Yes. Well, I’ve had a lot of people in this House as mentors over the years, quite frankly. But I think what matters most is that you bring some passion to this place because you actually believe what you’re saying; you’re not doing it because it’s some invented thing, because that’s what the backrooms are telling you—you believe that these are the things that you care about. Because do you know what? When you talk to the people on the street in your own ridings, that’s what you’re hearing from them.

Do we get it right all the time? Do I get it right all the time? Just ask my wife. No, I don’t, but I don’t expect to. But if you can sit down at the end of the day and look yourself in the mirror and say, “I believe we’re doing a good job for the people of my riding”—which I believe everybody does. That is why we’re here in the first place.

We do understand that situation, and we do respect the wish of First Nations and the right of First Nations for consultation.

I don’t think the 30-day waiting period is the big issue. The big issue is the general consultation requirements under section 35 of the Constitution. You’ve heard from our Minister of Indigenous Affairs—that is of an absolute, utmost importance and one we are fully committed to.

Yes, yes.

So maybe we could build a home on that property so that one of the children of that farmer could also maintain a life on that farm, live and work it. Up until now, you can’t do it. We want to do it in Bill 97. They’re against it.

Speaker, every single piece of legislation that we have brought forward, whether it’s to provide jobs in this province—we lost over 300,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs under the last government that was supported almost always by the NDP. Every bill we brought forward to bring new housing starts to Ontario so that we can build that supply, so the price will slowly but surely come down, if the supply dictates it—they voted against it. They continue to vote against relief for taxpayers and the red tape burden relief for businesses so that we continue to keep building those and help them create those jobs.

We’re bringing more jobs to the province in a time frame than we’ve ever done in the history of the province.

We have over 15 million people in this province now, and we’re going to have more and more every year because of our immigration policies, which we need—we need more population, but we’ve got—

All I can say is, I haven’t been living rent-free in the heads of the NDP for the last 20 years—but I do believe at least it has been under rent controls, because you believe in them for no matter what kind of rent it is.

Anyway, let’s talk about environmental assessment. We see the process as being absolutely, critically important, but we don’t believe that a 30-day waiting period, once all the consultations have been completed, is in the best interests of anyone, because if anyone believed there was an issue there, they’ve had umpteen weeks, days, months, whatever the case may be—they’ve had ample time to exercise their right to comment. And the reality is, even once things are done, people continue to comment. People are commenting about environmental things that were done 20 years ago. We live in a free country. They can comment any time they want.

But we’re going to make sure we build Ontario.

You’ve heard question period here for the last several months, and you actually just have to shake your head. Are they really talking to real people out there or are they just talking to their inside advisers? Are they stuck in their own echo chamber and have never actually gotten out there and talked to the real people? That suits us fine, because they’re actually hurting themselves.

I say to the member: We’ve talked to the people—but we haven’t just talked; we’ve heard, and we’ve listened. We’ve listened to what they want—and also to try to protect our foreign workers when they come to work here, so that we can prevent what happened, for example, during the pandemic, so that they have adequate housing. We have very good agricultural people and leaders who want to see those people protected, but under the current rules, they can’t do it. We’re going to make sure they can do it. All we need is for the NDP to pull their heads out of the sands and actually support us.

I’m not sure where the member comes from. They dig these things up, and they think that this is the smoking gun of smoking guns.

The reality is that we take a holistic approach to governance, and we’re making sure that all the issues that need to be dealt with are dealt with. We’re making sure that we bring in the private sector. We respect the public’s need to know. Accountability and transparency are paramount to this government.

So when I hear the NDP going on and on about something, that they think they’ve found the holy grail here—the reality is, on June 2, the people said, “Mr. Doug Ford, we like the job you’re doing. Keep doing it.”

It’s a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 69 this morning.

We heard from our two respective ministers yesterday. And I heard from members of the opposition. We heard them in the second reading debate as well, and they’re really challenged, quite frankly, to come up with something legitimate when it comes to the criticism. They’re just throwing 77 tentacles out there hoping they can say something negative about the government, because—surprise, surprise, to the people of Ontario—the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives do not agree. The NDP does not agree with us.

