I’m happy to rise for second reading of Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023. I would like to let the House know that I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant Mr. Yakabuski the MPP from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Thank you for his help.

First, I would like to acknowledge how far our province has come. The global pandemic tested each of us, but in the face of adversity, we persevered and continued building critical infrastructure to improve people’s quality of life. Madam Speaker, the progress we have made is remarkable. We have unlocked thousands of cost savings for taxpayers and businesses through actions such as:

—supporting a reduction in WSIB premiums and the WSIB rebate without reducing benefits;

—increasing the employer health tax exemption from $490,000 to $1 million;

—cutting the gas tax by 5.7 cents per litre and the fuel tax by 5.3 cents per litre beginning July 1, 2022; and

—introducing and temporarily enhancing the Regional Opportunities Investment Tax Credit to encourage investments in regions of Ontario that have lagged in employment growth.

We are also delivering one of the most ambitious infrastructure plans with a historic investment of more than $159 billion over 10 years. Through investing in the construction of new hospitals, schools and long-term-care homes, our government is ensuring people and their families are being cared for and that our communities are supported for decades to come.

We have created thousands of new jobs by investing millions of dollars in skilled trades to ensure that the current labour gap is filled with high-paying jobs for Ontarians and to create meaningful pathways for more secondary school students into rewarding careers. That’s thousands of new carpenters, electricians, ironworkers and mould makers across the province to help us build the critical infrastructure projects that the people in Ontario need most. My colleague Minister McNaughton at the Ministry of Labour is leading that charge with the creation of Skilled Trades Ontario.

We have also delivered more public transit across the province, from the return of the passenger rail service to northeastern Ontario to breaking ground on the historic Ontario Line. Our transit investments are getting people to and from work faster or to their families faster and more conveniently, with more commuting options, stations and seamless connections.

Our government was re-elected with an even stronger mandate to build Ontario for today and for generations to come—and we are delivering. We know that these are tough and challenging times worldwide. Our government is successfully working with our industry and construction sector partners to better understand the challenges they are facing—whether it be inflation or supply chain disruptions—to identify ways that our government can help. We are tackling the current economic environment head-on so that we can continue to build Ontario and deliver on our promise to the people.

That is why today I am putting forward the next step in Ontario’s plan by introducing Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023, that, if passed, would cut red tape, save taxpayers’ money, enhance fiscal management and boost our economy. The bill contains two initiatives that are part of this plan. The first proposed initiative, if passed, would help our government better maintain and manage real estate, and the second initiative, if passed, would help bring much-needed efficiency to the Environmental Assessment Act, all while ensuring continued environmental oversight.

Today I want to highlight our government’s plan to better maintain and manage real estate. In order to understand the impact of this bill, I will first explain what these suggested amendments entail. Ontario’s real estate portfolio is one of the largest in Canada. Currently, there is not a streamlined process for this portfolio. And while real estate is one of our government’s greatest resources, a holistic approach to decision-making and real estate management is very much needed.

The Ministry of Infrastructure, through its realty agent Infrastructure Ontario, oversees the province’s general real estate portfolio of owned and leased properties. However, provincial oversight for Ontario’s portfolio is distributed through legislation among five ministries and 54 entities that operate under individual processes and protocols relating to real estate decision-making of this expansive portfolio. This is why a more holistic approach for real estate decision-making is needed.

Our government has a unique opportunity to improve governance and operate our real estate portfolio more efficiently by creating a framework for centralizing decision-making and management. Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023, if passed, would establish that initial framework to modify the real estate authority of 14 entities and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with control of real estate property previously under the control of the prescribed entities. This would be the first step in allowing our government to increase operating and fiscal efficiency. It would also support our objective of saving taxpayers money through a holistic approach when it comes to overseeing and managing Ontario’s real estate portfolio.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the entities that are included in our proposed bill and acknowledge the important work they continue to do for our great province. If the bill is passed, our plan proposes that the entities to be prescribed are:

(1) Education Quality and Accountability Office: an arm’s-length government agency that is dedicated to enhancing the quality and accountability of Ontario’s publicly funded education system from kindergarten to grade 12. EQAO gives students the opportunity to reach their highest potential and uses credible evidence to empower students, teachers, parents, guardians, stakeholders and the public with the information needed to support and improve student learning and outcomes.

