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?

Thank you to the member for Oshawa for her comments. There was a lot of, “I don’t know if you guys do this”—and then a drive-by smear, if you will, of the government.

One of the things she said which I just want to get on the record is that she doesn’t know if we consult with municipalities. I can tell you that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has set up regular meetings with municipalities all through our last term of government. He has probably done it more than any other minister, ever.

The member did say—and I was listening intently—that she doesn’t want us to be sending things to consultants and finance experts all the time and that she has more faith in government. This legislation, if passed, would modify the real estate authority of the 14 entities and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with the ability to oversee and manage.

So I think, based on what you said, you should support this legislation. Am I right?

When it comes to oversight or accountability, transparency, I have a lot of concerns, as most Ontarians do, around these big infrastructure projects. When the government keeps shoving them into that P3 closet where we don’t have an opportunity to know what’s going on in there, we just have to wait until it gets handed back and if it gets handed back with the delays and the costs.

We’ve seen that as being part of this government’s approach, so everything they have been doing is kind of like handed away from government to a contracted service provider or consortium or a bunch of financiers. I’m sure they know better than government. I actually have more faith in the ministry workers, frankly, a lot more than it would seem this government does.

Do I have concerns? Yes. I don’t think this government has the same definition of “accountability” or “transparency” that the rest of Ontarians do.

I don’t know that any government member should be asking questions about accessing clean drinking water. They have a responsibility where that’s concerned. But I will answer the question that he asked about “do I understand?” Yes. This is about the minister taking the adequate time to consider the comments. As I said earlier, if there is a big project and municipalities and all folks are rowing in the same direction and there aren’t the community comments, the minister does have the opportunity to go to cabinet if, in this case, he wants to make things go faster. That’s what has happened in a case that the PA mentioned earlier. Do I want the minister to thoughtfully consider any of those comments—it’s a chance to consider them? I do.

On a case-by-case basis, then make the case, don’t write a blank cheque. People in Ontario don’t—

On page 10 of their task force report, they said, “No, we can do this without the greenbelt.”

The government’s own words had the criteria that in order for land to be even taken out of the greenbelt, it had to meet those criteria—and one of them was about it being serviced or adjacent to service. I know, in Durham, they don’t meet that criteria. According to the government, they have said, “If it doesn’t meet the criteria, it will be returned to the greenbelt.” So if I trusted them, I would know that land like that, like in Durham region, would be returned to the greenbelt. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I don’t know what else she asked. She can ask again.

I’m pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023, that would, if passed, make amendments to the Ministry of Infrastructure Act, 2011, and complementary amendments to nine other acts, and amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act.

Madam Speaker, the people of this province re-elected our government to build Ontario now and for generations to come. They are expecting us to be fiscally prudent by making smarter and more effective decisions, while also respecting how tax dollars are being spent, and, of course, by cutting red tape by removing and modernizing outdated regulations.

That’s why our government is taking the necessary steps to unlock our province’s economic potential, deliver better jobs, and provide cost savings for families and businesses across Ontario. We have already made significant progress. For example, we have unlocked thousands of cost savings for taxpayers and businesses; we have seen thousands of more people trained for rewarding careers in the skilled trades. We are also delivering one of the most ambitious infrastructure plans with a historic investment of more than $159 billion for over 10 years. Our government was re-elected on a promise to protect and grow Ontario’s economy and build our communities so that the people of this province are supported, and we are delivering.

Our government has a plan, and that’s why I’m proud to rise in the House today and speak to our government’s Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, 2023. If passed, our proposed measures would help cut red tape, enhance fiscal management, boost the economy and save taxpayers money. We are practising good governance for the people of this province, and this bill we are proposing contains two initiatives.

The first proposed initiative would better maintain and better manage real estate. If passed, this legislation would establish a framework to modify the real estate authority of 14 entities and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with control over real estate previously under the control of the prescribed entities.

Madam Speaker, each of these 14 entities has a critical role in health, in well-being and economic prosperity of Ontario. Their work impacts many different sectors that people in our province depend on daily, from schools to businesses, health care, the digital sector, human rights, equity, the skilled trades, arts, media, tourism, agriculture, fire safety and so many. We know that the past several years have brought significant challenge to each of these industries, yet members within each of these entities have shown great leadership and adapted to keep their work, programs and services moving forward.

