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.

I appreciate the interest from the member opposite.

When it comes to adaptation resiliency, investing in the future, this Premier is taking decisive action, be it in manufacturing of clean steel—we’ve taken decisive action that has resulted in the equivalent of over two million cars off the road—be it the first-ever Critical Minerals Strategy that is working in partnership with Indigenous leaders in the north to ensure that we’re going to continue being a leader in electric-vehicle manufacturing and attracting over $16 billion in investment into this province.

We’ve also—working with stakeholders like the insurance bureau on the climate change impact panel—worked on the first-ever adaptation climate report in the province’s history, and we’ll continue working with all levels of government to ensure that we build resiliency and adaptation, not just today but for generations to come.

If that member wants to be part of action, then join and actually act. Work with your local organizations’ Canada-Ontario agreements, the Great Lakes Local Action Fund. Work with local groups on the many funding envelopes open today to take meaningful climate action. The reason she is not is because they’re not actually interested in that; they’re interested in cheap political points. We’re interested in clean jobs of the future, taking meaningful climate action, and we’ll continue to do that.