Well, we’re very, very happy that the NDP does not agree with us. Do you know why? Because the people of Ontario do agree, and they want to see progress in this province—and that has been the catchword for everything we have done since 2018, when we were first elected.

They’re throwing everything about every possible bill—they look at Bill 69, and they don’t talk about what’s in the bill; they throw out all of these ghosts and goblins hidden under the bed that may or may not exist. “We’re the NDP, and we’re here to protect you, so we’re going to warn you about every possible UFO that might be out there that the Tories are going to put on you.” The member from Hamilton—several words in that Hamilton riding there—went on about how there are really these fearful things out there. It’s just an exercise in fiction that’s coming from the opposition, because they don’t have any real, legitimate criticism on the bill—because, you see, it dovetails with their whole modus operandi when it comes to being critical of our government.

They speak to our housing bill—or “bills,” I should say, and so one has to ask themselves the question. Thank God the Conservatives are here to actually get housing built here in the province of Ontario, because if it were left to the NDP, there would be nothing built, or the alternative would be that the government would build and own everything, and this would be—well, that’s kind of communism, isn’t it? That’s what they want. They want a completely socialist system when it comes to housing.

They hate developers, but yesterday, the member from Niagara Centre, who’s here with us, was asking us to do something positive for developers, because, you see, they’re so conflicted. It must be tough sleeping when you’re like a pretzel. The bed has got to be uncomfortable because you’ve got yourself twisted in so many knots tat you don’t know what you’re actually saying.

So the people of Ontario are not buying any of it.

Every morning, I see the Leader of the Opposition ask her questions, and even she’s probably putting her hand on her forehead and saying, “Why did I sign up for this?” And you see the members behind her with these downtrodden looks, saying, “This is all we’ve got? The same old story every day? No new narrative, no positive initiatives for the people of the province of Ontario?”

Just to be—

As she knows, that’s not a point of order. If we were going on points of order on those kinds of narratives, you people wouldn’t have a thing to say in this House. That’s just the reality. You can’t stick to the subject—not once, not ever—because you have nothing to say about the subject.

So here they’re going on about this 30-day waiting period for a class environmental assessment, which my minister spoke to yesterday.

When there is a class environmental assessment, the consultation process goes on for, not days, not weeks, but months. When the proposal is first initiated, that consultation process goes on continuously until that class EA is granted. Under the current legislation, you then have to wait 30 days, where you just do nothing and wait. Anybody who has anything material to say about that proposal has already made their views known. This is a period of limbo so that nothing actually happens.

To the point that was being made by my good colleague from Thornhill: Projects that could get started in the fall get delayed and then can’t start until the following spring because, as you know, here in Canada and Ontario, we have winter. So we’ve now delayed that project not 30 days, but several months, because of that key window that we haven’t been able to act in.

I’m going to draw a little analogy. This is what the NDP really wants. A young couple are dating and they’re going through the engagement process. They’re getting to know one another—that’s like a consultation process—and this goes on for perhaps a year. They’ve met the families. They’ve met the relatives. They’ve dated and have gone places. They’ve talked about their future together. They’ve really thought this out. Then, they decide they’re getting married. Then, just like I did many, many years ago—my wife and I got married. But according to the NDP, then there should be a 30-day waiting period before they can go on the honeymoon. That’s what they want to do in this province. They want you now to go into a 30-day limbo. “We’ve done all the talking, but no, we can’t really move ahead because we’ve got a 30-day waiting period, for no particular reason.”

The NDP go on and on and say, “Well, somehow, some lightning bolt is going to come down and is going to change something that has been talked about for a year, and all of a sudden we’re going to get”—it’s good governance to wait 30 days simply for the purpose of waiting 30 days?

Let’s be clear: This does not mean that the 30-day waiting period is gone. What it means is that the minister can decree that the 30-day waiting period in this particular case is not necessary; that we can proceed with the projects—vital projects such as waste water and sewage projects—in our communities.

I’ve got a couple of projects listed here that were subject to this 30-day waiting period. Maybe the NDP could tell us that that was a good thing to do—to hold these up for 30 days.