(2) Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario: an independent regulatory agency created to improve consumer and pension plan beneficiary protections in Ontario. This organization plays a critical role in protecting Ontarians by regulating sectors like life and health insurance, credit unions, loan and trust companies, mortgage brokers, health service providers and financial planners and advisers to increase transparency, accountability and contribute to public confidence.

(3) Ontario Financing Authority: a crown agency that aims to meet the province’s financial requirements in a sound and cost-effective manner. The OFA manages the province’s debt and contributes to the government’s debt reduction efforts through prioritizing sound decision-making, efficiency, and safeguarding Ontario’s credit rating. The OFA also advises on financial policies and projects, executes all borrowing, investment and financial risk management activities, and much, much more.

(4) Ontario Securities Commission: an independent crown agency that provides protection to investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices to foster fair, efficient and competitive capital markets, and confidence in the capital markets. The OSC contributes to the health and performance of Ontario’s economy by regulating market participants like firms and individuals, and marketplaces like the Toronto Stock Exchange.

(5) Human Rights Legal Support Centre: which gives legal help to people who have experienced discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, with services available in 140 languages. Ontario is a diverse province with residents from all walks of life, and our government understands how important it is to ensure everyone is treated equitably. The Human Rights Legal Support Centre helps people claim and protect their rights while preventing discrimination and harassment due to race, religion, gender, age, disability or marital status.

(6) Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario: which helps to ensure that Ontario’s colleges and universities are accessible, offer high-quality programs and are accountable to the people across Ontario. Through evidence-based research, this organization is committed to the continued improvement of Ontario’s post-secondary education system.

(7) Intellectual Property Ontario: an agency that will help the post-secondary education and research and innovation sectors generate, protect, manage and commercialize intellectual property. This is crucial in today’s digital society. Intellectual property and data have a direct impact on our province’s success, wealth and well-being. IPON was created to drive economic growth for businesses in Ontario, resulting in better, more secure jobs and a prosperous future for Ontario.

(8) Skilled Trades Ontario: an agency responsible for apprenticeship and skilled trades certification, dedicated to simplifying access to services for skilled trades professionals, promoting the skilled trades as a career and addressing the labour shortage in the industry. This government is committed to building our province, and we thank Skilled Trades Ontario for their partnership.

(9) Province of Ontario Council for the Arts, also known as the Ontario Arts Council: an agency that plays a pivotal role in promoting and assisting the development of the arts for the enjoyment and benefit of people in Ontario through grants, scholarships, loans and services, while also awarding Ontario residents for their outstanding accomplishments in the arts.

(10) Ontario Media Development Corp., also known as Ontario Creates: an agency whose mandate is to be a catalyst for our province’s economic development, investment and collaboration in Ontario’s creative industries, like music, book, magazine, film, TV and digital media. Through targeted programs and services, support for innovation and by leveraging public and private partnerships, Ontario Creates builds the capacity and competitiveness of the province’s creative industries to deliver award-winning content that is enjoyed by audiences across Ontario and around the world.

(11) Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership Corp., also known as Destination Ontario: Ontario’s lead tourism marketing organization that helps inspire travellers to make Ontario a must-see destination and to return to the beauty of Ontario again and again and again. Destination Ontario plays an important role in contributing to Ontario’s provincial economic prosperity through impactful, inspiring marketing and investment partnerships.

(12) Ontario Trillium Foundation: an agency that builds healthy and vibrant communities throughout Ontario by investing in community-based initiatives, while strengthening the impact of Ontario’s non-profit sector. Support is provided to projects that drive positive change and work towards the well-being of people across Ontario.

(13) Agricorp: a provincial agency that provides financial and risk management programs and services to the agricultural industry while maintaining the highest standards of customer service, fiscal responsibility, transparency and accountability. Agricorp works closely with the farmers of Ontario to understand and respond to their needs and to provide excellence in delivery to help grow Ontario’s agriculture.

(14) The Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council: an agency that was established to promote fire prevention and public education through sponsorships and partnerships with various groups with an interest in public safety. The citizens of Ontario have a right to live in an environment safe from fire, and the Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council does important work to ensure people in Ontario have awareness of fire safety and access to high-quality programs.

