Speaker, that’s just categorically not true. We increased employment services’ funding when we led employment service transformation across Ontario.

But, Speaker, to look at that in isolation would be doing a disservice—a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of—

It would be doing a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of men and women trained through the Skills Development Fund for better jobs with a bigger paycheque. We’ve been helping racialized, marginalized, socio-economically disadvantaged groups all across Ontario have access to a meaningful job, Speaker.

And I visited the justice-affected individuals at Oaks Revitalization centre. I’m meeting with them—I think it’s this week or next, Speaker—to talk first-hand with men and women literally who have had run-ins with justice, but today, thanks to this Premier, this government, they are taxpaying members of society working on the front lines of skilled trades.

Speaker, I’m utterly perplexed by that question from that member, who has voted against every measure that this government has put forward—measures to increase school funding, a massive capital increase which includes investments in the trades and shop class; voting against the Skills Development Fund, the largest skills development fund in North America. And what’s that doing? That member and I had a conversation just the other day about SDF projects in his riding that are working in partnership with school boards, that are making historic investments into the trades. Do you know who’s benefiting? Indigenous youth, women. We’ve seen a 30% increase in apprenticeship registration among women—a historic increase. Stats matter—the largest increase in apprenticeship registration last year.

We’ll take no lessons from the party opposite. In fact, we invite them to join us in making Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family.

And what are we doing in this province? Under the historic investments we’ve seen into Ontario, we’ve brought back manufacturing; in fact, we’ve created more jobs than all US states combined. Speaker, do you know who that benefits? Young women I’ve spoken to from Ontario Tech, from Trent, from Fleming, from Loyalist, all graduating into jobs—jobs in the nuclear sector providing the backbone power we need for the electric vehicles.

When I visit the north, I’m speaking to graduates from Queen’s University working in our mining sector, unlocking the critical minerals; engineers that we need to support our massive automotive investments.

The key thing is that at every step along the way, the NDP has said no to critical minerals, no to mining, no to hospitals, no to those investments that are making Ontario—

Speaker, I’m proud to rise to talk about a fund—a fund that, sadly, the opposition voted against: the Skills Development Fund. It’s over a billion dollars, and it has helped train half a million Ontarians.

Let me tell you two quick stories—one, Shanika. I met her at the newcomers’ centre in downtown Toronto. She talked about purpose-driven careers, thanks to work this government is doing supporting Sara Asalya and the team there with the Skills Development Fund investment. Thanks to that, she has gotten out of dead-end jobs; she has now got purpose in her life, because we’re lifting her up—something the opposition would never do.

Another story: Phil Fournier, Ironworkers 759—again, working dead-end cash jobs, not paying taxes; now a contributing member of the north. He’s inspiring. He’s training the next generation of ironworkers. He has joined the union up there, again, thanks to the Skills Development Fund.

This government is going to continue investing in the skilled trades because we’re actually building things. After decades of neglect, we’re getting it done for highways, roads, bridges—you name it. We’re getting it done and training—

Today, I was at Centennial College for the Jill of all Trades event with the Premier and a number of my colleagues. A trades teacher approached me and said, “Do you know what, David? I’m really motivated to train the next generation.” Do you know why? Because he was symbolic of the challenge we’re facing. One in three tradesmen and tradeswomen are 55 or older. To build the hospitals, the schools, the highways we so desperately need, it’s going to require men and women in the trades.

We were empowered with that room full of inspiring young women—women like Carmen, who works for the TTC. Carmen was told by a big, burly guy, “You’re too small to work as a mechanic.” Well, guess what? She is one today. She’s kicking ass. And guess what that guy said to her? He now asked her, “How do I get into the trades?”

Well, thanks to our government, we’re breaking down barriers, getting more youth into the trades so we can build—

A short answer to the member opposite: Yes. We look forward, as we’ve done multiple times in session, to implement Working for Workers legislation, and I appreciate the input from all members of this place.

Speaker, let’s not forget that it’s this government that has expanded presumptive coverage for thyroid, for pancreatic, and now esophageal cancer. When that party opposite held the balance of power and could have pushed the Liberals to do something about it, they didn’t—but Premier Ford and our government are.

I would appreciate the member opposite—he can work like other members in his caucus, work with us and add these expanded coverages, and I look forward to working with him to do just that.

That member is seriously late to everything. This government has taken action—as I said: thyroid, pancreatic, esophageal, so much more. We’ve reformed WSIB. Quite frankly, when that party held the balance of power and when that party was, for the one time that they’ll ever have, in government in Ontario, WSIB was a mess. We’re working with WSIB, working with the heroic front-line responders, and we implemented the Skills Development Fund—things that member has done nothing to support—to expand Indigenous fire training, to support men and women who are serving on the front lines. We’ll always have their back, with or without that member.

I hope she’ll work with us on this, and I look forward—

Speaker, there you have it. For the first time since I was elected in 2018, I heard it. The NDP finally recognize what we’ve known since 2018: We need men and women in the skilled trades in Ontario. I thank that member for the question and I will be happy to connect with that member off-line on specific challenges.

