Further debate?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1519 to 1529.

Motion negatived.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 24, 2023, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 69, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to infrastructure / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant diverses lois sur les infrastructures.

Start the clock. Back to the member from Oshawa.

The backroom is where you elect your leaders.

I am pleased to once again rise in this fine Legislature and debate Bill 69.

Interjections.

Interjections.

This is my second opportunity to stand as the critic for the Ontario NDP, for the official opposition. I am the critic for infrastructure, transportation and highways. Seeing as how this is an infrastructure bill, I get to speak for another hour. I have done a one-hour speech on this bill. It has been to and through committee, back out the other side and has come back to this Legislature, and I hope everyone is looking forward to a full hour about this bill today.

I will reassure the Speaker and the folks listening at home and in this room that it will not actually be the identical speech that I gave before, because we have new information. We have many new voices to share in this House from those who came to committee from across the province.

This is a bill that is just two schedules: one which is focused on infrastructure; one with a focus on environmental conservation—or, in this case, a lack thereof. I’m going to mix it up today, so rather than going in order—schedule 1, and then 2—I’m going to go with schedule 2 and then schedule 1, because I want, as the critic for infrastructure, to highlight a few things that have come to light since our last discussion.

Schedule 2 of this bill is about putting a number of government agencies underneath the Infrastructure Ontario umbrella. It is not something I’m particularly clear on the why of, and that was not something that the minister—although I appreciate the minister came to committee and answered questions, and we’re always glad when ministers come to committee. But I’m still not clear on how transferring control of these particular properties to the Minister of Infrastructure is going to make things better. I have heard about land use and whatnot, and bringing these different entities under that Infrastructure Ontario umbrella, but I don’t know how it’s going to make everything better. And so, we are all watching and waiting. There are actually 34 agencies that could be considered, but in this case I believe it is 14 of the 34 that the government has chosen to pull in.

Speaker, Infrastructure Ontario, as we have seen from the Auditor General report in 2017, leaves something to be desired when it comes to property management. We’re not entirely sure what the problem is that this government is planning to solve with this amendment, this schedule, because Infrastructure Ontario doesn’t do such a great job in managing its properties, and so pulling more in—I would ask that they prove the thinking there, and that hasn’t happened yet.

This is a government that is passing a law empowering it to force agencies like the Ontario Securities Commission, EQAO or FSRA to give up control over their real estate interests, and Infrastructure Ontario, like I said, doesn’t have a great track record, so I’m going to share a little bit from the Auditor General’s report for real estate services and Infrastructure Ontario. They were really criticized for their poor management of government properties. This is from that report, to frame it for folks:

“The Ontario Realty Corporation was merged with Infrastructure Ontario—a crown agency then predominantly responsible for managing alternative financing and procurement (AFP) arrangements ... and municipal lending. The entities merged to form the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation,” affectionately known as Infrastructure Ontario. “Under the act, Infrastructure Ontario is now also responsible for managing the province’s general real estate portfolio (government properties).”

It’s quite a report to read. I’m going to try not to be as in the weeds as I was a few weeks ago, because I think it’s easier to just hit on the high points here for understanding. But this is a direct quote from this report:

“While most land and buildings owned by ministries and their agencies are overseen by Infrastructure Ontario, 58 agencies have title and authority to manage their own property, such as the land and buildings owned by Metrolinx and the Royal Ontario Museum.” There’s an appendix here; one of those, by the way, is the Ontario Science Centre. Perhaps folks have been hearing about that lately, and I’m happy to share a little bit about that.

“Capital projects are funded in two ways: Ministries either request capital projects to be completed using their own funding, or Infrastructure Ontario identifies projects to be completed based on an assessment of need using capital funding from base rent and the ministry....

“Infrastructure Ontario allocates funding to external project managers at the beginning of the fiscal year, first to ongoing projects started in past years and then for new projects.”

However, “Infrastructure Ontario has outsourced the management of capital projects between $100,000 and $10 million to external project managers, but will manage some projects of less than $10 million itself at its discretion. It directly manages those that are between $10 million and $100 million.”

Why am I sharing all of these specifics? I’m getting there, Speaker.

Again, from the report, in terms of deferred capital maintenance: “Ideally, all required repair and maintenance work should be performed when the need is identified.” To me, that would just be good practice. “In some cases, repair and maintenance work is deferred due to a lack of funding.

“The Facilities Conditions Index ... is an industry standard used to measure the relative condition of a building.” So think of a building in the portfolio. I don’t know; the Ontario Science Centre could be an example, or the Royal Ontario Museum could be an example. Think of a big building and think of the state of things.

“The Facilities Conditions Index,” as I just read, “is an industry standard used to measure the relative condition of a building.”

However, “Infrastructure Ontario calculates the index differently than the industry because it uses the Ontario government’s standard. This standard divides the cost of repairs required in the current and the next two years by the cost to replace the building.” So how we decide the condition of a building is different than the industry standard, “we” for illustrative purposes being Infrastructure Ontario.

According to the standard—oh, okay, no, that’s something else. Actually, what I was going to read is what the minister has been talking about in terms of how the size of an office should not exceed 180 rentable square feet. This is actually about the square footage, the number of people who work there and trying to keep it so we don’t have a whole bunch of vacant space, that we are actually maximizing use of our buildings and facilities. That is a recommendation from this report, and I will say that the Minister of Infrastructure has raised that as part of the impetus for this. But as we have asked, show us how these changes in this bill before us are going to fix the issues raised by the Auditor General. That is still not clear to me nor was it made clear during the course of debate or committee work.

So that’s a bit of the background and specifics about Infrastructure Ontario, but we, as Infrastructure Ontario, are responsible for capital maintenance and for looking after and keeping things in a good state of repair. However, the index is actually measured differently than the industry standard. That’s because it uses the Ontario government’s standard. I’m not playing fast and loose, but I’m trying to keep this at a level that is—well, that I can talk about for an hour, frankly.

Speaker, the Ontario Science Centre is an interesting example and is illustrative of what this bill is talking about, I think. Let me set this up: In this bill, in schedule 2, it is taking some government agencies and it is transferring control of these properties to the Minister of Infrastructure, which then basically, we’re to understand, will be looked after by Infrastructure Ontario. So why is this a good idea? How is this going to make things better when you have what is in effect a scathing report by the Auditor General about how poorly things are managed, whether it’s snow removal or capital repairs, by Infrastructure Ontario?

Then we have the Ontario Science Centre. We’ve been talking a lot about it and its state of repair, the condition that it exists in. People have talked about their memories or taking the bridge, the pedestrian footpath, and now they can’t. It’s not safe. It hasn’t been maintained etc. But what we haven’t been talking about is that it’s my understanding that Infrastructure Ontario was responsible for most of the Ontario Science Centre’s repairs, and not the science centre itself.

