areas. That’s why I was proud that this year, in budget 2023, we saw another record: the largest single in-year investment for protected areas in Ontario’s history; $14 million, thanks to the Minister of Finance.

We’ve worked so closely together with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. I think to hikes I’ve taken in my own backyard with groups like the Willow Beach Field Naturalists.

I think to Hazel Bird Nature Reserve where I go with my dog Max all the time. We’re out there in Hazel Bird Nature Reserve. That has increased by a third thanks in part to the Greenlands Conservation Partnership program.

I think to the South Shore Joint Initiative, the migratory bird corridor in Bay of Quinte.

I think to the land trusts and the environmentalist groups I’ve walked shoulder-to-shoulder with. We’re protecting that area on the shores of Lake Ontario forever for generations to come.

I think to work we’re doing all over this province, to Vidal Bay. I think to Alfred Bog, that we have now protected under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act forever. That is peat moss, carbon sequestration. It’s important. We’re doing that.

That largest in-year investment that this government has made has shown that you can support a growing population with growing numbers of protected areas. Interesting number: I was on Moore in the Morning this morning with John Moore, talking about the province’s first urban provincial park. We announced that on Saturday, on Earth Day. That’s going to be in the town of Uxbridge. Shout-out to Mayor Dave Barton, to regional chair John Henry, to John MacKenzie from the TRCA, Rob Baldwin from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and so many more who we’re partnering with to make this historic announcement.

I’m very excited for that new provincial park. It’s going to be a great opportunity to get outdoors. That is the first in 40 years, since before I was born; Madam Speaker, since before you were born; since so many—the first in 40 years. This is truly incredible.

I was on Moore in the Morning this morning, and I think a stat that bears repeating: Through programs like the Greenlands Conservation Partnership program, we’ve protected almost 400,000 acres in just the last few years. That is four times what the previous Liberal government protected between 2014 and 2018, a full mandate—four times, Madam Speaker.

I’m incredibly proud of the work we’ve done with partners like the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Ontario Land Trust Alliance.

Why I mention this, to tie it back to the changes we’re making, is you can support growing protected areas. You can support the environmental assessment process—the EA process that we’re modernizing not just for building homes, building public transit that we need, but yes, building parks.

When I was first a minister, they were saying it takes 10 years to build a park, 10 years to protect the environment, to add an area to actually protect it for trails. That’s wild. That’s not acceptable. It’s not acceptable because while I still have my best friend, my loyal friend, my four-legged Max, I want him to get out there and enjoy these trails with me. I’m not going to wait 10 years to protect those parks, to protect those areas.

When we look at that 50-year-old, dated process, that’s one of the reasons—my “why.” Why did I get involved? Why did I seek office? Often, people have these carefully scripted stories. They bring all the comms experts and they bounce ideas and it becomes—sometimes, it exacerbates and embellishes a bit of the truth. My “why” was pretty simple, and I don’t need 10 groups to soundboard it off. My “why” was, I’m a young man growing up in rural Ontario and I see manufacturing jobs fleeing. I saw a Kraft plant close. I saw buddies I played soccer with put out of a job. I saw the reckless federal and provincial policies of the Liberals driving out manufacturing jobs in Campbellford, in Brighton, in Port Hope and in Cobourg, and I just said, “You know what, there’s got to be a better way.”

I didn’t have all the answers. I still don’t. I think in public office you’ve got to listen to the people you serve; you’ve got to form meaningful partnerships with industry to work in collaboration to find those answers. But my job is, I looked around the room, I looked at my predecessor and I looked at others—someone I have great respect for, my predecessor—but I said, “You know what? I’m going to do a better job. I’m going to bring these jobs back. I’m going to give it my best shot,” because there can be a stronger Ontario. There can be a better Ontario.

Fast-forward to today: CpK, Beneco Packaging, Mirmil, Jebco, Premier Tech in Brighton—all of which have benefited from $8 billion in reduced costs of doing business, all of whom are expanding. When I called the plant manager at Jebco in Colborne and said we are stabilizing class A and B industrial electricity rates, after the disastrous energy policies of the previous government—none of whose members are here, in part because they were voted out; none of whose members are here because they have so few seats in this Legislature today, because Ontarians said that we have to do better.