In the city of Brampton, Clark Boulevard and Eastern Avenue—that’s Rutherford Road to Kennedy Road—a project under the municipal class environmental assessment held up for 30 days. Did anybody object during those 30 days? Perhaps the people in the opposition, who seem to know everything, could tell me if there was an objection to that project in that 30-day period. No, there was not. You see, that’s just one.

“But this is the most important issue facing the people of Ontario right now. We’ve got to make sure we have that 30-day waiting period because there might be that lightning bolt.”

Another one is the region of Peel’s Front Street waste water pumping station and waste water diversion addendum project under the municipal class environmental assessment.

These are municipal projects that have already been proven, taken to all the necessary thought process and checks and balances—and the municipality has approved them, and they want them. And do you know what? The residents of Clark Boulevard and Eastern Avenue want them too. But let’s just wait another 30 days because the NDP believes there could be something really, really critical to come forward and tell us we shouldn’t do it, we should wait longer. This is the party of “wait and get nothing done.” This is the party that wouldn’t build anything in this province except if it was government-operated and government-owned.

Where is the incentive to anyone to actually build anything?

We’re committed to 1.5 million homes in this province by 2031, and we have standing in front of us an obstreperous opposition that doesn’t want anything done. They get up there on their high horse and try to pretend that somehow they’re doing it because it’s in the best interests of the public. Well, I’m going to tell you, they’re doing it because they believe it satisfies their stakeholders.

Speaker, I want to give them a little advice, not that they’ve ever taken any advice from me and not that they’re going to take this advice from me—but maybe if it came from someone else and there’s someone else other than me out there who would be more than happy to give them the same advice.

You’ve got it all wrong. You got it wrong in the last election in 2022.

They’re sitting here with 31 members, and they think they’re doing just fine because the Liberals have less than they had before with all the retirements and moving on to other things. But the reality is, the Liberal vote went up in 2022. The NDP vote went down. Our vote went up. So only one of the three main foundational parties here—their vote went down. Why did it go down? They like to use the term “out of touch.” Well, man, they ain’t even close to feeling distance, let alone touch. They can’t even get a static shock, they’re so far away from the real people of Ontario—and they voiced that in 2022, and they’re going to voice it in a big way in 2026.

You are narrowing your scope every day because you’re being taken over by the wings in your party who just want to look at the socialist, leftist view of everything out there. You’re doing yourselves a disservice, and you’re doing the people of Ontario a disservice. Your members—many of your people sitting there today won’t be here in 2026, because your party doesn’t understand what is happening in the real people’s homes across Ontario. Do you know what? When they get up in the morning, they’re thankful that they’ve got a job. Do you know what else they’re thankful for? They’re thankful that there’s a government here in Ontario that is going to make sure that not only do they have a job, but when their children are old enough to go out and work, they’re going to have a good job too, in the industries in Ontario that we have cultivated by good government policy.

Do we create the jobs? Of course we don’t. But it is incumbent upon us, as it is on every single member, regardless of your myopic philosophy, to create a future in this province so that the people, the next generation, will have the jobs to raise the families, and to make sure that Ontario continues to be the best place to live, work, raise a family and play—anywhere in Ontario or perhaps the world.

So when they stand here, and simply for the purpose of criticizing—oh, my goodness. I listened to the hour lead on Bill 69, on the second reading.

By the way, Speaker, did you know that they didn’t even stand up and vote against the second reading of Bill 69? They talked for hours about all of the terrible things that Bill 69 is going to do, but they didn’t even vote against it. They voted on division, because they’re so confused ]about what is right for the people of the province of Ontario.

I know the member from Hamilton didn’t like me talking about what’s going on in the backrooms. I don’t have to be in the backrooms; I can see through the wall. They’re having discussions every day, wondering why—some people in that party are asking themselves, “Why do we keep going down this same road every day?”

Yes, this province is facing a housing crisis, and we need every single level of government working together to get it fixed.

They seem to think that when we remove charges, remove taxes, remove impediments so that we can build more houses, that’s a bad thing. They want to stick things in the way—more red tape, more impediments, that drive up the cost of housing.

We’re doing things that will bring down the cost of housing, but it will only work when the supply is satisfactory to meet the demand. We can’t get there if we don’t start with the legislation, the regulations—the removal of regulations and creating the environment that allows it to happen.