If passed, this legislation would create a framework to centralize the real estate authority of these entities, which would reduce red tape and create a more efficient process so these entities can better support the people of Ontario.

These 14 entities would also be able to leverage the government’s realty model for office space. This model was developed to support the government’s commitment to plan and manage provincial real estate assets to ensure consistent, efficient and sustainable realty services across the entire general office realty portfolio.

The expected outcome would be a better managed government office realty portfolio that provides a responsive client service, provides strategic real estate decision-making and reduces red tape, optimizes existing funds and real estate and reinvests savings to address the market inflation, capital repair and rehabilitation.

Bill 69, if passed, would amend the Ministry of Infrastructure Act, 2011, and nine other acts, including the AgriCorp Act, 1996; Arts Council Act; Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021; Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993; Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1996; Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016; Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997; Human Rights Code; Securities Commission Act, 2021.

Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that real estate is one of our government’s greatest resources, but currently, accountability for this portfolio is highly distributed among many entities. Each of these entities have individual processes and protocols for decisions and for transactions. Our proposed initiative is the first step in allowing our government to increase operating efficiency. It would also support our objective to act as one holistic organization when it comes to overseeing and managing the real estate portfolio of ministries and entities.

Since 2020, the Ministry of Infrastructure has consulted with key stakeholders, including the 14 entities and their eight oversight ministries. The oversight ministries of these 14 entities support our initiative of acting as a more holistic organization. That’s because these changes would help reduce duplication and will help reduce the burdens for ministries, entities and our government.

We are confident that this bill, if passed, would help ensure that real estate expertise within our government is being leveraged and that decisions are made strategically so we can continue to make the smart strategic decisions and investments that people across this province deserve and need.

The second initiative within this bill will help reduce delays with changes to the Environmental Assessment Act while ensuring continued environmental oversight of class environmental assessment projects.

This proposed legislation, if passed, would allow the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, on a project-specific basis, to alter or waive the 30-day waiting period for class environmental assessment projects. This would bring our government one step closer to modernizing an almost 50-year-old environmental process that is slow, costly and burdensome, without compromising environmental standards and protections.

Madam Speaker, I really want to highlight this portion here: without any compromise in terms of environmental standards and protections.

Our people and businesses across the province face red tape and regulatory barriers, and we are focused on easing those burdens and making Ontario better—better for people by assessing and modernizing important regulations, and better for businesses by removing unnecessary processes that hold them back. By providing new and innovative solutions, we continue to improve quality of life across the province.

The proposed measures in this bill include concrete action that would provide lasting solutions. For example:

—increasing operating efficiencies by implementing a more structured and effective way to manage real estate;

—ensuring our government can better align our policies to enhance government-wide decision-making capabilities through using a more centralized, holistic approach;

—reducing regulatory burden for certain class environmental assessment projects to help get projects built faster; and

—saving time and money that could be spent on other projects that matter most to the people in our province.

The benefits of a more centralized decision-making real estate model, in addition to our amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, are very, very clear. I’m proud to say that this is part of our government’s promise to make life better for the people of Ontario. That’s why we are consistently taking action to develop new, flexible, innovative and responsible plans to navigate new challenges and build Ontario for the future.

That includes rethinking and modernizing our approach to managing and making decisions about our real estate portfolio. For example, our government is looking at new ways to assess and upcycle real estate properties that sit unused and empty, to better meet the needs of our province. We are doing this by implementing a more efficient process to identify buildings and properties that are no longer needed to deliver programs and assess them for economic and social-purpose opportunities. By revitalizing surplus government properties, we are saving taxpayers’ money while building stronger communities and increasing our potential to deliver more services. We’re also working to distribute a great portion of the agency workforce across the province and boost economic growth in these communities.