In fact, according to the 2022-23 business plan, it turns out that Infrastructure Ontario is technically the Ontario Science Centre’s landlord. So that plan also describes building conditions as being possibly a risk that ranks as medium-high. Ministry capital funding would be the solution, by the way, and that hasn’t happened. But it’s certainly not the tear-down that we’ve been hearing about from the minister.

Also, the government has talked about replacement costs, and so I would love if a government member—and maybe today is not the day, but I would love clarification if that $175-million replacement cost that’s mentioned in the Ontario Science Centre’s business plan, is that an insurance term? Is that based on what it would cost to replace it if it burned to the ground? The government is painting a picture, but I’d like to be clear on the numbers and I’d like to be clear on responsibility.

Because here we are debating a bill to take 14 of the 34 agencies and put them under Infrastructure Ontario. And yet we’re all looking at the science centre with interest these days, but we haven’t been acknowledging that Infrastructure Ontario is, in effect, its landlord. So the capital repairs that have not been done, the funding that has not been injected, the maintenance that has been lacking, I would say that that falls at the feet of Infrastructure Ontario. And here we are, in schedule 2, transferring control of more properties to the Minister of Infrastructure and, by extension, Infrastructure Ontario. So if I am mistaken, if I am presenting something that the government wants to challenge, I’m inviting that, because I believe that Ontarians should be very, very clear about their public spaces.

Speaker, that 2019-20 report talks about the 10-year deferred maintenance needs of the Ontario Science Centre: $147.5 million, and I think that’s what it would cost to upgrade everything to appropriate standards. I believe this would be the relevant comparator with respect to whether it would be cheaper to build something new at Ontario Place or renovate the existing building. These are big numbers, but they’re things that we should all be talking about. The huge estimated cost of the parking garage at Ontario Place—I’m sure that with that number, compared to the $147.5 million, building an entirely new Science Centre is going to be pretty expensive.

Something else of particular interest in the report says that their landlord, Infrastructure Ontario, and its private contractor, CBRE—which is responsible for facility management, and not the Ontario Science Centre itself—are responsible for the most worrisome aspects of the centre’s repair backlog. The risk assessment note in the 2019-20 business plan says that the science centre can capably manage the repairs that it controls—they can look after their own stuff—but that bigger issues include “the degree to which the centre is able to influence decisions related to building improvements,” suggesting that the landlord, Infrastructure Ontario, and its private contractor have been slacking in terms of repairs. This matters.

This bill, in schedule 2, is not moving the science centre. It’s not specific to the science centre, but it is specific to the management, the transferring of control of properties to Infrastructure Ontario, which is doing such a bang-up job when it comes to managing the contractors and overseeing the contractors who are supposed to be doing the repairs. That’s a chapter to this story that has been left out by the minister. Because I think when folks are thinking about the science centre, and they’re like, “Yes, it is in pretty rough shape”—why? Why has it been allowed to get there? It’s not like all of these repair needs suddenly popped up overnight. This has been an ongoing story of, in effect, landlord neglect.

Trace that back to, again, Infrastructure Ontario, and trace that back to a pattern completely and totally documented and laid out in the Real Estate Services report of the Auditor General back in 2017.

I remember sitting at committee, listening to the Auditor General and having the discussion with, at the time, those government members and others to talk about the challenges. This is a report that has specifics in it, testimony of folks who are supposed to be looked after by the contractors, who are supposed to be looked after by Infrastructure Ontario. They question the cleaning. Here’s a quote from the client ministry’s written comments on operating and maintenance services:

“[Our Ministry] questioned the cleaning services being provided to another building. [Our Ministry] was initially told by” Infrastructure Ontario “that certain services were not part of the cleaning contract, and [we] acquired a third-party vendor to perform those services.” Then, “It was recently discovered, after much persistence on [our] part for” Infrastructure Ontario “to verify the contract, that those services were in fact included in the original contract. [Our Ministry] has been paying twice and we are now in the process of rectifying this issue and hoping to be reimbursed for the error. We have estimated that we paid approximately $16,000 unnecessarily over the last five years.”

There are comments from client ministries about interior cleaning, about snow removal cleaning. I’m in the weeds, Speaker, but considering I get to speak for an hour, that’s fine. I think it’s worth painting a clearer picture, because when you listen to question period or when you listen to the minister, when you even watch the news right now, it’s kind of this top-line, “Oh, the Science Centre is in bad shape. We’re going to do something magical over here.” Why couldn’t you have done something magical all the way along and repair things? Look at their business plan.

Infrastructure Ontario is not directly responsible for shovelling the snow or fixing the foot path or what have you, but the facilities management contracts are managed by Infrastructure Ontario. Infrastructure Ontario is, it would seem, a neglectful landlord, and its privatized real estate management is bad, as clearly laid out by the Auditor General, sometimes oriented toward interests that are other than the public interest, as laid out in this very comprehensive Real Estate Services report.

Here we have a sad situation demonstrated by the Ontario Science Centre situation. Something interesting to think about, and I am sure that we will continue to delve into that. Because pointing at the Science Centre and just, “Oh no, it has fallen behind and it’s in a sad state of repair”—well, that is because the contractors responsible for facilities management and doing those repairs have been allowed to not do those repairs. And that’s Infrastructure Ontario’s responsibility.

Again, I am inviting challenge by the government. I am inviting the government to pay attention to this situation and actually find out. Because as they’re sitting there, I wonder if they’re thinking, “Is she right? We haven’t heard this.” Yes, well, is she right? Why haven’t you heard this?

We have a government that wants to tell one story, and of course, with the science centre, that is an unfolding story. The current lease, negotiated back in 1965, is on a 99-year term. It only allows for the construction of structures “for purposes of operating as a science centre.” So the saga continues, Speaker, but that is for another day.

But I’m glad to incorporate it into the discussion in this House on schedule 2 of this bill. We’re giving more properties to Infrastructure Ontario, and I would like to know, really, for what? And, really, why will that make things better? And it might; there might be some benefit, but I’m not clear, and considering this is the second time this bill has come through after committee, those are questions that I would have hoped to already have the answers to.

But, Speaker, I will move on to schedule 1. So, schedule 1 of this bill is about changing the 30-day waiting period without taking time to consider public input when it comes to class EAs. The government has been adamant that they’re not changing the public consultation process, they’re still inviting public consult, all of that—okay, okay. What comes after that is a 30-day waiting period, and that is meant to be the time for sober second thought or the consideration by the minister of expert input.

I have questions for the minister. If waiving that 30-day waiting period without taking time to consider public input is going to signal to the public that their input doesn’t matter, how would the minister like people to understand this? Because when they weigh in and they give input during the public consultation process, and then the minister doesn’t even consider it—and there’s literally no time; that 30 days is gone—does that tell the public that their input doesn’t matter? It’s one thing to waive the waiting period if there is no public input. If the public has not brought forward anything, it’s one thing for the minister to say, “In this case, there’s nothing. We can waive it, because there is no information to consider.” But this is a blanket “let’s get rid of it” thing; this is not case by case. If all public input indicates that had the EA is adequate, okay. But if the public is indicating flaws or inadequacies with the class environmental assessment, shouldn’t the minister take the time to consider the input before making a decision? And should the minister be obliged to provide a reason for waiving that statutory 30-day requirement?