As much as they would like to have the government build every single home in this province and put it on locked-in rent for life—nobody is going to build them. Somebody has to be in the business of actually doing something to earn a profit.

They talk about non-profit health care, for example—public health. Health care is public in this province. Everybody who has an OHIP card, or even those without one, has the right to province-paid health care in this province. But the health care system is one of the most profitable in the world. Do you think the people who put beds in hospitals and medical supplies and everything else that goes into hospitals are doing it on a not-for-profit basis? The health care system is full of profit. We provide health care for anyone at no cost in this province of Ontario, but the system is massively profitable—the development, the research, everything, everybody who is in the system.

So when they talk about public, being non-profit, everything—it’s not the case.

What we have to do is make sure we have the most efficient and effective way of delivering those services. That’s what we’re doing with Bill 97, the new housing bill. Bill 97, which they’re railing against—they want everybody to live in a condo in Toronto, for example. It’s the only place you should live. It’s the only place we should build them. It just shows their bias and prejudice against rural Ontario, when we’re trying to do something—so if you’ve got a farm with nice acreage and you’re making a living on that farm, and your son and/or daughter or their families would like to stay on that farm, we would like to see that farm continue, because the people who begin the process of putting food on our table are some of the most important people to this province. We need our farmers.

Interjections.

Thank you to the member from Oshawa. I don’t think the member actually understands what we’re actually doing here, the way she’s spoken about this 30-day waiver. This only gives the minister the ability and the authority to waive the 30-day waiting period after the assessment has been fully completed and consulted on—after. These are about standard projects like waste water and water in a municipality, things that municipalities need badly, and they want this.

I’m going to ask the member, categorically: Is what you’re telling us here today that you would rather see those projects wait another 30 days rather than allowing a municipality to get quicker access to clean drinking water?

So that’s why we’re changing it.

I want to thank the member for that question. I want to make it very clear that the EA process is not in any way being compromised. The proposed legislative amendments are minor and will not have any impact on the existing class EAs or environmental protection. The EA process requires proponents to assess potential environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures and consult with Indigenous communities, the public and stakeholders before the project can proceed.

Again, this process is not affected. To be clear, the environmental assessment standards will remain in place.

What we’re doing here today is ensuring that when there’s an approval, there is no 30-day waiting period for municipalities—which are the number one proponents of most of these EAs and are the ones that are most involved in it. So there’s no requirement to wait 30 days while you’re twiddling your thumbs and contractors are waiting to get the job done. We can waive that period. It is now within the purview of the minister—and every situation will be judged by the minister, but the minister will have that opportunity and that authority to waive that 30-day waiting period should they choose, and that is going to move projects ahead more quickly, more effectively and perhaps even avoid the winter season to get a job done.

You need people with skilled trades, I say to the PA for health. She’s on top of this one. You can’t build the hospitals or anything else if you don’t have the skilled tradespeople. And what are we doing? Well, Minister McNaughton is changing the game completely in how we develop and produce skilled workers in this province.

So where are we going in this province? We’re shooting for the moon, folks. In the 1960s, when the race was on to the moon in the United States, and President Kennedy said, “We’re going to have a man on the moon”—he did say a man. Today, we would be putting someone of any gender on the moon—“We are going to put a man on the moon and we’re going to get there before the Russians,” and they did because they were committed to doing just that. Well, we’re committed to reaching for the moon, reaching for the stars here in Ontario, because we are sending a message to the world that there is no better place—no better place—to establish than right here in Ontario.

Now, I’ve got to tell you a little—so some of the things—I’m going to run out of time, believe it or not. Public transit: I have been listening to the Minister of Infrastructure talk about public transit like it’s—my wife would say, “Veik ir pika.” She never stops. “Veik ir pika,” she’d say—German words; I don’t know exactly what they mean—but when I’m talking too much, my wife will say, “Veik ir pika.”