Our government has heard very loud and clear from businesses and workers that they expect more from our government, which is why we took action to drive this change. Just last year, we announced that our government is working with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in planning the relocation of its Toronto-based head office to London. This is part of our government’s Community Jobs Initiative, which aims to distribute the greater portion of the provincial agency workforce across the province to foster economic growth in these communities. This initiative expands, relocates and grows agencies’ presence in communities across Ontario so more people have access to high-quality jobs.

We have made it clear our government will take action for the people of Ontario. We will get shovels in the ground to build highways, to build hospitals, transit and other key projects that will boost our economy and improve our day-to-day lives. This is part of our plan to build Ontario. We are also working to ensure our communities are able to access faster and more reliable and seamless transit. Ontario is seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build vibrant, mixed-use communities across transit stations across the greater Golden Horseshoe. These transit-oriented communities, also known as TOCs, will improve transit access and bring more housing, jobs, retail and public amenities within the short distance of transit.

We are also redeveloping Ontario Place into a world-class year-round destination with family entertainment, parkland, waterfront access and more. Repair work has already started on the iconic Cinesphere, Pod complex and bridges. This spring, we expect to begin construction to bring the site services up to modern standards including water, sewer, gas and electrical systems. It has been an entire decade since Ontario Place closed its attractions, and our development project will create a beautiful and cohesive landscape across the site that will integrate the improved areas with enhanced parkland and public space. With our investments, Ontario Place will be a destination where families near and far can come together to create lifelong memories.

These projects are just a few examples of how we are investing in infrastructure for the people of Ontario. Our government has always been open and transparent with the people of Ontario. And we know that these are challenging times. But by working harder, smarter and more efficiently, we are continuing to build on our previous commitments. We are continuing to explore ways to improve quality of life for the people of Ontario. That’s why every day, in every corner of our province, our government is getting the job done.

Modernizing government process and oversight, reducing regulatory burden and saving taxpayers’ dollars through improved efficiency measures like the ones we are proposing today are key to building Ontario. It is key to strengthening communities and ensuring our prosperity today and for many years in the future. Together with the initiative from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, this bill, if passed, would cut red tape. Madam Speaker, the changes that our government is bringing forward would help build Ontario’s economy and prosperity.

I will now turn it over to parliamentary assistant Amarjot Sandhu to talk more about the proposed legislation and Ontario’s plan to build.

There’s no way that the Auditor General, given the 2014 report, would recommend that Infrastructure Ontario take more responsibility for 14 other agencies. It does lend a question: What is the motivation here?

One can only think of what’s happening at Ontario Place. Now, Ontario Place is one of those cultural, iconic places in Toronto. It is one of those special places that brings people together. The government of Ontario owns it, and yet they have contracted out, just as IO will end up doing, to a couple of agencies that have determined that a spa will celebrate the original vision of Ontario Place; that it will be a destination for all Ontarians, a spa; be a vibrant waterfront and open space, a spa; achieve environmental resilience and sustainability—a spa.

Does the member from Oshawa have any concerns that this opens the door to removing that layer of accountability and oversight on these important infrastructure projects?

Questions?

I think it’s question and answer and then—do I have only two minutes?

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 step in our plan and, if passed, it would support timely decision-making.

Our proposed measures have the potential to allow for faster deployment of critical projects. They would help reduce duplication and burden, and by making minor changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, we have the potential to reduce delays in construction projects without compromising environmental safety. The bill, 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.

Madam Speaker, as part of this plan, I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the work we have been doing over the past few years to support our communities and economy. Our ministry plays a critical role in the quality of life enjoyed by all Ontarians. Infrastructure is the backbone of a strong and healthy economy, and it is essential for the quality of life of all Ontarians, both today and in the future. When a new road, highway, transit line or bridge is built, we’re helping hard-working Ontarians 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 and educate their children from home. 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 Ontario. We have dedicated over $159 billion over the next decade to support priority projects such as transit, highways, schools, hospitals and long-term care. That is the province’s most ambitious plan in its history, and it includes so many projects that will help build a stronger, more productive Ontario.

I recognize the member from Brampton West.

Madam Speaker, through you, to the member opposite: To be crystal clear, the environmental assessment standards will remain in place. The EA process is not being compromised. The EA process requires the proponents to assess potential environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures, consult with Indigenous communities, the public and stakeholders before the project will proceed.