If the reason makes sense—and I will say, as I said in my first debate, I had had a conversation with the minister about this, and he gave me an example that was a local example—not necessarily local to him, but a community example—of when the whole community was maybe going to lose out on jobs and investment in the community because of this environmental assessment, this class EA, and the 30-day period. And in that example, he said he went to cabinet and tried to move it through faster, but the cabinet process and what have you—it took too long, so here is a solution in legislation so there is no dancing around, unknowns, that kind of thing.

Okay, but doesn’t the public deserve to know that? And wouldn’t it even behoove the government to share that? If there’s a good-news community investment story, wouldn’t that be something worth sharing with the public? The reason to rush this process, because of some good-news community story, or the government is taking responsibility to ensure that they don’t miss out on investment or jobs or what have you—there are different ways of approaching this. If the reason makes sense, wouldn’t this improve confidence in the ministry’s decision and the adequacy of the environmental assessment? Why have statutory requirements if the minister can arbitrarily waive them without providing reason? I guess I feel differently about responsibility; I think it should be in everything that we do.

Speaker, I have a whole pile of things to share when it comes to schedule 1. And again, the purpose of a 30-day waiting period is to ensure that the minister takes adequate time to consider public comments that were received. Nobody over here is saying that it’s blocking the public from providing those comments, but the fact that there is now no requirement for the minister to consider them is kind of a slap in the face. I would say, the government already—well, how they approach the principle of public consultation leaves something to be desired.

Speaker, twice, Ontario courts have found that this government has violated the Environmental Bill of Rights. That is from the Auditor General’s report on such, and I had shared that in the last debate; I’ll revisit it a bit. I know my colleague from University–Rosedale had written to the Auditor General highlighting public consultations on provisions of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, that were posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment. She had asked the Auditor General whether the government has violated the Environmental Bill of Rights again. As the Auditor General said in this letter, “Based on our preliminary review, we have concerns as to whether all comments received on proposals related to Bill 23 have been meaningfully considered before the decisions were made, consistent with the purposes of the EBR. For the public’s comments to inform a final decision, a ministry must have an opportunity to fully consider all received comments before a bill is ordered for third reading, up to when it is still possible for a minister to propose amendments to a bill before a decision is made.”

Those were her thoughts on that, which basically, saving everybody here reading the Operation of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, December 2022 Auditor General’s report, I can summarize—and I’m going to be loose here with my summary—that the government is required and is expected to consider the public input. For it to be meaningful, they have to be able to meaningfully consider, not just collectively. I know that many of us and I know that the now-government members—I’m looking at some of the members who served on the opposition benches—who have done committee work through the years have been frustrated when the time is so fast at committee that we have these thoughtful presenters, experts who come before a committee, who weigh in, who might flag something that the government should be aware of to strengthen legislation or make it better, and there is no time for the government to consider it because all of a sudden it’s back before the House and voted on and the law of the land, and hopefully those tripwires that were identified by thoughtful experts in the community don’t trip up the best intentions of the legislation, right?

But there’s a good way to bring forward legislation and I would think that it is in the spirit of wanting it to be good and being willing to listen to criticism to strengthen it. Isn’t that what you would want? Anyway, certainly when it comes to the Environmental Bill of Rights, there is a responsibility of the government to meaningfully consider things.

From that report, the Auditor General’s 2022 report, I’ll just read some of the headings here: “Ministries Again Chose Not to Follow EBR Act Requirements to Consult Ontarians about Several Environmentally Significant Proposals.” And they go on: “Our office found in 2019, 2020 and 2021 that some ministries deliberately did not consult Ontarians about major environmentally significant decisions. Again in 2022, we found that three ministries—Municipal Affairs, Energy, and Environment—did not notify and consult Ontarians in accordance with EBR Act requirements before making several significant decisions.” So the track record is already that the government has skipped those steps; the ministries purposefully chose not to consult—“deliberately did not consult Ontarians about major environmentally significant decisions”—four years running.

Another heading: “Municipal Affairs Ministry Did Not Meaningfully Consult Ontarians before Implementing Environmentally Significant Changes to the Planning Act.” This is not good. I’ll read a little bit from that report. It says, “Bill 109 would make environmentally significant changes to the Planning Act. In particular”—well, okay, I don’t need to take us back in time about the specifics there, but it outlines what the proposed amendments could do and would do. It says, “stating that they were open for public comment for 30 days, ending April 29, 2022. However, on April 14”—that’s days before April 29—“Bill 109 received third reading and royal assent—two weeks before the end of the public comment period on the proposal.” Before the public comment period was even closed, it had already come back through the House, passed and received royal assent. So how meaningful is that public input? How much does the government care about hearing from the public?

The ministry, in response to this, didn’t do their part, didn’t use the formal update banner and that kind of thing. It says, “The ministry gave the false impression that there was still an opportunity to inform decision-making around Bill 109. Indeed, some Ontarians continued to submit comments on the proposed amendments through the registry up until April 25 ... 10 days after the decision was made.” That doesn’t help. That doesn’t foster trust at all.

Another thing here: It says, “The ministry’s description of the effect of public comments on the decision was”—well, can I quote from this? “The ministry’s description of the effect of public comments on the decision was misleading. Only eight of the 32 comments submitted in response to the registry notice were submitted before Bill 109 passed.” This is from the Auditor General, who had said the government said, “In developing and finalizing the legislation, consideration was given to all comments received,” but it was the Auditor General who said, actually, that is not what happened. Eight of the 32 comments submitted were submitted before the bill passed. It says:

“In making the decision, the ministry could not have considered the remaining” 75% of “comments submitted after Bill 109 passed.

“Clearly the ministry did not consult Ontarians about this proposal for the statutory minimum 30 days.... Several municipalities expressed concern that the 30-day comment period was insufficient to provide an informed response.”

And then, when the Auditor General asked the ministry for information about any steps that it was taking to ensure the public received notice of the Planning Act changes, the ministry responded, “While the ministry posted Bill 109 on the [Environmental Registry] the day it was introduced for a 30-day consultation period, the passage of all bills, including Bill 109, is determined by the will of the Legislature, not the ministry or the minister.” I don’t know; I see that as snarky.

We would like to think that public opinion and thoughtful public care, voice and expertise matter. The government talks about it mattering, but then we look at a report like this that time after time after time, example after example after example, says they’re not listening. They’re inviting consultation and then shutting down the process before even the end date, in the case of Bill 109. All of this is schedule 1 of this bill, which says that it’s waiving the 30-day waiting period.