Madam Speaker, each of these entities has a critical role in the health, well-being and economic prosperity of Ontario. The work they do matters—it matters to the people in our province who rely on them to provide programs, regulatory services, advice, funding and much more. Most importantly, they help us fulfill our promise to build Ontario, and as we’ve heard, their efforts impact many different sectors that we depend on daily, from schools, businesses, health care, the digital sector, human rights and equity, the skilled trades, arts, media, tourism, agriculture and fire safety.

So, Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank each of these entities for their hard work. Some of these organizations have been established for decades, and some are new, but each of these entities contribute significantly to Ontario’s growth through their partnership, innovative ideas and dedicated, skilled workforce. They have helped our province build during one of the most uncertain times in history. I know we can count on all of them, moving forward, to help build Ontario now and for generations to come. To them, I offer my gratitude.

By creating a framework to centralize the real estate authority of these 14 entities as a first step, our government would be in a better position to reduce red tape, create more efficient processes and ensure that these entities can focus and invest more on their individual mandates, while continuing to provide the services that people across Ontario need and deserve.

The bill, if passed, would amend the Ministry of Infrastructure Act, 2011, and would include complementary amendments to the following nine other acts:

—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; and

—the Securities Commission Act, 2021.

The legislative amendments that are being proposed today, if passed, would support the centralization of real estate, subject to any exceptions that would be determined by regulation. This is about good governance, which Ontarians expect from their government. It’s about strong leadership by constantly looking at ways we can take the burden off the taxpayers while we fulfill our mandate to build up this province.

Since 2020, the Ministry of Infrastructure has consulted with key stakeholders, including the 14 entities that I have already mentioned and their eight oversight ministries. Our government heard that the proposed amendments are aligned with ongoing initiatives to optimize office space and increase efficiencies. The oversight ministries for the 14 prescribed entities support centralization. Madam Speaker, that’s because the people of Ontario deserve a responsible, more efficient government.

The benefits of a more centralized real estate model have also been echoed in numerous third-party reviews. For example, in 2017, the Auditor General’s annual report outlined a series of recommendations to help ensure properties in Ontario are well managed and maintained in an efficient and economical manner. The Auditor General identified that the Ministry of Infrastructure’s general real estate portfolio could be operated more efficiently through centralized authority and decision-making.

We are a government of action. Through the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, I can assure you that we are constantly reviewing policies to see where they can be updated and where things can be done more efficiently. With these proposed changes, we continue to take action. We took those recommendations back and through these proposed legislative changes, we are responding.

The feedback we have received doesn’t end there. The 2018 Ernst and Young line-by-line review of government spending, titled Managing Transformation: A Modernization Action Plan for Ontario, found that the government could operate its real estate portfolio more efficiently, resulting in enhanced fiscal management. This report was conducted to ensure that the Ontario government was making good on its promise to restore trust and accountability, while improving value for the tax dollar. It’s a promise we take very seriously.

Key findings from that report found that a centralized approach to the management of real estate property and a more effective asset management process had numerous benefits, including:

—a significantly reduced overall spend across government;

—a more structured and effective asset management life cycle process; and

—improved alignment of policies, allowing for a more efficient enterprise-wide decision-making capability.

In addition, PricewaterhouseCoopers identified in 2018 that the operating model for government real estate is a barrier to transformation, particularly for office space, and could create confusion, duplication and overlap. This study found that a strategic and holistic approach to the government’s real estate portfolio could foster greater levels of transparency while improving decision-making capabilities and reporting. It would also create a more integrated planning process with ministry programs. Madam Speaker, I agree.

In 2019, a Deloitte report also found that by centralizing real estate decision-making, it would likely improve strategic alignment for the management of provincial infrastructure and assets.

Madam Speaker, as you can see from the feedback I have just presented, the benefits of a streamlined real estate model make sense.

A review recently conducted by the Samuel Zell and Robert Lurie Real Estate Center in 2017 is interesting to share. This is a centre established by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, designed to promote excellence in real estate education and research. The review found that a decentralized framework often had high vacancy rates and that a siloed approach to assessing a real estate portfolio reduces efficiency, office optimization and fiscal management. So the evidence is right in front of us.