What did that mean for Jebco? Jebco is now expanding their investments. They are hiring more men and women. They’re saying, “Yes, David, it shouldn’t take 10 years to expand our plant because of a 50-year-old EA process. It shouldn’t mean the difference between new jobs and retreating and doing nothing, laying people off because of the reckless energy policies of the previous government.” Today they are expanding.

Today, Beneco Packaging is growing in Northumberland–Peterborough South. Today, we’re benefiting from building small modular nuclear reactors, maintaining our competitive advantage of a 90%-plus clean energy advantage. There is no path to net zero without nuclear. We are building SMRs in my community in Darlington. We’re building EVs. We’re supporting automotive jobs with General Motors in my community, again, jobs that, in this place, public policy-makers seemed content to let flee and leave this province. They are coming back. Clean jobs, green jobs, jobs for the next generation are coming back to Ontario because this government and this Premier understand that when it comes to the environment, it is not an “either/or,” it’s an “and.” You can protect more, something we’re doing to the tune of four times that of the previous government.

It is not an “either/or” when it comes to public transit. The groups of four, five people who frequent council every day, the group of NIMBYs who don’t want to build public transit, the NIMBYs who say—it’s BANANAs now: build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. They don’t want homes in their community, but when it comes to building a high-rise or intensifying with an apartment unit which will include purpose-built rentals in their own community, they say no to that as well.

I’ve got a message for those people: Your time ruling the roost is gone. We’re building in the province of Ontario. We’re building for the young boy or girl who wants a job in the trades, who wants to have a place to call home; for the young boy like my grandfather in fascist Italy, who looked to Canada for opportunity; for someone like Sayo, from Nigeria, whom I had the opportunity of meeting when our member for Ajax brought Computek to this community, who has taken advantage of the free PSW courses that this government is working on and has provided. Sayo has now got a job. He is working in no more honourable profession than in health care. He is now working, thanks to this Premier, this government and the investments we’re making.

This stands in stark contrast to an Ontario where those jobs were fleeing in my own community. They’re back today, 600,000 manufacturing jobs today, incredible opportunities in my community, where we are expanding public transit, bringing Metrolinx into Northumberland for the first time in Ontario’s history. We’re building the largest low-carbon public transit project, arguably, in North America with the Ontario Line. We’re expanding two-way, all-day GO and electrifying the GO network.

We’re bringing back the Northlander to the people. My predecessor called the north “no-man’s land.” That’s just bananas—and that’s an appropriate term of “bananas,” not “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.” It’s actually bananas that he would call northern Ontario “no-man’s land,” because we recognize that prosperity in the south depends on opportunity and unleashing the potential of the north. We get that, this government.

I’ve had the opportunity to see environmental reclamation projects that you couldn’t imagine, with Mattagami First Nation in the north. I’ve had the opportunity to work with a number of partners in the north to see what this government is doing to unlock the opportunities, the critical minerals that are going to help us decarbonize, that are going to help us electrify, that are going to help us become less dependent on fossil fuels. I’m proud that that’s done in Ontario. I’m proud that that’s done working in partnership with Indigenous communities, working with men and women of the skilled trades, and not dependent on corrupt foreign regimes.

We’ve seen with the COVID-19 pandemic the destabilizing effect, the choppy waters that the Minister of Finance alluded to in his budget speech. Ontario is not an island. We’re not immune to global supply chain disruption—the war in Ukraine, the unprovoked attack and invasion of Ukraine. We’re not immune to those choppy waters.

So why now must we invest in the north? Because there is no better time and because there is no time that is more important than today—and a recognition among Ontarians alike. It’s partly the reason we’re back in this place. It’s partly the reason we’re winning seats in the north that previous Progressive Conservatives felt we had no business ever winning. Well, we’re winning them today because those Indigenous youth, those young men and women in the north know that they have an opportunity in the great province of Ontario under Premier Ford’s leadership.

I value the feedback on our EA process, on improving that process so that we can get those critical minerals we need to decarbonize, so that we can support battery creation here in Ontario. There are areas of the world that have no regard; they don’t even have an EA process when they’re mining for these critical minerals. Madam Speaker, we’re never going to follow that example. In Ontario, we’re going to always work in close partnership with Indigenous communities, respecting environmental processes and permits. I’m proud of that.