The 30-day waiver is after the successful completion of the environmental assessment if there is no other concern in the assessment.

That being said, we are almost one step closer to modernizing a 50-year-old burdensome process.

Having said that, the 2017 Auditor General’s report, as well as other third-party reports, has been identifying these opportunities to have an efficient way to manage and oversee the real estate portfolio. Since then, our government has been in consultation with these entities and our stakeholders and, of course, all the oversight ministries to make sure that we come up with a plan that reduces the burdens—

The expected outcome that the member opposite is looking for from this legislation would be a better-managed government office realty portfolio that provides more responsive client service, that has strategic real estate decision-making authority, and reduced red tape, as I mentioned. And, of course, it will optimize existing funds and real estate funds and reinvest these savings into addressing market inflation, capital repairs and rehabilitation.

By doing so, we can, for example, get a municipal road project to speed up—we can make sure that our government can work with municipal partners and stakeholders to get shovels in the ground faster. That way, we can optimize the way our government works with our stakeholders to build Ontario for the future and for generations to come.

For example, when it comes to optimizing the funds in these entities, we can save a lot of funds and reinvest these funds to work on market inflation. We can reinvest the same funds into capital repairs or rehabilitation. So there is space to be efficient, to operate this in an efficient manner, so that definitely is going to cut red tape and save—

Further questions?

Response?

Further debate?

One of the things that struck me about this bill is there are portions—the process for EAs, for example; it was first put in place 50 years ago. Whenever we do something that reduces red tape, we’re looking at good government practices and good governance in general. Does it make sense, really, to have something that was put in place 50 years ago? Simple things like technology—we were using a Brownie camera to take pictures of things at that point. We didn’t have the computer technology that we have today. All of those things, to me, make sense, that you can speed up some of those processes.

My question is, how is this legislation going to make lives better for people in Ontario? Because, ultimately, that’s what we’re trying to do, make lives better for the people we represent.

We heard a lot of promises coming out of a relatively small bill, which I find quite remarkable, but my sense is that this bill has the potential to actually increase red tape, and I’ll explain why.

Each of us here, if we’re from out of town, have access to an apartment to live here. We pay. It has to be approved, but we look after our own hiring, cleaners, food, whatever it is, to take care of our place because it’s direct, and yet what we heard earlier was that this idea of hiring contractors and so on will be so far removed from where things are actually taking place. It’s actually more red tape for the people to deal with their situations.

My question: Is it possible for us to see the consultations with those organizations? I understand many of them to be arms-length. For example, the Ontario Arts Council is independent and arms-length. So I’m wondering if—

My question is for the member from Scarborough–Rouge Park. The member talked about modernizing and modifying the real estate authority of 14 different agencies. Has the government consulted with these agencies ahead of the legislation being introduced in the House?

It’s an interesting bill that we have here before us with Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act. Unsurprisingly, we see yet more buzzwords being thrown into more legislation. Rather than having an acronym, there’s these business buzzwords.

But to begin my remarks, I wanted to clearly state that trust is something that is not freely given on everything and anything, nor should it be. Trust is something that really needs to be earned. Trust is about dialogue. Trust is about respect. Trust is about accountability and transparency—all the things that are treated like buzzwords but actually have real, valid, tangible meaning.

I listened very intently to the Minister of Infrastructure’s presentation, and we heard many of these buzzwords—we heard about “efficiencies,” “streamlining,” and so many buzzwords, quite frankly, people at home could fill out a bingo sheet and have a heyday each day and every day with this government. But when we take a look at the government’s record on the environment, it’s a dumpster fire. It’s a dumpster fire with toxic waste in it, for heaven’s sake.

This government wants trust. They want us to trust their words. They want us to take them at their word. They want to simply smile and say, “There’s nothing dubious about this.” They have categorically been denying the official opposition the customary briefings that were typically provided as part of the tradition, respectability and honour of this House. I did want to inform the House that earlier, in my questions of the Minister of Infrastructure, I asked why the requests for briefings had gone unanswered thus far, and it’s unsurprising that directly after that question was asked and on the record, publicly available, suddenly that request for a briefing has been honoured. So I do look forward to the briefing that will be available for the official opposition—again, something that was customary and something that happened after each and every bill was introduced, but something now that has to be requested, apparently.