The report found that many organizations have adopted a centralized model to better measure and manage infrastructure, and these organizations are showing great success after implementing a central model to identify property types, geographical locations, standard policies and guidelines. For example, the ministry conducted an initial jurisdictional scan that identified best practices across governments, including the city of Toronto, Shared Services BC and Public Works and Government Services Canada. In all cases, we found that these jurisdictions moved to a centralized model—efficiency, transparency and accountability.

The research is clear: Our changes will help to increase efficiency, cut red tape, enhance fiscal management, save taxpayers’ dollars—and it’s just good governance.

The bill, if passed, would bring our government one step closer to reducing costs by eliminating duplication of responsibilities. By providing clear guidelines, it would improve the quality of services to the taxpayer. This bill is the first step towards reducing the number of people involved in making simple decisions on real estate. This bill, if passed, could also unlock future cost savings for the taxpayer and enhance fiscal management.

Our government’s proposed measures would move towards ensuring that real estate is utilized effectively. When realty authority is centralized, it means that all real estate matters would be overseen by a single authority, which would reduce the need for multiple ministries and entities handling similar tasks and processes. This would also lead to several other benefits such as reducing redundancies, eliminating duplication of efforts and reducing the need for multiple levels of review and approvals. This, in turn, would streamline processes and cut red tape, ultimately leading to cost savings.

Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023, if passed, has the potential to provide more efficiency and transparency. Our government is confident that this bill, if passed, would boost economic development opportunities across the province. This is all part of our government’s promise to make life better and more affordable for the people of Ontario by working harder, smarter and more efficiently.

As I mentioned earlier, our proposed real estate initiative would be the first step in optimizing Ontario’s real estate portfolio. Part of that long-term growth includes today’s measures that, if passed, would help address issues of regulatory burdens and red tape, while also helping to save time and money. That’s why we are proposing these important measures today.

Madam Speaker, this bill, with the changes that we are proposing, is important to the future of our province. The people are depending on innovative ideas and new approaches to reduce inefficiencies. They expect us to be fiscally prudent, respect taxpayer dollars, cut red tape and practise good governance. And this legislation, if passed, will deliver on those expectations.

I want to thank the Speaker for my time in the House today.

To the member from Oshawa: The Reducing Inefficiencies Act, the bill we’re talking about today, Bill 69, is about being fiscally prudent, saving taxpayer dollars, cutting red tape and practising good governance. Speaker, we’re also looking at, as you’ve heard earlier today, how we can reduce administrative burden on standard infrastructure projects while maintaining our strong environmental and consultative processes.

Through you, Speaker, to the member from Oshawa, can she today, given what I’ve just described, tell us whether she’s going to support this legislation, yes or no?

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.

This act before us right now, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, is about being fiscally prudent, saving taxpayer dollars and cutting red tape. The proposed legislation is a step towards modernizing government process and oversight.

Currently, Ontario has one of the largest and most complex real estate portfolios in Canada, and we seek to centralize the management of this real estate portfolio under the Ministry of Infrastructure where it belongs. The government can reduce unnecessary administrative burden and costs and, ultimately, save the taxpayer money.

My question to the honourable member is this: Does he support saving taxpayer money or not?

Another member of this House, the member from Peterborough-Kawartha, made the observation with regard to one of the items being treated in this bill—that is, the Environmental Assessment Act—and he made the statement that it is, in fact, a very old piece of legislation. Without revealing exactly the date I was born, it’s my conjecture that this Environmental Assessment Act is actually older than I am and hasn’t been amended since. Now, I’m of the opinion that things that are old aren’t necessarily bad—in fact, they might be quite good—but it’s not a bad idea to look at these things every once in a while and decide whether or not that which is old can be dusted off a bit and improved.

As a matter of reflecting on that particular act and the experience that people have had with that act, I can inform the other members of this assembly that once upon a time, in the not-too-far-distant past, I used to serve on a municipal council. When I was first elected in the year 2000, I served as a councillor from 2000 to 2003, and then I was elected as deputy mayor from 2004 to 2006. Having served as a member of an elected council, I had the opportunity to learn up front and close and personal on how environmental assessments are done at the municipal level.

Now, I’m going to describe the environmental assessment at the municipal level, and it’s going to be a simple description. It’s not going to be 100% reflective of what the legislation says, but I’m just going to give a simple explanation of it.