But no one can tell me that a relic from 50 years ago shall never change, will never change, and that we can never leverage modern technology to improve it. I’m sorry. Nor that this 30-day pause, this random pause for 30 days—that the Minister of the Environment can’t exercise the ability to get proponent-driven projects moving faster, like these decarbonization projects I’m alluding to in the north.

Another record historic first: the investment in boreal caribou that this government has made in the budget—a historic investment. I think to valuable relationships that I’ve had the opportunity to build with Chief Tangie from Michipicoten, with Chief Michano from Biigtigong. I’m going up there in the north this summer, and I value that learning relationship.

I’m going to draw an analogy here from what we’re doing with this bill with the EA process to how our wildlife advisory committee said that you always have to sedate caribou in the process to move them. We’re moving caribou and helping grow the population of caribou. They said that you always have to sedate it. Well, talk to Chief Michano, talk to Chief Tangie, and they’ll tell you that there are practices—they told me about an incredible story, Chief Tangie did, about a youth in her community witnessing a caribou relocation project where they blindfold, in a very humane manner, the caribou to move the caribou.

What does that have to do with this? I’ve drawn an analogy here. If our process of relocating caribou was so rigid, as is this 50-year-old EA process, that we would never listen and never change, we would never incorporate the perspectives of Chief Tangie, of Chief Duncan Michano from Biigtigong. It would remain rigid and a relic of the past. Well, no; today, we’re listening. I’m hopeful that in the next few weeks, I’ll be up north to sign an agreement with Michipicoten and Biigtigong for a historic protection of Ontario’s caribou. We’re going to do it. I’m going out on a limb, but I’m going to say that we’re going to do it, because our relationships have been meaningful, and we’re going to do it.

I’ll hark back to the EA process that we’re talking about. If we’re not flexible to listen, if we’re not flexible to be amenable to new technology, new processes, then why are we here? Why are we serving? Why do we bother getting up in the morning? I could just stay in bed and never get up and never do anything. But I choose to get out of bed in the morning, to listen, to work in partnership with communities to improve our EA process for generations to come, and it’s thanks to that that we’re seeing record investments in public transit, actually getting shovels in the ground, actually taking cars off the road. It’s thanks to that that we’re seeing record investments in manufacturing which is making clean steel for generations to come, building EVs that are actually going to be made in Ontario, not just rebates for millionaires to buy EVs that are incorporating critical minerals that are mined in Africa and in other jurisdictions that have no regard to the EA process and to meaningful partnership with Indigenous communities. We’re going to have those critical minerals here in Ontario.

I know worldwide, we have a commitment—I spent time at the United Nations—and we’re working with other jurisdictions that I have aforementioned to improve processes, to incorporate an environmental assessment process, to incorporate meaningful treatment of workers. I see our Minister of Labour is here. We’re making historic investments to provide dignity on the job site for workers. That’s the constant work here.

And we disagree all the time. I see a member opposite moving their hands like, “Talk to the hand. We’re not listening.” At the end of the day, I value the role that they play. They challenge us to do better. They challenge us to do a better job. We can disagree, we can snicker, we can smile, but at the end of the day, everybody here serves from a good place. They get up every morning to advocate for their communities and to serve to build a better Ontario. We disagree from time to time on how to get there.

But I take this process, I take Ontario, I take Ontario’s EA process, I take the challenges we’re facing in Ontario, I take the meaningful conversation we’re having on reconciliation over any other jurisdiction worldwide because I believe in this province. I believe in its people. I believe in the meaningful relationships we’re building as a government to unlock the potential of a better, of a stronger Ontario; an Ontario that is building public transit, taking cars off the road; an Ontario that is modernizing the environmental assessment process so that we can support growing communities with the critical infrastructure to keep our waters clean—not just clean, but cleaner. My mom is an English teacher and I’m sure will challenge my grammar there.

When I chaired the Great Lakes Guardians’ Council with Grand Council Chief Reg Niganobe, we chaired that Great Lakes Guardians’ Council, and we heard an update from officials in my ministry who have been there since long before I have been here and will still be there long after I’m gone. Those officials have worked with research institutes. A number of reports show that the Great Lakes on many metrics—when it comes to PCBs, when it comes to phosphorous, when it comes to a number of metrics, things are getting better. When it comes to delisting areas of concern like Randle Reef, like a number of other areas, this government is making meaningful progress. Working with the federal government, working with partners at the upper and lower tier, conservation authorities, we’re making progress on delisting those areas of concern. Because, again, you can modernize the EA process, you can improve the EA process that will lead to a better tomorrow—a stronger Ontario.