I’m going to put this into plain speak, but it’s not going to be my words. We heard from folks at committee on this bill, and I want to make sure that their voices are heard in this room because there wasn’t really time to even consider it, because what they brought forward to committee—I mean, this is a truncated process, right? It certainly wasn’t going to be considered in this bill or others, really.

Before I do that, though, one more thing from the Auditor General:

“For Ontarians to be able to meaningfully comment on an environmentally significant proposal, they need sufficient information about what the ministry is proposing, including the answers to questions like these. Generally, a proposal notice should include” a clear explanation of what’s being proposed, potential environmental implications, related proposals or decisions, geographic location to which the proposal would apply—all of that sort of stuff. And it says, “When ministries do not provide sufficient information in a proposal notice, there is a risk that Ontarians will not be able to meaningfully participate in the government’s environmental decision-making as intended by the EBR Act. In turn, the government misses out on the benefits of public participation, including improved environmental decisions and outcomes.”

I’m going to read that last line again, because there’s a spirit of this section that I think matters: “The government misses out on the benefits of public participation, including improved environmental decisions and outcomes.” I do think that better and improved environmental decisions and outcomes should be the goal, not strictly the economic benefit or not strictly a bucket of favours that one might owe. It should be about making the world a better place, right? No? Anyway, I think so.

Speaker, there’s lots and lots from the Auditor General’s report. When you have free time, pick it up and give it a read. It is enlightening.

However, I am happy to share voices from those who came to committee to speak to Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act. Everyone who came to committee spoke specifically to schedule 1, the Environmental Assessment Act, and the amendments to that. Also, the folks who wrote in and shared written submissions also were quite interested in schedule 1, the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is the largest general farm organization in Ontario and they represent more than 38,000 farm family members, and I’m pleased to share their voice in this House. They had made a written submission. They said:

“We would like to take this opportunity to express our concerns with schedule 1: Environmental Assessment Act under Bill 69: Reducing Inefficiencies Act.

“We are opposed to these proposed amendments that would provide the ability to eliminate, waive or alter the 30-day waiting period following the comment period of a class environmental assessment. It is essential that there is time for a proponent to review and appropriately consider the submitted comments. Allowing a proponent to proceed as soon as a comment period closes amounts to an insult to the public who work within the system to provide comments of their very real concerns regarding a project, often along with some very ingenious potential solutions. It is often through public consultation that proponents are made aware of negative unintended consequences of their projects. The 30-day waiting period provides the time for the proponent to further investigate and mitigate concerns and unintended consequences that they may have overlooked.”

They go on to say, “Public participation is a critical component of environmental decision-making. Failure to allow for meaningful participation can lead to resentment, animosity or ambivalence. The system must allow for meaningful participation to empower all those involved, from the concerned citizen to the corporate proponent to the government (at all jurisdictions) representatives. The ability to eliminate this 30-day waiting period effectively negates any public participation in this process.

“We trust our opinions and recommendations will be given due consideration during your deliberations.”

That is signed by the president Peggy Brekveld.

I regret to inform you, Ms. Brekveld, that your opinions and recommendations were not given due consideration during these deliberations. That’s from the OFA, who says, “Don’t do this.”

Also, a written submission from the Mississaugas of Scugog Island. This is a letter that has been signed by Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, and this is their written submission to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy regarding Bill 69. They have written, “From time immemorial, the Mississaugas of the Scugog Island First Nation ... have lived on the shores of Lake Scugog, north of what is now Port Perry. MSIFN is widely considered a model of a successful First Nation government in Canada. In part due to its exceptional financial management and foresight. MSIFN has provided their community with thousands of jobs, and charitable donations to organizations throughout the region.”

The request is, “We urge the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to preserve the 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects.

“The 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects helps mitigate the pressure of short-term and monetary incentives from impacting decisions with long-term consequences for the greater good.”

They go on to discuss the value of a 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects by saying, “Elected officials and public servants in our government institutions have the challenging task of always acting in the interest of the public while considering the greater good. In MSIFN’s view, doing this successfully requires decisions to be made based on a thorough evaluation of their impact and consequences. In both the short and long term, the quality of the decision-making process is directly related to the quality of the decision itself....

“Among many things, this process must reduce the influence of incentives that are not in the public’s best interest, for example, only viewing a decision through an economic lens or other short-term incentives, as they can result in even the most level-headed human to act in ways that can harm the greater good by not considering a wider set of arguments and perspectives.”

They fully discuss a 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects as being “the prudent way to provide the decision-makers with time and space to carry out thorough evaluations of all angles relevant to policy proposals.”

So some of the reasons that they cite for why a 30-day waiting period is important: “It exposes principal decision-makers to unnecessary scrutiny and pressure as they become solely and personally responsible for consequential decisions that are made with little information and no clear process”—oh, I’m sorry; back up. No, no, no. Stripping the 30-day waiting period causes these problems. I misspoke.

Stripping this 30-day period “exposes principal decision-makers to unnecessary scrutiny and pressure as they become solely and personally responsible for consequential decisions that are made with little information and no clear processes.”

Stripping this 30-day waiting period “increases the vulnerability for public servants to be pressured and influenced from stakeholders that may not be incentivized to find solutions that are in the public interest.”

And stripping this 30-day waiting period “opens the door to allegations of one-sided decision-making which solely benefits one person, company or group. Collectively—even though individually, as well—these aspects can severely threaten public trust in democratic institutions and processes and, as a result, the stability of our democracy.”

They’ve used a wetland as an example here. It says, “Amending the decision-making process in the manner proposed by the province is particularly concerning in the context of the environment, as mistakes in how we treat it cannot be reversed.” If we think about wetlands—and as somebody from near Duffins Creek and all of that ugly, ugly mess, in part on the part of this government and the corporate entities in that area, that continues to sting in our community. “Once a wetland, to use an example that is scientifically indisputable as it relates to its significance for the health of the environment and life of any form, makes room for a construction project, it is gone forever.

“This is significant because the disappearance of a wetland or any other part of the ecosystem can lead to devastating consequences such as loss of a carbon sink, ecosystem, and biodiversity. The further these developments progress the more severe they will get as consequences in this area do not add, but compound as time progresses, exposing future generations to immeasurable harm and danger.”

They say, “Decisions that impact the environment must transcend political interests more than any other policy area. In the interest of the public good, these decisions must be protected from the influence of third parties, for example, developers that are monetarily incentivized to achieve an outcome that does not consider long-term consequences. The 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects is the minimal safeguard that protects government decisions from short-sighted interests and influences and, as a consequence, strengthens politicians and our democracy as a whole.”

The chief and council have offered to provide additional input in these areas, because their conclusion is, “For reasons outlined above, MSIFN strongly urges the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to keep the 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects. It is in the interest of the environment, the public and our democracy to do so.”

Again, I am disappointed that such a thoughtful submission did not factor into this government’s decision, because they’re going ahead and certainly have not consulted with them on this.