But I’m happy to say that skilled trades registration has been up 30% this year over last. Our Skills Development Fund, under the leadership of this Premier, is getting men and women into the trades like Phil, who I met up in Thunder Bay. It’s changed his life. And we’re not just doing it at union halls, we’re doing it through the youth apprenticeship training. Skilled trades for men and women in OYAP programs and skilled tradespeople of tomorrow is up. Indigenous youth is up, but it’s up against a sobering stat. The NDP and the opposition did nothing for youth through OYAP. The fund didn’t even exist—

But, Speaker, those young people who want a better future in the skilled trades know that this government will keep making those investments, supporting men and women in the trades, whether it be in a union hall, whether it be in a college, or whether it be in one of the new training centres we’re building thanks to this Premier. We’ve got their backs, Speaker. That member is all talk and no action.

Interjections.

I’d like to thank that member for his work and for his mentorship. He has been such a strong advocate for Sarnia–Lambton.

And it’s true, Speaker: As someone who is proudly from rural Ontario, we recognize that we need all corners of this province flourishing if we’re going to unlock the economic potential and might that is Ontario. I’m proud to highlight two important funds that our ministry is working on, that the incredible team is working on to support rural Ontarians: the Skills Development Fund, which is open right now until November, and the capital stream. This is making a difference.

This morning, I just met with beef farmers. Processing capability is a big, big issue for so many farmers in communities like mine. We talked about the Skills Development Fund as an important tool to unlock the capabilities of the next generation in processing. This is just one small example of a difference this government is making to unlock the potential that is rural Ontario.

And what does that mean? It means we can expand—

Interjection.

That means expanding thyroid cancer—

Interjection.

We’ll take no lessons from a man who can’t get the bloody transit in Ottawa right. And he’s heckling us? We’re going to get workers working in the province of Ontario, save taxpayer dollars—

I appreciate that question, especially as I’m going through estimates for the year ahead, so I’m happy to share with that member what we’ve got planned.

Speaker, when it comes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, Ontario leads Canada. We’re doing it with the largest public transit investment in Canadian history, taking 28,000 cars off the road alone with the Ontario Line. We’re doing it partnering with industry—not driving those jobs out of Canada, but partnering with them to electrify the arc furnace at Dofasco. That’s the equivalent of taking two million cars off the road and empowering the next generation with clean, green jobs.

Finally, as you will see in the estimates, we’ve committed a record investment for green lands protection. Last year alone, we protected almost 400,000 acres so Ontarians can get out and enjoy the great outdoors. We committed $14 million in this budget. And we’re expanding wetlands through the Wetlands Conservation Partner Program.

Speaker, I could go on, and I’ll share more in the supplementary if I’m given the opportunity.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today three constituents of mine: Patti Ley, Lynda Kay, and Peter Dounoukos, all of whom are great leaders and dear friends in our community.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to extend sincere appreciation to a mentor of mine: a principled leader, Erin O’Toole.

Thank you for being here, Erin.

At the risk of being repetitive here, on behalf of the government, I would like to welcome the Ontario Road Builders’ Association and the Ontario Asphalt Pavement Council. I value their work with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

And a special shout-out to my good friend Michael McSweeney—thank you for being here.

Thank you to the member opposite for that question. This report rightly highlights the need to do more. That’s why the Premier is doing just that. Hoesung Lee, the chair of the UN panel, spoke about low-carbon electrification and investing in those projects. That’s why Premier Ford is working with Algoma Steel and Dofasco to electrify the arc furnace. That’s supporting jobs, Mr. Speaker, and it’s taking two million cars off the road. That’s why, in this report, they called for investments in public transit. There is no government in this province’s history that has invested more in public transit than Premier Ford and this government.

Speaker, we’re going to continue to make the investments we need to provide clean jobs for the next generation. For the immigrant looking to come to this province, we’ll have a home for them and a clean job for generations to come.

Speaker, we know they can’t see the forest through the trees, but on this side of the House, we’re going to continue making investments to support clean jobs, clean growth and a low-carbon future for Ontarians.

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.

I’d like to thank the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan for that excellent question. He’s right: Too often we hear this false choice. Environmental protection and economic development go hand in hand, and that’s a belief of this government. In fact, that worrying false dichotomy presents a fundamental lack of belief in Ontarians and in the potential of the men and women in the north.

Speaker, there is no net-zero without mining. In the north, the corridor to prosperity means the critical minerals we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

Just this past week, I approved, with my powers under the Environmental Assessment Act, Generation PGM’s Marathon mine project. This approval is a guarantee that this vital project will go forward for the people of northern Ontario.

Ontario is leading Canada, showing that by working with businesses, not taxing them, we can realize the potential of the north, work hand in hand with Indigenous partners, and ensure that Ontario is at the forefront of decarbonization.

Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate it. I listened intently as the member opposite said, why are we discussing energy? It’s not surprising when they bankrolled the previous government’s drastic energy price increase through a carbon tax on heating and on fuel. But my question to this member is, carbon capture, storage and utilization are really important. Can you talk a bit more about that? It’s so important to work with industry and with everyday Ontarians as we support environmental solutions. I appreciate the work being done. Can you share more with the House on that?