I’ll close today by saying that that EA process, that strong EA process we have here—a strong, robust permissions process—means that we can protect the environment, but we can also get shovels in the ground on public transit to take cars off the road; to build the Ontario Line, the largest low-carbon public transit project, arguably, in North America. We can extract the critical minerals we need in the north to support electrification to decarbonize in the south. We can build homes—homes that are better built today using better environmental standards than at any point in the past—to support the young boy or girl who lives in their parents’ basement, who has been destined there from poor policies of the past, who now wants the dignity of home ownership, who wants to have a home. Purpose-built rental units that can be built for tomorrow’s generation: We’re saying yes to that.

We’re saying yes to the non-sexy things that underpin that, like ensuring that when you turn your tap on, clean drinking water comes out of that tap, or when you flush the toilet, something is done to ensure that that discharge is cleaner. That’s what’s happening at Duffins in Pickering. That’s what’s happening in Newcastle, thanks to investments of this government to upgrade and improve the waste water treatment plant in Newcastle. That’s what’s happening in Cobourg; we’re adding new water power thanks to investments from this government. That’s what’s happening in Brighton. It’s happening all over Ontario. I’ve just illustrated this with a few examples in my own riding to show that when you modernize the EA process, you’re actually strengthening it and improving it to get shovels in the ground on these vital infrastructure projects to support a growing Ontario, a better environment, a stronger tomorrow.

I am so proud to be part of a government making these meaningful investments and listening. Yes, we welcome being challenged by members opposite and others. But there’s a recognition that you can’t just take processes like the EA process that we’re talking about today, throw it up on a shelf, wait 50 years, close our eyes and pretend like nothing is changing, because technology is changing and we can improve the EA process. We can better respond to the needs of Ontarians of tomorrow, to the people who have an eye to Canada to build a better future, who flee, in many cases, war-torn countries to build a better future.

You’re going to have a home thanks to this government. You’re going to have better public transit thanks to this government. You’re going to have better waste water and water services thanks to this government. You’re going to have a better job thanks to this government, because we’re bringing back manufacturing. You’re going to work in clean steel. You’re going to work building EVs so we can drive EVs tomorrow. We’re going to build batteries using the critical minerals of the north to support jobs for men and women of tomorrow’s generation. We’re going to work in partnership with Indigenous communities like Mattagami First Nation on environmental reclamation projects. You’re going to do all of that for a stronger Ontario, and I’m proud to be part of a government getting it done.

It’s an honour to rise in the House today for the third reading of Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act. I just want to start by acknowledging and thanking my colleague the Minister of Infrastructure for her remarks and for her leadership. I think it’s important to note that when it comes to building a better Ontario, when it comes to building a stronger Ontario, this minister thinks outside the box, finding meaningful partnerships and investing.

She made an important comment when she spoke about waste water and stormwater infrastructure, smaller projects which she said are no less important, and I can start speaking for the good people of Northumberland–Peterborough South, who I represent. She’s joined me on multiple occasions in my riding to see the important impact these investments are making in communities like mine to support a growing Ontario, because for years previous governments let this infrastructure crumble. That matters when it comes to building purpose-built rental units, when it comes to building affordable housing, when it comes to intensifying in existing urban centres, when it comes to expanding, building more homes so that people can get out of their parents’ basements. All of this stuff matters, so we have to tie everything in this bill into the bigger picture.

As you know, Madam Speaker, some elements in this bill come from my Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. I’m happy to take a few minutes to paint a bigger and fuller picture as to what this means.

I’m going to start off with the obvious, a number: 50 years. I’m a big political junkie, and I recall a mayor in Brockville with a fantastic set of hair—perhaps not here today, but a fantastic set of hair. This was—

But what has happened since then and now and these historic announcements he’s going to be joining me on? Well, the EA process has not changed. It isn’t touched. I don’t have to think back much farther—Madam Speaker, yourself as well, I think—to a time in university; when I went to university, social media was barely a thing. I remember getting my first cell phone in university. Today, these things are a part of our daily lives. We use them. I think to eDNA and the important work eDNA is having within the environmental permissions process for endangered species. But yet, this process hasn’t changed at all. Notwithstanding and despite the fact that technology has evolved incredibly to support the EA process, this process hasn’t changed in 50 years. I’m very proud that this government is taking long-overdue steps to modernize and improve the environmental assessment process.