I have here another committee submission from the Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods; in this case, this is a letter submitted. Geoff Kettel is the president of the Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods. He said, “Class EA sets out a standardized planning process for groups or classes of activities, such as municipal and provincial roads, provincial transportation facilities, and waterpower projects. Depending on the information gathered during a class EA, a project may be referred to undertake a more substantive process. So the 30 day period is the time when the minister (and the public) are able to consider the results of the consultation process. Therefore the legislation is setting up a situation where, without considering the comments received through the class EA, the government can make the decision for the project to go ahead.”

They outlined their concerns and said at the end, “We are concerned that the Ontario government in its efforts to ‘reduce inefficiencies’ is increasing the potential for environmental mistakes, while at the same time reducing its accountability to the people of Ontario.”

Speaker, there’s more. The committee also received a submission to the Legislative Assembly by the Escarpment Corridor Alliance. This is an organization I had not heard of before, so I’ll give a little bit of intro. It said, “The Escarpment Corridor Alliance (ECA) is a group of community members who are alarmed by plans to turn some of the area’s most popular outdoor destinations into mega-developments.

“The Escarpment Corridor Alliance was created to protect the Niagara Escarpment’s celebrated landscapes and globally unique natural features and forests.”

Their request—and I always find it interesting when organizations are formed at the grassroots—literally, grass; these are environmental folks. And as I’ve been working with—sorry; I digress, because I don’t know the specific membership of this group.

But I do know that as I’ve been meeting with people across the province, more and more, it’s Conservatives in their, maybe, retirement or next chapters—some of them have become avid birders. But they are environmental enthusiasts, and they’re very distraught about what is befalling the greenbelt, what is happening to the province. They are very concerned about the government’s lack of care and concern for the environment in a number of different examples. They feel so betrayed by the Conservatives, because they are Conservatives. They grew up Conservative. They’ve been long-time donors and voices in the Conservative movement. Maybe it’s their quieter next chapter, but some of them are feeling quite abandoned or betrayed. So I hope that the government is feeling really uncomfortable when some of their friends and folks and donors are calling them.

Anyway, I’ve extrapolated my experience onto this group, and that is not fair. Let me back up. I do not know this group, but I am pleased to share their voice in this space.

The Escarpment Corridor Alliance, as I said, created to protect the Niagara Escarpment’s celebrated landscapes and globally unique natural features and forests, said, “We urge the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to preserve the 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects.

“The 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects is essential because it prevents short-term and monetary incentives from impacting decisions which may result in long-term negative consequences....

“As citizens, we expect that governments, their institutions, and employees operate in a way that benefits the greater good of our society. Most people will appreciate that this can be a difficult undertaking—especially in a jurisdiction as diverse as Ontario.... The best way to ensure that government decisions are as beneficial as possible to as many people as possible, both in the present and future, is to follow a sound and thorough decision-making process.... By preserving this process, governments can ensure that responsible, sustainable, and good policy decisions are being made. It will also protect the decision-makers from external influences that can impact policy development in an unfair, one-sided manner which does not consider all arguments and the needs of the community and other stakeholders in a balanced manner.

“A 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects is a prudent tool to protect the integrity of policy decisions, as it increases the likelihood that all angles and perspectives are being evaluated thoroughly.... The 30-day waiting period is essential in order to give the minister the opportunity to consider factors that may be unique to a particular region. The government’s proposal to eliminate this waiting period, therefore, is a threat to sound decision-making in the best interest of society as a whole—which can ultimately damage democracy in severe ways.”

A lot of folks are saying they’re getting to a similar place—that they are fearful of what this will mean and how it might undermine democracy, but also the health and wellness of their communities and the environment.

Speaker, we did have presenters come before committee. We heard from Jessica Murray, who was presenting on behalf of Sierra Club Canada as a board director. She said, “Sierra Club is a grassroots organization that empowers its members to protect, restore and seek climate solutions.” And some of the things that she shared—okay, well that explains the end to the 30 days; I’ll skip that, because we’ve talked about that. But Ms. Murray said, “As a realtor, I am professionally aware of the challenges we face in affordable housing, for which supply is absolutely a piece of the puzzle.... Ontario has hundreds of square kilometres of land within urban boundaries that are underdeveloped and zoned exclusively for low density. Rezoning for medium to high density within the large urban boundaries of the greater Golden Horseshoe and Ottawa would be more than adequate in meeting the metrics put out by the province, as well as CMHC. It’s also highly recommended as an affordable housing strategy by organizations like CMHC and the Toronto Region Board of Trade. If the Premier directed his energy in this way, might we find a more efficient solution with far less red tape to cut and less environmental damage into green spaces?

“Our green spaces matter on a very real level, and yet our current Premier has deregulated and disempowered conservation authorities tasked to protect our historic watersheds directly linked to plant and animal survival, and so, human health. He has asked conservation authorities to give up their land for development....

“Our Premier has also issued numerous permits to companies to build on endangered species habitat through his ‘pay to slay’ scheme whereby developers develop on protected habitats in exchange for a fee.

“Our greenbelt is not merely at risk but already under attack and in peril of being irreparably damaged....

“Class EAs are a fast track for projects deemed to have minimal environmental impact.”

She went on and, at the end, she said, “To this standing committee and any MPP who might hear this: From the bottom of my heart, as a mother who had twins in a pandemic and who continues to question what future my boys will face, on behalf of the concerned public, if there is anything in your power to create laws, policies and processes that can protect the environment in any meaningful way, please do something.”

That was from Ms. Murray, and we appreciate that she came before the committee.

Mr. Phil Pothen is counsel and Ontario environment program manager with Environmental Defence. Many of us have had a chance to either meet Mr. Pothen or hear from him at different opportunities, as this government has brought forward various environmental initiatives and bills, and he has been a voice on behalf of Environmental Defence. This is some of what he said: “Public communications regarding the so-called ‘Reducing Inefficiencies Act’ present this as the mere removal of a waiting period. However, what it really, substantively permits is for the minister to rush ahead without ever even reviewing the expert comments that are received as the actual outcome of the class environmental assessment process....

“This process is designed ... to let a proponent that has commissioned its own hired consultants to produce class environmental assessment reports to proceed by default without any actual approval by the minister—and this is the key point—unless the results of the initial comment period and the assessment itself warrant imposing a full part two environmental assessment or imposing extra conditions in addition to the conditions of the relevant class EA.”

The key point, as he outlines—“Because the class EA reports are prepared by the proponent’s own consultants, the comment period and the consideration of those comments are a vital part of the process....

“The vital period, which the government describes as a ‘waiting period,’ is really the ‘making a considered and informed decision period.’ It is the ‘making a nonarbitrary decision period.’ This is the period where the minister is supposed to be undecided going into the room with no predilection toward whether the project will be bumped up or not and is supposed to receive that information and decide based on the information before the minister whether to let it go ahead or whether to bump it up. That can’t happen if the minister is allowed on day one simply to skip that process.”