If a municipality is going through an environmental assessment, the first thing they might do is tender the contract. So they have to put it out for tender, which means they advertise, people bid on it, and then they have a meeting and they select somebody to do the environmental assessment and pay them for doing that. That’s the first step. Maybe that takes some months.

Then they issue public notices. Notices are put in newspapers; maybe they’re put online. You might see one at town hall. And the public notice might say that consultations have begun.

Then there’s an interim report to the municipal council, and the interim report might report on what has been done so far, what kind of consultations have happened. The municipal report might also propose what the project might look like and provide various alternative projects.

Then the party conducting the environmental assessment will make a recommendation. It will be the preferred option. That will be put before a municipal council to be considered. When it goes to the municipal council, it will be a public meeting, and that’s when the NIMBYs come out—“not in my backyard.” Everybody comes out, and they say, “I don’t want this built in my backyard.”

Then the municipal council deliberates on it and hems and haws, and if they are intimidated, they might turn it down. If they’re intimidated by the NIMBYs, they’ll turn it down. Or they might vote on it and pass it, or they might say, “Let’s defer this for more information from administration.” And all that time is going by, Madam Speaker. Time is going by, and it’s going by and it’s going by.

Then, finally, a decision gets made. A municipal council finally votes on and approves a project. Sometimes these processes take months, sometimes years, and that’s not unusual. It’s actually quite typical. Then after the decision is made, there’s a 30-day period.

Now, after hearing that very simplistic description of the environmental assessment process, you might naturally ask this question: After all that time, do we really need another 30-day period of nothing happening? You might ask that question.

I think the MPP for St. Catharines touched on it a bit. I want to be fair to the MPP from St. Catharines; I don’t want to try to exactly quote what she said, but the MPP said something along the lines of, “In some situations, that 30-day period might not be necessary.” And that’s exactly what this act says. Not in the same language, but in colloquial language, that’s what it says.

In some situations, that 30-day period is not necessary. So why not just let the minister move things along and avoid the 30-day delay, which, as we’ve seen in my brief and very simplistic description of the EA process, might actually add cost if you add those 30 days. You might save some money if you process or bypass those 30 days. A municipal council might save some money.

It’s also true, as the member from Renfrew stated earlier, that if you allow the 30 days to be truncated, you will allow to start the project earlier, thus avoiding winter weather. As we all know, there are two seasons in Ontario: winter and construction. That’s what we all say.

There could be a very, very positive result in allowing the minister to truncate those 30 days and giving permission to a municipal council to proceed with the project that’s been considered. Because, as we all know—at least those of us who have served in the municipal field or have done this type of work before—the process is already very long, and there’s lots of public consultation. You can be consulted online. You can submit your consultation online. You can go to the public meeting in person and you can deliver your comments in person. You can write them down and send them in a letter to your municipal council. You can send them in an email. There’s lots and lots of opportunity for public consultation.

To add the extra 30 days is really not necessary in most situations, particularly when you’re talking about a very simple municipal project, which might involve something very simple like building a road or something of that nature. It might not even be 30 days; it might be longer than that.

With respect to how this might operate, in the event that this legislation gets passed, I think what we need to do first is perhaps take a look at how things are operating right now. I’m sure there are many, many members of this House—there’s 124 of us—who probably were not aware before. But we’re aware now, because the Minister of Infrastructure has made us aware—and I thank the minister for making us aware—that there are actually, at present, at least 14 entities that manage real estate here under the government of the province of Ontario. I will admit—I’ll be frank with this assembly—I did not know that there were at least 14 entities that managed real estate for the government of Ontario. I imagine there could be more. Maybe the Minister of Infrastructure will be providing another report at some time in the future, and maybe we’ll learn that too.