Everything has changed, and the environmental assessment process must change with it. Simply put, it’s outdated, and Ontarians deserve better. Leaving Ontario with the ineffective and inefficient act that requires urgent updates our government is proposing—the foundations of the Environmental Assessment Act remain incredibly strong. This act does not fundamentally alter the act in any way.

The changes contained in this bill are not a revolution. We’re doing a lot of things in this government that are a revolution, a lot of great things to build more homes, to build more critical infrastructure, to build new subway lines, to transform and modernize Ontario Place so that people can actually get back in and enjoy the space. We’re doing a lot of things as a government, but I’ll acknowledge that this slight change we’re making through my ministry is not revolutionary, and it’s not one of those things.

This, of course, requires—and I will encourage everyone in this Legislature to take time to truly understand what we’re proposing here. It’s a planning and decision-making process that evaluates potential environmental impacts. That’s the environmental assessment process. The environmental assessment process identifies and mitigates potential environmental issues before a project is implemented. They consider the effect and inputs from groups like Indigenous communities, government agencies, the public.

The environmental assessment process: Let’s discuss within that what we’re actually changing. This is important as, quite frankly, listening to some in the debate on this so far, I do not believe that there is an in-depth—and I wonder whether there’s a true appreciation of what is being proposed here. The proposed amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act are merely to provide the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks with the ability to waive or alter the 30-day review period, allowing projects to begin sooner. It’s a 30-day review period. That’s after the process is done. That’s after all of the work has been done. We pause in time, just freeze and sit still. I think there are a number of instances; I think to waste water treatment plants, which are improving water quality for communities, where perhaps the minister would want to waive that waiting period to allow the proponent to move forward faster to build this critical infrastructure.

This doesn’t change or alter the ability for community members to request a bump-up request to the minister for a full environmental assessment. It doesn’t change any of the big the pieces within the act itself. It merely provides the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks with the ability to waive or alter the 30-day review period.

I think to where this started. As many good policies start, this started with a Bombardier project in Mississauga, where the mayor and where the community asked us and said, “This 30-day waiting period doesn’t make sense,” and where this project that was going to bring good-paying jobs and was going to bring investments into our aviation sector would have been kicked to another construction season. You think of the inflationary costs that that would have meant. This just enabled us to get shovels in the ground sooner. It didn’t do anything to change permissions, permits to take water, endangered species. A number of these permissions were not there in this instance, but it bears repeating that it wouldn’t change any of those permissions. Madam Speaker, I think this is the right thing to do.

As you can see, this arbitrary 30-day period here is delay. Usually we see this place in question period filled with youth, the next generation. I see our young member from Brampton, who is doing a fantastic job. I see some young people in the gallery today. What I hear is a generation who can’t see beyond their parents’ basements. That is what Ontario is for too many: their parents’ basement.

There’s a lot to unpack there, but I want to address the critical piece in this bill. We heard how the members opposite would govern if, God forbid, they ever had the chance to do so in Ontario. They feel that MECP sit on their hands and wait until the class EA process is done, which reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the class EA process. We don’t close our eyes, hold our breath and close our ears and eyes until the end of the six-month process. It’s a constant relationship where we’re back and forth with the proponent on a constant basis, where we’re addressing any challenges and where we’re responsive to the ERO posting and that feedback.

Months later, when this is done and there’s this arbitrary 30-day waiting period, they want us to start reviewing it then. Well, I’ve got news for them: MECP is constantly working with proponents from day one, not closing their eyes and ears, as the members opposite would have them do.

It’s wonderful to rise in the Legislature to speak to this bill. I just wanted to briefly start off at the top with addressing a comment the member opposite said, the leader of the Green Party. He said, “Look before you leap.” My mother used to say the same, but she also said, “Look before you speak.” I think if the member were to give a closer look at the actual class EA process, he would know that the ERO posting goes concurrently with the listing with the proponent municipality—in the case of a waste water treatment plant, for example, going forward with the project—the class EA moves forward through the EA process, and it’s open generally between 30 to 45 days for a comment period, sometimes 60 days on the ERO.

Class EAs take longer than that, so this position at the end of the class EA, this 30-day waiting period, would never—never—correspond with a comment period, so I really think it’s important that we get that out there and address the facts.

Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise to this bill. As the Legislature is aware, this Environmental Assessment Act has not been updated in 50 years—I’ll repeat that again: 50 years. I think everyone in this Legislature would agree that a lot has changed in the last 50 years. I, for one, wasn’t alive. The technology has changed. We’re leveraging a lot of technology today to improve the way we do things, and that includes improving the Environmental Assessment Act. Yet the act itself has been frozen in time, in part a relic of the past that’s holding Ontario back today.

The changes contained in this bill are not a revolution, Madam Speaker. In fact, I would submit to you that these are largely administrative in nature. They do not, as some in the opposition will have you believe, change the fabric of the EA process. This is a modernization of the act, reflective of the realities today. Simply put, the act is outdated and needs, like our environment, to constantly move and change to better reflect the realities of today and to better protect our environment.

Ontarians deserve better. They deserve a government that moves with them. They deserve an Environmental Assessment Act that helps support building a resilient Ontario.

The foundations of this act remain strong. The changes make the 30-day waiting period happen after the completion of the environmental assessment. This gives government the ability to waive that 30-day period, should all of the conditions have been met through the environmental assessment process. That’s right, Madam Speaker: Following the completion of an environmental assessment, we’re frozen, frozen in time for 30 seconds.

I just paused for two seconds. Nothing happened. I didn’t address the substantive nature of this bill. I didn’t provide any answers. That’s what this does: things in time. I don’t know about you, Madam Speaker—but depending on the circumstance, that seems inefficient. I would personally love to hear the rationale as to why, when a proponent has completed their due diligence and completed the environmental assessment process, they should be forced to wait automatically for 30 days with no ability to move forward with the project. Why should a municipality that needs to build a new waste water treatment plant keep clean drinking water on pause for an additional 30 days? It’s nonsensical, but it’s not surprising, as I listen to the members opposite. They voted no to more homes. They voted no to critical infrastructure projects to meet a modern and resilient Ontario. What does that mean? Modern waste water treatment plants, stormwater retention ponds—all of this is paused in time, is paused in this relic of an act, in as relic a nature as some of the members opposite.

Why should an immigrant who’s looking to come to this province have to wait longer to access a home; why should a young person who’s waiting in their parents’ basement, who’s looking to have the dignity of home ownership, have to wait because a municipality is paused while they build the critical waste water infrastructure needed to support a growing development or intensification?

Madam Speaker, I think of some of the closed-loop waste water treatment plants that I’ve had the opportunity to tour. I’ve seen some of the incredible technology. I’m going to talk a bit about some of my personal passions. I’m a big Star Trek fan, and I feel like I’m on the bridge of the Enterprise sometimes when I’m in these waste water treatment plants, like one I recently toured in Millbrook, and I see the technology we’re using today. I think everybody would agree, and I would submit, that that technology was not there 50 years ago today.

When that municipality has completed their class environmental assessment process, they’re on pause; they’re waiting for 30 days. In some cases, that 30 days can mean the closing of a construction window, which means we wait yet another year. I know that year doesn’t matter to many in this Legislature—“Let the municipality wait.” There’s no justification—they will try and impute that that means somehow we are weakening environmental protections. How? They would rather us wait, for the sake of waiting, another year. They would rather us wait, for the sake of waiting, to tell that immigrant, “Sorry. Live in the basement.” Even worse, the next generation, a person in this province who’s desperate to have a roof over their head—they say, “Wait.”

The municipality, like the member opposite who hails from Hamilton, with a lot of aged infrastructure—they would rather say to that municipality, “Wait. Clean drinking water can wait.” I would submit to you that it can’t.

To build a resilient Ontario, to build an Ontario that adapts to the changing realities of today, we have to have the option to move and waive that 30-day period, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Our government is committed to building a strong environmental assessment program that considers the input of local community and ensures that we focus our attention on those projects that have the highest impact on the environment.

We consulted with municipalities. The member from Windsor is an engineer and will know that the association of engineers supported us when we brought forward class environmental assessment process—I’ll elaborate on that soon—when we brought forward an amendment to look at consolidated linear infrastructure.

I was recently in Brampton. Our incredible member in Brampton, MPP McGregor, brought together a round table where municipal staff who were there long before I was elected and who will be there long after I move on lauded the moves that this government has done on consolidated linear infrastructure.