He went on to say, “The government’s proposed amendments would allow the minister to quickly rubber-stamp a project without even considering what the assessment process revealed and without any opportunity for concerned citizens and for independent experts who are not on the proponent’s payroll to review and organize around these results to pressure the minister to require a full environmental assessment.

“This change shouldn’t happen.”

Speaker, I have spent the better part of an hour discussing two schedules. This is a bill that has two parts: the class environmental assessment and the 30-day waiting period in schedule 1, so changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, and then schedule 2, which deals with the Ministry of Infrastructure Act. In almost an hour, I have shared a whole bunch from the Auditor General’s reports. And the thing is, it seems that this government would rather those reports just stay on a shelf somewhere. But they’re still relevant.

The 2017 Auditor General’s report about the realty portfolio, about the responsibilities of Infrastructure Ontario and just how many challenges the client ministries have, and how many challenges are being faced because Infrastructure Ontario is not managing their contractors and is not dealing with repairs, not dealing with snow removal, not dealing with footpaths to the Ontario Science Centre—that is still relevant, even though it was 2017 when all of those recommendations and all those criticisms came forward. This government took one piece of that report, ostensibly, and said that they’re addressing it. I haven’t actually been able to make the link between the one recommendation that they have cited and what we see here. I’m not sure how it’s actually going to make it better. I’ve asked for that—how transferring control to the Ministry of Infrastructure is going to solve those problems. So I’m looking forward to the rest of this debate, because hopefully after—we’ve been doing this now for a few weeks. Hopefully, we’ll find that out.

Also, as I raised today, the Ontario Science Centre is a perfect example of a public space that is under that Infrastructure Ontario umbrella. The capital repairs have been neglected, the work has not been done, and it’s Infrastructure Ontario that is their landlord. This government is pulling more under that Infrastructure Ontario umbrella. I’d like to know why. We’ve talked about environmental changes—and, again, this is not the right direction for the province.

Everyone in Ontario deserves a safe and affordable place to call home, but the cost of rent in Ontario is not affordable. In fact, in Toronto, the average cost of rent is approaching $3,000 a month. The cost of rent has increased to more than 50% of take-home income for many Ontario households.

When businesses upcharge people for essential items, we call that gouging. What’s happening to tenants in Ontario right now is no different. Housing is a human right.

To pay their rent, many individuals and families are being forced to take on a second or third job. To pay their rent, people are having to cut back on groceries and all other spending. Still others are being forced to move farther and farther away from their families, their jobs, their children’s schools.

This is making the affordability crisis even worse. People are barely treading water. Many are drowning. But when we, the NDP, raise these concerns here, the government responds with insults and jokes.

The government knows this problem isn’t just about supply and demand; it’s much more than that. They know it. They know that there’s more that can be done to help tenants right now, more that can be done today.

I want to remind the minister that Toronto has led North America in construction cranes for years before they took office. After five years of Conservative government, rent has never been so high.

Families don’t have years to wait for a market adjustment. Many don’t even have months. They need relief now. The status quo is destroying families and leading some landlords into bad-faith evictions to charge even more. There are families out there right now who don’t have time to wait. They need us. They need you to act right now, and that means implementing real rent control.

Again, under this government, rents are by far the highest they’ve ever been, with no immediate relief on the horizon. You can’t just sit on your hands. Do the right thing. Support this NDP motion to bring in rent control and give tenants across this province the relief they need, the relief they deserve. They are counting on all of us to help them, so do it. Support this motion.

The ayes are 33; the nays are 67.

I want to thank, first of all, my colleagues in the official opposition for their impassioned speeches this afternoon and their support of this really important motion. I think you heard here today so many stories, so many stories—the voices, really, of Ontarians brought here into the chamber over and over again—the stories of real Ontarians, regular people struggling to keep their homes, making choices between whether or not they can make rent or put food on the table for their families. And this is a choice that more and more families are making today, Speaker.

Rent is skyrocketing in this province. It’s the highest it has ever been, and the increases we’re seeing—you know, we heard today of 27%, 40%, 30% increases. Who can afford that? Who can afford that? We heard, also, about employers who are saying—we speak to the chambers, Speaker—that this is destroying our communities, our economy, because workers simply can’t afford to live in our communities anymore. They can’t get by. People are leaving this province.

All of those people that leave Ontario, that leave our communities? Those are our future. And they’re gone. They’re going. What’s really astonishing is the lack of other options, right? It’s the lack of other options. If there were other, more affordable options, maybe this wouldn’t be a conversation we would be having today. If Conservative governments of past days gone by hadn’t cancelled 17,000 co-op units that were supposed to be built in this province, maybe we might not be in quite the situation we’re in. But we can’t go back and rewrite history.

I think what I find the most concerning is that this government wants people to think that there’s no way out. That their backroom deals with developers are going to solve the problem. And that is—

There is another way. The government can join us, we can bring back real rent control in this province and we can stop the through-the-roof rent increases that are causing people in this province to lose their homes. We can create an Ontario where people can live a safe and secure life, not worrying about whether or not they’re going to be able to afford to keep the roof over their head.

I want to ask the members opposite: I know that they’re feeling pressure from the people in their communities, and that’s why they get grumpy like that, because they’re feeling the pressure, too. If we’re hearing about it, so are you. It’s time to do the right thing. This is one measure among many that we need to take to address the housing crisis in this province, but it’s a really important one.

Join us. Join us in bringing back real rent control in the province of Ontario.

I want to thank the member from Oshawa for giving us a very detailed debate on this bill.

You talked about the general report at length and said that Infrastructure Ontario’s reputation or performance wasn’t that positive.

In 2020, Michael Lindsay, who was assigned to CEO of Infrastructure Ontario, previously served as head of the strategic partnership and government for the Investment Management Corp. of Ontario. Did he present at the committee about how he’s going to make these changes to Infrastructure Ontario and make it better?

I’m actually kind of excited about this bill. Bill 69 is about good governance. It’s about cutting red tape and streamlining oversight. And maybe these are things—through you, Speaker—that the NDP just don’t comprehend, because after 15 years of a disastrous Liberal government, hydro rates skyrocketed, taxes soared and, more important, our taxpayers’ dollars were mismanaged.

One of the reasons I put my name on a ballot was because of the mismanaging of taxpayers’ dollars—absolutely unfair to those people who are trying to get by.

So my question to the opposition, if they care to listen, is, why does the NDP want to add more red tape and slow down government?

Thank you to my colleague from Oshawa for her hour-long presentation. I appreciate the work she put into it.

The member opposite touched on the environmental assessment, and in Bill 69, we’re helping it be predictable for infrastructure projects, letting us build them faster. As everyone in this place knows, we need to build more infrastructure. More people are moving to Ontario. We need to build subways, highways, other transportation as well, and I know these changes will help us do that more effectively.