But the minister never stops talking about public transit and how we’re building that here. When we came into government in 2018, people were wondering how we’re actually going to move people here in the city of Toronto. This is a world-class city, Toronto, and it’s got a world-class, soon-to-be Stanley Cup champion hockey team, and I’m looking forward to that parade. I’m looking forward to that parade. It’s a world-class city, but you can’t be a world-class city without a world-class transit system.

So when Premier Ford was elected, he came out, and the minister, with an ambitious plan to make our transit system part of that world-class city, and that’s what we’re doing. So people can say, “Not only do I have a city that I can be proud of, a city that, down the road, years from now, decades from now is still going to be on the cutting edge”—because they saw the future.

Cellphone gap and high-speed Internet: What a change that is making to people’s lives here in Ontario—what a change. Every home connected by 2025—that’s ambitious, but we’re on schedule. In fact, I think we may be ahead of schedule.

I want to tell you a story about the Internet. So I called a little lady yesterday for her birthday. We were talking about a number of different things, and she was articulating to me a number of stories. One of them was a little private joke between her and her daughter about five dollars. I’d have to tell you the whole story and I won’t have enough time for that, but it was just an interesting story about the dynamic between a mother and daughter and the five dollars.

And then she was telling me a story about when she had leaking pipes in the basement and the two fellows that came to repair them. Somehow, she got to saying that, “It doesn’t matter what you call me. You can call me ‘Hey, you,’ if you want.” And the guy thought her name was “Hey, you”—just an interesting story.

But this is what I was talking about to this lady, and we started to talk about how the world has changed—how the world has changed in her lifetime. I was on the phone with this lady for 15 minutes—nice, robust voice; never missed a beat; right on top of things—telling me that her daughter cut my father’s hair when he would be in Renfrew. When he would be in the constituency office—his constituency office was in Renfrew—her daughter would cut my father’s hair, and my father has been gone since 1987.

But anyway, in the process, then, of wishing this absolutely wonderful woman—she only goes by Peg. I didn’t call her “Peggy”; she goes by Peg, or “Hey, you,” if I chose to, she said. But she’s talking about the Internet and different things, and how it has changed. And now the Internet is such a vast, different, but important thing for people today.

Oh, by the way, did I tell you that Peg Clemow of Renfrew, Ontario, was 103 yesterday? Just so you understand the vitality of our citizenry and the people, and how blessed we are to have people like that among us who can talk about—they can’t talk about what they read about life in the Depression; they can actually tell you about life in the Depression.

We don’t experience those kinds of things today, because we have governance in a different way that builds in protections, backstops and supports for those vulnerable and less able to take care of themselves. We don’t have those kinds of impacts today that we had back then, but we still do have ups and downs in the economy.

I’ll tell you what people want: They want a government they trust enough—that has their finger on the pulse, as my dad used to say, to understand and not just react, but to be ahead of the game, so to speak, so that when those times come, they’ve already laid down and laid ahead the road map for recovery. You’re constantly in a state of recovery and decline in economies today, and bouncing back. The future here in Ontario—we know that these are troubling times and troubled times, with war in Ukraine and Russia seemingly intent on taking over a sovereign nation that is a neighbour, not respecting the borders of another nation, which is impacting us all over the world, particularly in Europe. But none of us is immune to the events of the world today.

I think the Speaker used a word today that was basically implying the nature of our world today being so small. We want to continue to be a player. It’s a big world on one hand, but a small world on the other, and we want to make sure that this province continues to be an important player in that world. That’s why we are making the necessary changes to legislation in Ontario.

I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: How courageous, knowing that there would be pushback for those who don’t understand or don’t want to understand the importance of building homes if you’re going to attract more people to your province. If the population is going up, Minister McNaughton, with Premier Ford and many other ministers—Minister Dunlop, with skills development—we’re making sure that we’re producing the people to fill those jobs. With Minister Fedeli, Minister Surma and others, we’re making sure that we’ll have the jobs.

But if we’ve got the people and we’ve got the jobs, we’ve got to have a place for them to live. Minister Clark, through the Premier’s plans, is making sure that people who come to this province—half a million people are going to be coming to Canada each year according to the federal government. The vast bulk of those are coming to Ontario. We’ve got to make sure that we have a place for them to stay. This government is forward-facing, forward-looking and forward-planning, so that the Ontario of the future is the best Ontario that you will ever see.