Think permissions on a pipe-by-pipe basis versus looking in a holistic manner—that’s how we’ve got to do things today. Technology has improved. We have much better waste water systems, storm, sani systems today than we did 50 years ago, and we’ve got to adapt to reflect that.

While development and building Ontario is, of course, important, let me make it crystal clear that the environmental standards and protections that are in place today will remain in place and continue to be long into the future. So those permissions are in place. While we look at the process that deals with those permissions, I think we can have a conversation about that process. I think we can say, for a nonsensical automatic 30-day waiting period, we should have the option to move forward if we’re satisfied for class projects—that means they fall in a variety of common classes that are quite standard. This isn’t an individual EA; this is class assessments that are very standard, that municipalities now do with their eyes closed. That we would say, “We’re not going to automatically pause you for 30 days,” I think makes sense, and I would submit to you that the majority of Ontarians think the same.

As I mentioned, I’m a big Star Trek fan. One of my favourite episodes is “Mirror, Mirror.” Sometimes in the members opposite, it’s that other alternate reality. It’s somewhat—I sometimes hear nasty statements, and so negative. I think if you flash forward and you look at what we’re actually doing here and you look at what’s happening, it’s reflective of consultations with municipalities. It’s reflective of what we hear. A nonsensical pause—the only thing that’s really happening in that pause is that they’re moving to this alternate reality where they’re impugning all sorts of things that are really not reflective of what’s actually before us today in the bill. They’re incapable of actually addressing the bill and the measures in this bill because they understand it’s nonsensical, a 30-day waiting period. It’s a false choice, because it’s not a choice. We don’t need to choose between this pause and this sort of impugned—that we need to do this for the environment.

This, to me, makes absolute sense. It’s what we’ve heard from the communities we’ve spoken to, and the proposed amendments are merely to provide the ability to waive or alter the 30-day review period, allowing projects to begin sooner. That actually doesn’t change the section 16 order, which members should be familiar with. If a member of the public has concerns, even if it’s a class EA—things that are commonly done, part of a class—even if all those conditions have been met and it’s the position of the great staff scientists at MECP—who, again, will be there long after I move on—that the conditions have been met and the position of community members who have addressed comments in the ERO posting, there’s still the ability for Ontarians to request a review order to the minister through section 16, and this does not change.

So there’s many things in place to empower Ontarians to have their say, to voice their concerns in ways that most other jurisdictions just simply don’t have, and I’m proud of that. I’m proud that in Ontario we have that.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, this pause really changes nothing. This is the effect of this arbitrary 30-day review period. It serves no purpose—perhaps 50 years ago, but today it doesn’t. The current EA process requires that 30-day review, and it doesn’t really make sense.

If you’ll indulge me, I want to give context to what a class environmental assessment entails. A class EA is a proponent-led self-assessment process, and the majority of class EAs are undertaken by our municipal partners. The class EA establishes a planning process for projects that fall within a class of undertakings, such as a municipal class environmental assessment for infrastructure projects or electricity transmission projects.

So out of one side of one’s mouth, we hear a call for electrification, for decarbonization, and then, out of the other side of one’s mouth, we hear, “No, we’ve got to pause it. We need this automatic 30-day review period that’s going to pause the transmission line.” It doesn’t make sense. You’re smiling because you know. It doesn’t make sense.

Class environmental assessments can be developed for classes of undertakings that are similar or routine in nature, such as building a road, building a water treatment plant, building a school or building a hospital. That member keeps saying 30 days, Madam Speaker—it’s not a big issue for him: 30 days go by, and he still collects his paycheque. But when 30 days go by and we can’t build a transmission in a construction window, it matters. When we can’t build a hospital in that construction window, it matters. Not surprising, because he’s voted against building hospitals in places like Brampton. He’s voted against building new schools after a decade of darkness in which we saw 600 schools closed. Not surprising, because he did actually mull running for leader of that party that closed those schools down.

I don’t know about you, Madam Speaker, but these projects seem like bad things to delay construction on for a month: building a critical road, building a water treatment plant that’s leveraging modern technology to clean the water today, to provide clean drinking water, to provide clean water that’s discharged into our tributaries. We’re using incredible technology today that’s much better than the technology we used 20 years ago, and in 20 years’ time it’s going to be even better, but not, Madam Speaker, if we have these nonsensical pauses.