But here, let’s take a look at this list of the 14 entities in the province that currently manage real estate for the government of Ontario. Here we go:

—Agricorp;

—Education Quality and Accountability Office—I would have thought that they would have managed education and accountability; I didn’t know they were managing real estate;

—Province of Ontario Council for the Arts, also known as the Ontario Arts Council;

—Ontario Media Development Corp., also known as Ontario Creates;

—Ontario Trillium Foundation;

—Ontario Financing Authority;

—Fire Marshal’s Public Fire Safety Council;

—Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership Corp., also known as Destination Ontario;

—Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario;

—Ontario Securities Commission;

—Human Rights Legal Support Centre—that’s one I think everybody will find interesting. I come from the legal field. I would imagine that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre would have been working on human rights and perhaps giving people advice in the court system or maybe even giving people advice in front of the Human Rights Tribunal, but apparently the Human Rights Legal Support Centre also manages real estate;

—Intellectual Property Ontario;

—Skilled Trades Ontario;

—Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

That’s a lot of organizations. I’m sure they’re doing their best managing the real estate that’s under their authority and control, and I have no reason to think otherwise, that they’re not doing or trying their best—I think we all do. But that means that we actually have 14 different agencies managing real estate for the government of the province of Ontario, some of which, clearly, after reading that list—all 124 of us, I suspect, will agree without any hesitation that the primary function of those organizations really is not to manage real estate and that they have a different function which is their primary function, but somehow they’ve acquired the additional or secondary function of having to manage real estate.

It’s always a great thing—and I’m going to pay some homage here to someone out of history I have a great deal of respect for—if you can concentrate on one thing you do really well. You can maximize efficiency, do it better than anybody else, produce faster than anybody else, make decisions faster than anybody else, maximize all sorts of great consequences, when you can do one thing really well and be allowed to do that one thing really well. For example, let’s talk about an artist, a painter. If a painter is allowed to just paint, the painter doesn’t have to worry about managing real estate, doesn’t have to worry about managing the finances, doesn’t have to worry about making dinner. If the painter can concentrate on one thing and do it really well, that painter will probably become a great painter because the painter is not diverting their efforts or their expertise trying to do things at which the painter is not too good.

I would imagine that those 14 organizations may have the same point of view. Those 14 organizations, as I said earlier, have a different primary mandate. Their primary mandate is not to manage real estate. The primary mandate of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre is not to manage real estate. That’s not their primary mandate. The Fire Marshal’s Public Fair Safety Council has a primary mandate, and I would venture to guess that the management of real estate is not their primary mandate. So it might, in fact, be very useful to allow these organizations not to have to manage real estate but to turn that concern over to a central agency, which is exactly what this bill proposes to do, and allow them to concentrate on their primary mandate, and to have an organization whose primary mandate is to manage real estate.

All that seems very logical and simple, or at least it appears to be logical and simple to me, and I think the Minister of Infrastructure in her statements this morning made it very clear and logical and simple to this assembly as to why these steps have to be taken or should be taken and should form part of the consideration of this assembly.

I had the opportunity to listen to the remarks made by others in this chamber. Some people had some concerns. Some people raised the question of whether or not they had a certain amount of confidence with regard to how things were going to work out if this legislation were passed, and the answer to that is, you’ll get to see the results. You will get to see the results.

And what do we say? What do we say, those of us who support this proposed legislation? Well, we say that having 14 organizations all trying to do the same things, which are not under their primary mandate, is probably not saving taxpayer money—probably not. But having an organization that takes care of all that real estate and who is able to make those kinds of decisions—that is to say, the decisions with regard to the management of real estate—is probably going to save taxpayer money.

Now, here’s the choice before us. Here’s the choice: The choice, number one, is do nothing. As I have always said throughout my 24-year law career to my clients, “Your first choice is do nothing.” If you do nothing, you will have what you have now. Under the present proposed legislation, you have a second choice. Here’s your second choice: Do something. And the “something” proposed under this legislation is to create a consolidated authority which will manage real estate, which presents a possibility that does not exist under the previous choice. Under the previous choice, “do nothing” means you save no more money. That’s the consequence. It is undisputable. Under the second option, “do something,” you are presented with, I will say, the probability—others might say merely the possibility—of saving money.

So given the choice between doing nothing and gaining nothing, or doing something and possibly or probably gaining something, what is the logical choice? I shouldn’t have to answer that question, but because I want to complete the logical connection, I will answer that question. The logical choice, Madam Speaker, is option number two: Do something. And that is what the Reducing Inefficiencies Act does. It proposes to create a body which—at the end of the day, the goal is to save money, save taxpayer money, and wouldn’t that be a nice thing for us to do for the taxpayers of the province of Ontario?

And so that, Madam Speaker, is why I will be very happily voting in favour of this proposed legislation. Thank you very much.