We also hear words like “fiscally prudent and responsible,” “efficiency,” “streamlining”—all these sorts of things—and I would say that this bill does not achieve that in that it does not tackle the real issues that the Auditor General has pointed out.

As I begin my remarks, I’d like to start with schedule 1, the changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. This will allow the minister to waive the 30-day waiting period that is currently required following the end of a class EA comment period before granting an approval to proceed with an undertaking, such as an infrastructure project.

In the Auditor General’s report from December 2022, Operation of the Environmental Bill of Rights—I’d like to read a couple of the recommendations into the record.

Recommendation 2: “To provide Ontarians with a minimum of 30 days to comment on environmentally significant proposals for acts, and to provide prescribed ministries with sufficient time to consider any comments submitted before the proposals are implemented....”

Recommendation 3: “To provide Ontarians with a minimum of 30 days to comment on environmentally significant proposals for acts, and to provide prescribed ministries with sufficient time to consider any comments submitted before the proposals are implemented, as required by the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993....”

Speaker, this is clearly a bill that is an attempt or a very overt gesture to gut the Environmental Bill of Rights. It’s a workaround. It’s a way to deny the customary comment period. It’s a way to ignore the public. It’s a way to deny consultation.

I did want to also introduce some recent information to this House. We recently passed legislation in this House, and the mayor of Central Elgin was completely caught off guard by the legislation that was passed by this House. The title of this article is, “‘Completely Off Guard’: Central Elgin Mayor Shocked by Province Annexing 700 Acres.” Mayor Sloan said, “I think a little more than surprised”—when he responded to Bill 63. “Of the 1,500 acres, 75% of that lies in Central Elgin. The concern that Central Elgin has, is that some of that was marked for development land for economic development for Central Elgin. Now we’ve lost that revenue.”

Clearly, the government did not consult with Central Elgin in the implementation of that legislation. This will be a great economic boon for the area, but it’s something that Central Elgin is clearly losing out upon. The government did not do their due diligence by contacting all interested and affected parties, and we see the exact same sort of operation here with this bill. There’s a claim that this will be more efficient, it will be streamlined, it will be faster, and perhaps that’s true. Obviously, stomping on environmental rights is a way for this government to be faster and be more efficient. They must see that as being somehow more efficient, which is concerning to the official opposition.

I’d also like to quote from a letter that was sent from the Auditor General to the official opposition, to the MPP for University–Rosedale. The Auditor General says, “In your letter, you asked my office to review whether the government has violated the Environmental Bill of Rights....

“Sections 15 and 35 of the EBR require ministers to do everything in their power to give public notice of a proposal at least 30 days before the proposal is implemented, and to take every reasonable step to ensure that all received comments relevant to the proposal are considered when decisions about the proposal are made.”

She goes on to say that she has concerns whether all of the comments related to Bill 23 were meaningfully considered before decisions were made. Obviously, these are huge concerns. This government will claim that these are not concerns. The comment period for Bill 23 was incredibly short. When we look at Bill 69, we wonder if this is yet more of the same.

As I turn to schedule 2, schedule 2 is about the Ministry of Infrastructure Act. It would allow the ministry to assume a lease entered into by the entity with a third-party landlord. So we look at all of the 14 entities that are mentioned in schedule 2 that ostensibly Infrastructure Ontario will start to take the management of and look after the servicing of, but there are so many problems that the Auditor General has already identified with Infrastructure Ontario that have not yet been addressed. So I’d like to take a look at some of the operations of Infrastructure Ontario in my comments today.

In 2014, the Auditor General released a report showing that public-private partnerships, which are administered by Infrastructure Ontario, showed wastefulness and incredible overspending—$8 billion more on projects, allowing these P3 companies to siphon money off of the public purse, to take money away from health care, to take money away from education. She stated back then, “If the public sector could manage projects successfully, on time and on budget, there is taxpayer money to be saved....”