I want to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for her leadership on this issue and for recognizing how important it is that everything that we do in this government dovetails with our plan to build Ontario and make life better for the people who call Ontario home. There are so many entities that she has touched on in this bill, and it actually speaks to the importance of recognizing that government is not one little thing here and another little thing there; it’s a group, a conglomeration, of many ministries and entities, and sometimes it would appear that they’re working at cross-purposes. So by bringing these all together, it makes it much more efficient and keeps us focused on our promise which we made in 2018 to build Ontario and make it open for business.

I’m going to get back to some of that a little later, but first I want to deliver remarks on behalf of the ministry that I am the parliamentary assistant for, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, which kind of has a half of this bill, but a very important one, and I’ll tell you why.

I’m here almost 20 years—I know, I know; the best-before date has long expired, some might say. But for every one of those 20 years, what I have heard from people in my riding is, “Yak, why does it have to be so” blank “complicated? Why is government always making it more difficult, not less difficult, to get it done?” Isn’t that a phrase that we used in our campaigns—get it done? That’s what this bill is all about.

I am going to read the remarks that I have here and then I’ll get back to some things.

Again, I want to thank Minister Surma.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ proposal for Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023. With this bill, our government is proposing to continue our efforts to modernize Ontario’s almost 50-year-old environmental assessment process.

Like a house that is 50 years old, while the foundation is still strong, it requires updates to reflect the changes that have occurred over the past five decades, because today our environmental assessment process is too slow and too unnecessarily burdensome and costly. We believe that Ontarians deserve better. We believe that our environmental assessment program should be effective and efficient. It should deliver strong environmental oversight and consultation opportunities, while supporting and building our strong economy. We can accomplish both. We can no longer afford to do things in the older, slower, less efficient way.

Today’s global economy moves at too quickly a rate, and Ontario cannot afford to be left behind. That’s why our government is looking at smarter, more modern ways of doing business. We want to make sure that important public services and infrastructure, including roads and bridges, can get shovels into the ground faster without unnecessary costs and delays.

For the long-term, we are committed to building a strong environmental assessment program that considers the input of local communities and ensures that we focus on projects that have the highest impact on the environment—things that Ontarians expect of us, things that Ontarians deserve from us.

With the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023, we are proposing to build Ontario and provide appropriate environmental oversight by continuing to modernize Ontario’s environmental assessment program to better serve Ontario now and into the future. We are proposing a sensible, practical change—a change that would provide environmental oversight while reducing delays to get shovels in the ground on projects that matter most to Ontario communities.

But let me be crystal clear: Environmental standards and protections will remain in place and continue to be a top priority for our government as we work to ensure Ontario has good-paying jobs, affordable housing and a strong economy.

I’m pleased to report that our government has already taken steps to modernize the environmental assessment process. We have been taking a phased approach to advance various components. In April 2019, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks released a discussion paper with broad themes for modernization. Subsequently, the Environmental Assessment Act was amended.

In June 2019, through the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, the Environmental Assessment Act was amended to exempt over 350 low-impact projects. In July 2020, the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, further amended the act, allowing for the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to begin to transform the environmental assessment program by working on implementing regulations and carrying out consultation. And in December 2021, a minor amendment was made to the act to make it clear that a class environmental assessment can be amended to change the projects that can follow that process.

Today’s proposed change to the Environmental Assessment Act marks a small but important step in our journey to modernize Ontario’s environmental assessment program.

So what are we proposing? Today, our government is proposing a change to the Environmental Assessment Act to provide the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks the ability to waive or alter the 30-day review period, allowing projects to begin sooner. The current environmental assessment program requires a 30-day review period between when a class environmental assessment is completed and when the proponent may begin project activities.

To help the members of the Legislature here today, I will give you a brief overview of a class environmental assessment. Class environmental assessments can be developed for classes of undertakings that are similar, routine in nature, they have known potential environmental effects that are predictable and well understood and they can be managed through established impact management methods. The class environmental assessment establishes a planning process for projects that fall within the class of undertakings, such as a municipal class environmental assessment for municipal infrastructure projects or a class environmental assessment for minor electricity transmission facilities. The majority of all class environmental assessments are undertaken by municipalities. A class environmental assessment is a proponent-led self-assessment process.