My question to the member opposite simply is, why are members on that side of the House against building infrastructure the people of Ontario need and deserve quickly?

I don’t understand what he’s talking about. This is not a government that is building infrastructure quickly. This is not a government that even knows what that would look like. We have black holes of money and time. When my colleague the member who is the critic for transit—I have every faith that he could talk about the lack of infrastructure and transit infrastructure being built and the mess that it’s in.

Again, this is a two-schedule bill. This is not about building infrastructure faster—that’s nowhere in this. This is about pulling 13 existing agencies underneath Infrastructure Ontario, because of what? It’s not about building anything faster. So maybe he can ask it again and clear it up for me.

I know that the folks who made written submissions were very concerned about the government’s changes by getting rid of this 30-day waiting period. So it was a focus on environmental concern—the people who came before the committee or made submissions.

Putting more in the Infrastructure Ontario bucket, maybe it’s not that problematic, but we’re not—we know that Infrastructure Ontario is not really good at property management, and there’s a whole report on just that. So maybe work on some of those things. The government should address those.

Interjection.

Schedule 2 of this bill has nothing to do—if it has anything to do with streamlining, then I think that the minister and the government should make it clear on how. It’s not just a bumper sticker—“We’re making things better.” How? Which part of the report are you fixing?

Here is something from the real estate services, on the Ministry of Infrastructure: “Infrastructure Ontario’s management of government properties was impacted in part by weaknesses in the ... agreement between Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure. The agreement does not set out any mandatory, minimum standard of performance for managing the costs of capital projects. It also does not set out timelines for meeting the accommodation standard for office space designed to ensure that existing government properties are used efficiently, and timelines for maintaining the state of government-owned properties to the agreement’s standard.” That’s from page 1. Basically, it’s a mess. That’s between the Ministry of Infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario.

The Ontario Science Centre is a beautiful example of what happens when nobody looks after—

It’s now time for questions.

That is such a good question.

The government has said that they are looking at the recommendations from this particular Auditor General’s report, but certainly not most, certainly not all—arguably one that I could figure out, in terms of the use of office space.

There are so many recommendations—“Better oversight of external project managers’ procurement methods for capital projects is needed.... Infrastructure Ontario is using preliminary estimates to prioritize which capital projects to do.” They highlighted why that’s a problem. It is so thorough, and it’s very clear that the government could support Infrastructure Ontario with its existing properties. They could fund things using the industry standard, as I have raised, rather than using the government standard.

So why is the government putting more on their plate? I don’t know how much more work they’re putting on their plate. I don’t know exactly what they’re making Infrastructure Ontario responsible for, because again, it’s not clear.

Great question.

In terms of the importance of building infrastructure—it’s not just building infrastructure; it’s building well-planned, needed infrastructure, and it’s meeting the needs of growing communities and meeting the needs that the government can actually prove exist. It can’t just be what Frank asked for, and it can’t just be what you promised somebody else. It has to be what the experts and planners have outlined as what is needed, and it has to be transparent. We’ve got black holes of funding and time, when it comes to these absurd P3 messes. So the government should probably be pulling some of that public—

I appreciated hearing from the member opposite in what was a good hour in which she participated in debate this afternoon. I know that sometimes on a Monday afternoon an hour-long leadoff on third reading of a bill can go down a lot of different ways, but she was able to keep it definitely focused on the legislation at hand, which I appreciated.

I’m wondering if she could speak a little bit about how important it is to get infrastructure built in the province of Ontario and why she believes there might be some merits to this bill after all.

Further questions?

I’ll just be succinct and ask my colleague from Oshawa, given that this bill is supposed to be about making things more efficient, could she take a stab as to why the cost of subway construction under this government has tripled in the last five years?

I’m pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023. As the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks outlined this morning, this bill, if passed and proclaimed into force, would create a framework to improve the management of real estate, and it would bring efficiency changes to the Environmental Assessment Act.

Madam Speaker, our government has a bold, transformative plan to build Ontario. That is why we’re continuously looking at new and innovative ways to improve efficiencies, save taxpayers money and improve quality of life across our province. Bill 69, Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023, is an important next step in our plan. If passed, it would support long-term economic growth. Our proposed measures have the potential to allow for faster deployment of critical projects. It would support timely decision-making. It would help reduce duplication and burden. And by making minor changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, we are helping to ensure that some critical construction projects can move faster, without compromising environmental safety.

Bill 69, if passed, would help cut red tape and streamline processes so we can continue to practise good governance on behalf of the people of Ontario. This is all a part of our plan to enhance fiscal management and save taxpayers’ dollars.

As part of this plan, I would like to take a few moments to highlight and echo the Minister of Infrastructure on the work we have been doing over the past few years to support our communities and Ontario’s economy.

Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Infrastructure plays a critical role in the quality of life enjoyed by people across our province. Infrastructure is the backbone of a strong and healthy economy, and it supports our communities, both today and in the future. When a new road, highway, transit line or bridge is built, we are helping hard-working people get home to their families safer and faster. When new infrastructure is installed to improve access to high-speed Internet, we provide families with the opportunity to work, educate their children from home and connect with loved ones. And when we build hospitals and long-term-care homes, we’re ensuring our most vulnerable members are provided the care they deserve. That is why our government is building Ontario like never before, laying the foundation for a stronger and more productive province.

Madam Speaker, we’ve dedicated over $184 billion over the next decade to support priority projects such as transit, highways, schools, hospitals and long-term care. This is the province’s most ambitious plan in its history, and it includes so many projects that will help build a stronger, more resilient Ontario.

It also includes more than $27.9 billion over 10 years to support the planning and construction of highway expansion and rehabilitation projects across the province, projects like Highway 413, the QEW Garden City Skyway rehabilitation project, the widening of Highway 17 from Arnprior to Renfrew, and the Timmins connecting link. These are just a few of the highway expansion and rehabilitation projects in our province that will improve the movement of people and goods in Ontario.

It also includes $70.5 billion over the next 10 years for public transit projects to get people to where they need to go, safely, efficiently and on time. Projects like the GO expansion will transform the GO rail network into a comprehensive two-way, all-day rapid transit network. We have already made progress on our government’s bold transit plan for the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, including the Ontario Line, the three-stop Scarborough subway extension, the Yonge North subway extension, the Eglinton Crosstown West extension and the 14-kilometre Hamilton LRT, delivering on our promise to provide better access to fast, affordable and more reliable transit.

Our plan also includes more than $48 billion over the next 10 years in hospital infrastructure. These investments will build new health care facilities and renew existing hospitals and community health centres. This includes more than 50 major hospital projects that would add 3,000 new beds over 10 years. I’m proud to say that we have also made progress on construction of four new long-term-care homes through the accelerated build pilot, a new and innovative approach for infrastructure delivery established with the support of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario.

In fact, one of these projects, Lakeridge Gardens, a state-of-the-art, 320-bed long-term-care home located next to Lakeridge Health’s Ajax Pickering Hospital, opened in the spring of 2022—that, we delivered it in only 13 months.