She looked at 74 projects. They included several hospitals, the Eglinton light rail line; they were all built with these P3 models, also known as alternative financing and procurement or AFP. These were all administered under Infrastructure Ontario. She found that with these projects, they cost about 14 times what the government does for financing. It’s really become almost an industry that we see here in Ontario, and it’s the largest infrastructure company in all of Canada, because the government is quick to waste public money to make sure it gets into a few private hands. They’re taking everyone’s money, and they’re making sure that only a few people benefit from it.

Also, Infrastructure Ontario’s chief CEO at the time said, “The guys we’re outsourcing this function to, this is their core competency”—but they aren’t showing that they’re competent whatsoever when you consider the cost overruns, the way in which they overstate the risk, and the fact that also, if these projects do come in on time, which is very rare, and if there is more money that they’ve allocated, it comes to them in a windfall profit.

Back when this report was tabled: “Interim Progressive Conservative leader Jim Wilson said the first step is for the Liberals to get rid of their ‘bias’ in favour of private partnerships, and analyze projects more objectively.

“‘They have a bias—which normally we would be accused of as Conservatives—[of] wanting to always use an alternative finance plan,’ he said. ‘They need to get rid of the bias.... You’re basically skewing all your contracts into one stream.’

Now, that goes against Conservative ideology, which is that there ought to be competition, there ought to be people who are doing this for the right price. That’s supposed to drive costs down. But really, what we’re seeing with Infrastructure Ontario is something completely different.

Now, Lysyk also saw that these calculations are very wonky. They assume that if the public is managing projects, it’s going to cost a great deal more and, also, that the government will fail to meet its obligations.

It’s very interesting that it’s this sort of negative attitude that the government has about its own self—the government thinking that it, itself, is going to fail and fall behind in terms of the maintenance and fixing of infrastructure. It’s incredibly odd. But these are assumptions that, apparently, are completely acceptable in Infrastructure Ontario.

Further, when we look at the way in which these P3s operate, they also really benefit a whole host—I would say that there’s an entire industry behind this. They deliver economic benefits to corporate law firms and financiers. They earn enormously high fees arranging complex contracts, lending money to the government at rates higher than what the government normally pays. That’s bad business. The government could borrow money at a much better rate, and yet they choose not to. They’re choosing to fill the pockets of a few people. That’s not fiscally prudent. That’s not fiscally responsible. It is incredibly difficult. Overall, the Auditor General found that Ontarians paid 28% more for these projects than they ought to have. It’s incredibly, incredibly problematic.

If we also look at the way in which these projects are financed, it’s a sneaky way of the government hiding the money that they’re spending, because the borrowing is stretched out over decades and these financing charges will often account for 80% of the extra charges of these massive P3 projects.

They also hide behind these value-for-money assessments. It was actually quite groundbreaking that the Auditor General was able to get as much information, because many of these value-for-money assessments are—basically, they’ve been called “window dressing.” They claim commercial confidentiality. They really don’t want anyone to scrutinize the numbers. That’s why we’re so lucky in Ontario to have the Auditor General, who is able to provide that unbiased scrutiny of government spending.

Back when the Conservative government was in opposition, they loved the Auditor General. Now that they are in government, they suddenly—I don’t know if that relationship is really the most fond one, at this time.

I’d like to quote: “Canada’s largest P3 agency makes decisions on tens of billions of dollars of public spending using assumptions with no basis in fact.”

It’s often been called Stephen Harper’s evidence-free policy-making that we’ve seen when it comes to this blind adherence to this for-profit and P3 model. It doesn’t bear any real fiscal prudence. It doesn’t make any sense.

The large companies behind P3 projects can also walk away at any time. They risk only the equity that they place into a project. Generally speaking, that’s about 10% to 15% of the cost.

Toby Sanger also points out: “Infrastructure Ontario has been paying the big P3 companies”—

Interjections.

My question is to the member for Scarborough–Rouge Park. It’s interesting that the ministry is transferring all of this responsibility over to Infrastructure Ontario, because the Auditor General identified so many concerns about their oversight and their management. To be clear, Infrastructure Ontario actually contracts out their property management, and they can’t even do that well, Madam Speaker.