This means that a project that falls within the class of undertakings in a class environmental assessment is approved as long as the proponent successfully completes the approved planning process in the class environmental assessment. There is no formal Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks approval required for the class environmental assessment project. Let me assure you that any class environmental assessment requires public consultation and a comment period.

The current environmental assessment process requires a 30-day review period between when a class environmental assessment is completed and when the proponent may begin project activities. This 30-day period provides the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks with the opportunity to require the proponent to undertake a higher level of environmental assessment. For those 30 days, once a project has completed class EA requirements and there are no outstanding issues, the project cannot proceed. For 30 days, permits cannot be issued. The project cannot proceed, and everyone involved just waits until this 30-day period expires. In many cases, this is an unnecessary delay. In many cases, this is an unacceptable delay.

Just imagine a municipality waiting to begin a much-needed infrastructure project, like the building of a bridge or widening of a road critical to the lifeblood of their town. Imagine that municipality being ready and able to start a project at the beginning of August, wanting to get it under way and make progress while the weather is still warm. Then imagine that you are that municipality, and you are being told that, no, you’re going to have to wait 30 days, even though you’ve done an excellent job on your class environmental assessment and the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has absolutely no reason or plans to require you to undertake a higher level of environmental assessment. You have to wait for no good reason but that you have to wait.

I cannot think of a better example—sorry, let’s say a worse example—of unnecessary red tape. This government, our government, is committed to cutting unnecessary and burdensome red tape which is preventing Ontario’s people and businesses from reaching their full potential. Over the last four years, this government, our government, has reduced the estimated net annual cost of complying with regulations for businesses, not-for-profits, municipalities, colleges and universities, school boards and hospitals by—listen closely now—$576 million. This achievement actually far exceeds the target we set in March 31, 2022, of $400 million. We’re ahead of schedule, and we’re going to stay that way.

But we’re not done. As part of our plan for building Ontario, we are continuing our efforts to reduce red tape, to help create jobs and make it easier to invest and build here in Ontario while ensuring appropriate regulatory oversights remain in place to protect the public, workers and the environment.

Currently, there is no ability for the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to unilaterally waive the 30-day period, even if there is no intention or plan to intervene. It should be noted that the waiving of the 30-day period has previously occurred to move a road construction project forward more quickly, but to do so required a time-consuming Lieutenant Governor in Council regulation. In August of last year, a Lieutenant Governor in Council regulation exempted Bombardier Inc., in partnership with the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel, from the prohibition on proceeding with the Derry Road East and Alstep Drive road improvements during the 30-day period. This decision allowed Bombardier Inc. to proceed with road construction faster and not miss the construction season timing. How important was that? Construction was to begin in the fall of 2022, with the target completion date of spring of 2023.

If the amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act are made, in the future such an exemption could be provided through a minister’s order, avoiding the need for an LGIC regulation, avoiding the need for unnecessary delays in critical infrastructure projects with no outstanding issues—projects that are needed to keep Ontarians moving.

That is why today, our government is proposing a change to the Environmental Assessment Act to provide the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks with the ability to waive or alter the 30-day review period, allowing those important projects to begin sooner. Class environmental assessment proponents, including municipalities, that have completed the relevant process would directly benefit if their projects are able to get shovels in the ground sooner.

Let me assure you, Speaker, that the changes we are proposing today would not reduce environmental oversight. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks remains committed to maintaining oversight for projects that may significantly impact our communities and ecosystems.

I hope I’ve fully explained the amendments this government is proposing here today to the Environmental Assessment Act as part of the proposal for Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023. I’m asking for the support of all members of the Legislature in helping to pass this bill, a bill that would eliminate unnecessary red tape, a bill that would be welcomed by municipalities and other proponents looking to provide much-needed infrastructure in our province, a bill that will help build Ontario.

That is the information I’m providing today from my ministry, the ministry that I’m the PA to. I’m proud to be here this morning to bring that clarification and that message from my minister, the Honourable David Piccini.