This pilot program leverages hospital-owned land and accelerated construction techniques to deliver urgently needed long-term-care homes more quickly in urban areas, where costs are high and availability of land is in short supply.

Madam Speaker, the pandemic has reinforced that now more than ever, everyone in Ontario needs access to reliable high-speed Internet. In response to this incredible need, we made a historic investment of nearly $4 billion to bring high-speed Internet access to every community across the province by the end of 2025.

Madam Speaker, this is basic infrastructure, having high-speed Internet. Imagine: We live in the 21st century, and people are still without high-speed Internet. So our government is making historic investments to ensure that every household, every business in the province will have access to high-speed by 2025.

We’re doing everything we can to support the idea that no matter where you live, you’ll be able to participate in the online world, and I’m proud to say that we have already made a commitment to supporting high-speed Internet access in hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses in communities across the province to close the digital divide.

We also recognize that there’s a need to provide municipalities with stable funding to support critical local infrastructure projects. That is why our government is also investing $400 million this year in critical infrastructure for 425 small, rural and northern communities through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund.

As many of you know, building Ontario is a team effort. All levels of government, our partners and communities work together to support critical infrastructure projects across the province. This level of partnership makes programs like the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, also known as ICIP, possible. This program represents up to $30 billion in combined federal, provincial and partner funding over 10 years for local infrastructure projects, which includes $10.2 billion in provincial investments. These include transit, green, community, culture and recreation, and rural and northern infrastructure projects.

We have also continued to build Ontario by delivering major infrastructure using a spectrum of delivery models and strategic approaches that continue to evolve to reflect changing market conditions. The delivery models used by the province range from a traditional, direct approach, which is used by a number of ministries, to dynamic approaches such as working with the private sector through a range of public-private partnership models. P3s are often used to deliver major projects like bridges, highways, hospitals, subways and correctional facilities through partnering with the private sector.

In 2019, under Premier Ford’s leadership, the government and Infrastructure Ontario announced the biggest project pipeline in Ontario’s history. Since then, we have been relentless in bringing those projects to market and refreshing that pipeline with additional new government priorities.

As you have heard, there are so many infrastructure projects to look forward to in 2023 and beyond. These are some of the many initiatives that we are working on. Despite the many challenges we have faced, including labour shortages, inflation, ongoing supply chain disruptions and a global pandemic, our government stepped up to the plate. We expedited our efforts and forged ahead on our capital plan to build Ontario. We continued to do what was necessary to protect lives and support families and businesses, all while prioritizing long-term economic growth for generations to come.

The benefits of these meaningful, high-quality infrastructure projects cannot be ignored. We are building vibrant, strong communities, improving health and safety, creating meaningful jobs and stimulating our economy.

By introducing Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023, we are taking the next step in our bold and transformative plan. If passed, this bill would reduce red tape, save taxpayer dollars, enhance fiscal management and boost the economy. It would help our government continue to make strategic decisions and investments that people across this province need and deserve.

As the Minister of Infrastructure mentioned, the bill contains two initiatives that are part of this plan. One of the proposed initiatives would establish a framework to remove or modify the real estate authority of 14 entities and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with the ability to oversee and manage this real estate. The other initiative within this act would help reduce delays with changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, while ensuring continued environmental oversight to class environmental assessment projects.

I would like to reiterate some of the benefits that this bill, if passed, would bring to Ontario’s economy and future. Ontario’s real estate portfolio is one of the largest in Canada, and while real estate is one of our government’s greatest resources, a holistic approach to decision-making and real estate management is needed. Provincial oversight is distributed through existing legislation amongst five ministries and 54 entities that operate under individual processes and protocols relating to real estate decisions and transactions, which means that real estate decisions are being made without a strategic or holistic approach.

Our government is taking initiative to help improve the governance and management of our real estate portfolio. If passed, our proposed measures would establish a framework to remove or modify the real estate authority of 14 entities and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with the ability to oversee and manage the real estate previously under the control of those entities. By creating this framework to centralize the real estate authority of these organizations, our government would help reduce red tape and create a more efficient process so that these entities can focus on the important work they do for the people of Ontario. This is the first step in allowing our government to increase operating efficiency while supporting our objective to act more as one holistic organization when it comes to overseeing and managing the real estate portfolio of entities.

Madam Speaker, our proactive and innovative approaches through this proposed bill, if passed, would allow us to:

—implement a more structured, holistic framework to manage our real estate;

—promote government-wide decision-making;

—reduce red tape and regulatory burden by consolidating the real estate authority of prescribed entities and enabling some projects to proceed without the 30-day waiting period following completion of a class environmental assessment process; and

—save time and money through increased efficiency measures and enhanced planning abilities.

This bill is about allowing our government to increase operational and fiscal efficiencies. But most importantly, this is about good governance, which people in Ontario expect from us. This is a step forward in our promise to continue doing everything to be open and transparent with the people of Ontario about what we have done and what we will do. We’ll keep pushing forward by coming up with new, innovative plans to support our growing province, and we’ll continue to invest in infrastructure projects that support communities, create good jobs and contribute to Ontario’s economic goals. By building, upgrading and modernizing our infrastructure, we’ll ensure that our communities continue to thrive now and well into the future.

Madam Speaker, our plan and proposed measures would not only protect the progress we have made. It looks beyond to the stronger Ontario we want to build for today and for generations to come, and it demonstrates our commitment to supporting jobs, economic growth, and health and safety. This legislation, with the changes that we are proposing, is important to Ontario’s future prosperity. Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with all of you to build a stronger, more prosperous Ontario today and for generations to come.

I have a question to the member opposite that was similar to a question my colleague from Ottawa Centre had posed to my colleague from Oshawa, and it was around P3s. So we’re talking about reducing red tape or eliminating red tape, but what we have consistently seen with this Conservative government is transit projects, especially those here in Toronto, are way over schedule and way, way, way over budget. So I’m wondering where in this bill and where in government policy is the accountability? Where is the accountability to the taxpayers to ensure that when you hand over a P3 project—no surprise, we don’t support those over here, and for good reason, because they go over time and over budget with absolutely no recourse and no accountability.

So I’m wondering where in this bill does it bring back that accountability to the people of the province of Ontario who are actually paying for these contracts that are costing them even more through their taxes. Where is that accountability in this bill, or when will you be bringing a bill forward that does that?

We have time for questions.

I’d like to thank the member from Brampton West for the amazing work that they are doing, not only for his constituents but for the people of Ontario.

Speaker, my question for the member: The last Auditor General’s report that came out, the conversation of centralizing decision-making and moving things forward in a more progressive manner—there’s a lot of things that the Auditor General identified. I know that the member and his team are working hard to deliver those changes and deliver good things for the people of Ontario. My question for him is, how will the centralization of real estate under these agencies help the government achieve its priorities?