Projects that fall under the class EA process have known potential environmental effects that are predictable and well understood. Building in Ontario is not a novel concept. Building a water treatment plant isn’t novel. Building a school isn’t. Building a hospital isn’t. We have experts and expertise that guide us, and I believe in listening to those experts.

Class EA projects can be managed, Madam Speaker, through established impact-management methods. A class EA is routine—as I said, it’s well understood—and this bill does not make any changes in the execution of that EA. Anyone who says otherwise either has not read the bill or does not understand it, or, worse, one is intentionally misleading Ontarians. All this means that a project that falls within a class of undertakings in a class environment assessment is approved, as long as the proponent successfully completes the approved planning process.

Despite what members may say, let me assure you, Madam Speaker, that any class environmental assessment requires public consultation, robust postings on the ERO and a comment period. After all the work is complete, then we wait. We wait some more. And, yes, we wait and wait and wait. No work gets done. We’re not seeing cleaner drinking. We’re not seeing a home being built. We’re not seeing a hospital being built. We’re not seeing a waste water treatment plant being built. We wait for 30 days, and no work is done until that 30-day period expires.

This gives the ability to waive that 30-day period. I think to a recent example in Mississauga where this was quite literally the difference between a year of waiting—and do you know what happened in that year? We entered 2022-23, where we saw massive inflation.

But they don’t mind, because there is no government spending they won’t support. The party with the taxpayers’ money will never end for the members opposite, because it doesn’t matter. You wait another year and this has kicked it into another construction cycle? It doesn’t matter. Inflation? Just a number; keep spending.

But when we’ve met the robust environmental oversight, why wait needlessly for a waste water treatment plant that the community needs now? To call this an unnecessary delay is an understatement. And I have said this is not costless. There is always a cost—a cost to the people of Ontario. This does nothing to change the process in the class environmental assessment. This is a mandatory waiting period.

But not surprising—they wait; they wait. They’re going to wait a long time to form government, Madam Speaker, because they never will, because Ontarians recognize that we have to get it done when it comes to clean drinking water. We have to get it done when it comes to building public transit projects that are going to take cars off the road and that are going to get people using public transit. We’re not going to wait when it comes to giving a new Canadian the ability to put a roof over their head and provide for their family. We’re not going to wait when it comes to leveraging modern technology to provide clean drinking water to Ontarians or to deal with decade-old infrastructure that’s discharging and we’re seeing spills and overflows leaking into our rivers, our bodies of water.

We need to upgrade these things, and these upgrades and these routine infrastructure upgrades that fall under a class EA process don’t need to wait for an arbitrary mandatory 30-day waiting period. If conditions have been met and if, according to municipalities, the proponents, the scientists within the ministry, the directors—because there is statutory authority, not given to me, but given to directors within the ministry that are there long before and long after I have the privilege of being environment minister. But if, in everybody’s opinion, these conditions are met, we can waive the 30-day waiting period. It is quite literally the difference in many cases—and I have a number of tangible examples, like the one in Mississauga I cited, or like some in my own community in Cobourg and Port Hope—between one construction season to the next.

What happens when you’re moving forward on the class EA process and you’re lining up contractors and trades—they’re falling further and further out of touch with labourers and workers in this province; it’s not a surprise that those unions backed us in the last election, because they understand that waiting causes massive uncertainty for those workers. Waiting causes massive uncertainty for the planned growth with the new waste water treatment plant. And we’re saying that if conditions have been met, let’s have the ability to waive that 30-day pause. It’s so we can build a more prosperous Ontario. It’s so we can build a more resilient Ontario. It’s so we can leverage modern technology to better make ourselves resilient to the impacts of climate change, utilize the latest technology in our stormwater and sanitary.

This isn’t sexy stuff, but it’s important stuff that the Premier understands is needed to build an Ontario for tomorrow. A tomorrow for the young immigrant that’s looking to Ontario to start a family and wants to have a roof over their head. An Ontario that a senior, a young person, can get on public transit and get themselves not just from point A to point B, but a better quality of life.

We’re not going to apologize, Madam Speaker, for making sure we leave no stone unturned in making sure we achieve the potential of that Ontario for everybody in this province to enjoy. And while they wait and while they entrench the relics of a time long gone by, we’re going to move forward to build a better, more climate-resilient Ontario for all Ontarians to enjoy.