Now, I do have some time left—a fair bit of time, actually—and I do want to comment somewhat on the address of the Minister of Infrastructure this morning, too. I’m going to tidy up these papers a little bit. It’s the first time I’ve ever had papers given to me that are written on both sides and I actually find that a little cumbersome, to be honest with you. My eyes aren’t that good that I can read the page numbers that are really, really small at the bottom. But somehow we got through it, and I hope the message was understood and clear.

Speaking of a clear message—I want to thank the minister this morning for her message explaining why we are bringing forth this legislation. It is so much completely tied in and dovetails with our plan for Ontario. But we can’t make that kind of progress if we aren’t bringing forth the kind of legislation that provides for the vehicle to get it done. She has touched on so many entities that will be impacted and affected, even the changes with real estate and the inefficiencies that exist because government is complicated.

I get back to my riding, where people say, “Why do things have to be so complicated?” And that’s exactly what they are. But from the time that Premier Ford was running in the 2018 provincial election—he was not the Premier yet, of course—he made it clear that we’re going to make life in Ontario less complicated. Because we are in a worldwide battle, a worldwide battle to bring jobs and businesses and manufacturing back to Ontario.

You have to remember—and for those of us who were here, like myself, years ago, we saw the devastation that was brought to Ontario by the previous Liberal government in our manufacturing sector. I know my friend from Essex understands it as well as anybody because that’s one of the areas in the province where manufacturing is such a key component of their Ontario. We saw literally the hollowing out of our sector because the Liberals had no interest in getting a board in the game of real life in the world we live in today. So while other jurisdictions were taking our jobs away, they sat there kind of dumbfounded and thought that somehow the tooth fairy would come along, they would have a tooth and a wish under the pillow and everything would be fine in Ontario. But it didn’t happen. It just didn’t happen.

We saw 300,000 jobs—remember: These are the well-paying jobs in Ontario. The manufacturing jobs are the ones where people say, “Boy, I hope I can get a job at factory XYZ or whatever, because that’s a job that is going to provide me with a good living to raise my family and have a good retirement when I’m done, and be a good part of the middle class.” But those jobs were disappearing, and do you know what happens when those jobs disappear? So do the people. The people who wanted those jobs and could be benefited by those jobs start to find other places to live and work and raise a family, because you’ve got to go where the jobs are. So we’re sending a message out to the world today: Come on home. Come on home to Ontario, where you belong and where you always did belong, because we are now building the Ontario that works for you. That is what were doing here in Ontario, and I’m so proud to part of this team that is laser-focused.

There are many, many things that you have to do in government. Some of them are the mundane things of just operating the business as usual, making sure that people have the necessary supports that are important in a society such as ours. They’re kind of the day-to-day things. We’ve got to make sure that the Treasury Board can cut the cheques and pay the bills and all of those kinds of things. But if you’re really, truly going to face the future, you better be looking into that looking glass and getting an idea of what the future is going to look like so you’re actually in the game when the future arrives, because tomorrow is just a day away. Tomorrow is just a day away, and if you want to live in yesterday, then tomorrow is going to pass you by. That’s not going to happen in Ontario under our leadership.

The minister talked about the things that we’re doing to support families, and I just wrote a few of them down here. The gas tax cut: You know, the folks on the other side didn’t like that. They didn’t think we should be doing that, but on June 2, Ontario thought we should be doing that. Because we took our budget—Minister Bethlenfalvy brought forth the budget last year, and we took it to the people, and the people gave it a resounding—not just a pass; it was an honours pass. They didn’t just re-elect us; they re-elected us with a higher number of seats than before, one of the biggest Conservative seat totals in history. And the opposition, on the other hand, lost seats. They lost seats because they wanted to campaign on yesterday. Premier Ford campaigned on tomorrow.

We saw what was happening across the country with the federal government and their punitive carbon tax. It is hurting every single family across the province. And we said, “We’ve got to do something that will help them.” So we’re cutting the gas tax, but at the same time we are making historic investments in infrastructure, hospitals, schools. What did I hear the Premier say yesterday? There’s $50 billion in hospital projects on schedule in this province, approved and ready to go—$50 billion in hospital projects in this province. And do you know what you need to build hospitals?