What is the rationale for moving these 14 agencies into Infrastructure Ontario, because that’s likely where it’s going to end up, when the Auditor General—and thank goodness we have an Auditor General who actually shines a light on the inefficiencies and the lack of accountability on every government. I mean, let’s be honest, the Liberals kept her very, very busy, but this government has got her working non-stop. What’s the rationale for moving these agencies into Infrastructure Ontario?

Some of the stuff with the environmental assessment, the processes were put in place 50 years ago. Fifty years ago, we used the IBM 360 computer. It was a four-bit processor. What we have here is a two-bit party that wants one bit of discernible progress, so I’m really confused by this. Could the member from London North Centre please give me an idea of why the NDP loves red tape so much, why they want to keep so much red tape in there and why they don’t want any progress over 50 years?

What could go wrong?

The member for Carleton will come to order.

I apologize to the member. He may continue.

Would the member for Carleton please come to order. Thank you.

You may continue.

—“that unsuccessfully bid on P3 projects up to $2 million per bid to cover some of their costs.” That is an amazing consolation prize.

So these few companies that bid on these projects can actually receive a cash windfall for simply putting in an application—not even for being successful, for just simply putting in an application. Toby calls it “a cozy fraternity of lucratively paid P3 companies and consultants getting wealthy at the public’s expense.” That is not fiscally prudent. That is not good business.

Back in the day, the Conservatives, as opposition, were quite critical of this sort of spending, yet now that they’ve changed to the other side of the House, they’re quite happy with the status quo. In fact, they have become the status quo.

I’d also like to take a look at some of the Auditor General’s report on real estate services. Now, the Auditor General states—

Interjections.

The Auditor General said that the agreement, the enterprise realty service agreement, between Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure—here are the problems: “The agreement does not set out any mandatory, minimum standard of performance for managing the costs of capital projects. It does not set out timelines for meeting.” And it does not make sure that government properties are being “used efficiently.” These are all the buzzwords that we hear from this government all the time, and they’re not doing it. It’s abundantly clear that this is not being upheld. They are not doing their due diligence. They are not participating in what is a good business model.

So if we take a look at the request for proposals, the RFP approach, the Auditor General pointed out that that attracted only a few bids for the management of 7,500 capital projects. These were projects worth about $900 million over five years. There was not a broad range of companies that bid on this. It’s very curious.

She also criticized—it says, “Better oversight of external projects—

Interjection.

She also states, “Better oversight of external project mangers’ procurement methods for capital projects is needed.” She goes on—she believes in competition. She believes that things should be fair. And on the side of the official opposition, that makes sense. She states, “Infrastructure Ontario does not track how many vendors bid on capital projects and which vendors are winning the bids.” They actually don’t track what they are responsible for—wow. Where’s the accountability? Where’s the transparency?

The Auditor General talks about the vendor rotation process, which is supposed to be an electronic bidding service that’s supposed to provide these contracts in a more fair manner. “However”—this is where it’s interesting, Madam Speaker—“since 2013-14, Infrastructure Ontario has allowed its external project managers to select vendors from its ... list and manually add them to the list of bidders.” So they cherry-pick the ones they wanted to get the contracts to make sure they got the contracts.

Speaker, as we look at Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, there is far more that this government needs to do in terms of reducing inefficiencies. On the side of this official opposition, we hear this government with all of their buzzwords, we hear them with all of their rhetoric and their language, but we’d like to see actual action that is reducing inefficiencies. We’d like to see a better business model where there is true transparency, accountability and actual efficiency.

Let’s see the government do this. Let’s not hear them talk about it; let’s see it reflected in legislation. I look forward to the briefing, and I want to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for providing that.

This program showed great promise. It cost about $18,000 per person per year, rather than the cost of a mental health bed. It was great cost savings. It was efficient. It was amazing. And it was also something to be prescribed by a doctor. The device and the program would be prescribed. It was to be added to the Assistive Devices Program. I heard lots from this government about how ADP is 30 years old and it’s for mobility devices and sensory aids and that’s it. They had the opportunity to modernize ADP and they chose not to, so I’m tired of hearing—