Your privatization is killing people. It’s disgusting.

This is asking that Ontario Works and ODSP rates be doubled because right now, it’s $733 a month for somebody on Ontario Works. There’s no way anybody can survive in the province of Ontario on $733 a month. The Ontario disability support payment plan is $1,300 a month; of that, $556 is for housing. There is nowhere in Ontario where you can rent a room for $556. There was a room advertised recently online for $800 for a bed in a kitchen.

These Ontario Works and ODSP rates are leaving people with disabilities in Ontario living in destitution. Many are choosing MAID, and that is one of the things that we are seeing in the news as well. So we’re calling upon the government to provide at least a doubling of ODSP and Ontario Works rates. It will save lives, and it will show the people in Ontario with disabilities that we have respect for them and that we want them to be able to live productive lives.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and pass it to page Shiara to take to the table.

I’m proud once again to table a petition, “Vulnerable Persons Alert,” calling on the government to move Bill 74 through committee and back to the legislative floor to ensure that we have a system to bring people home safely when they’re vulnerable and they’ve gone missing in our communities.

This petition stems from the death of a young boy, Draven, who had autism, went missing and was very vulnerable, and unfortunately died and was not brought home safely. Also, a woman in Hamilton, Ms. Shirley Love, had dementia, was in her eighties, went missing—very cold weather elements—and was found four days later.

The alert system would ensure that the geographical area that the person went missing in was notified that there was a vulnerable person missing in their community and they would be able to keep an eye out for them.

As I’m sure you’re aware, Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this petition. I’m going to affix my name to it and give it to page Simon to give to the Clerk.

I am very happy to rise for the third reading of the Improving Real Estate Management Act, 2024. Of course, today, I will be sharing my time with Amarjot Sandhu, my parliamentary assistant and the member for Brampton West.

If passed, this legislation would serve as the next step in our government’s plan to build a stronger Ontario by providing a more coordinated and strategic approach for managing our real estate portfolio. Opting for a more centralized approach to real estate management will allow Ontario to deliver critical priorities more cost-effectively, like building more housing, including affordable housing options, as well as long-term-care facilities, which Ontarians need and deserve. Centralizing and/or realigning the oversight of real estate is integral to our government’s strategy for increasing economic growth and saving taxpayer money.

Before I get into the details and potential benefits of the proposed legislation, I want to talk about how it fits into our government’s overarching plan for the future. Under Premier Ford’s leadership, our government is building a stronger and more prosperous Ontario. Across every corner of Ontario, we are making smart, targeted infrastructure investments that lay the foundation for economic growth and prosperity now and for future generations to come.

We understand that in order to keep pace with the demands of a rapidly growing population, building essential infrastructure is more critical than ever, especially when you consider Ontario is the fastest-growing region in North America. In 2023 alone, Ontario grew by more than 500,000 people and, by 2041, we anticipate Ontario’s population will grow by approximately 30%.

Infrastructure is the backbone of a strong and healthy economy. It is essential to the quality of life of Ontarians. It brings us together, connecting us to our families, friends, workplaces and schools every single day. When a new road, highway or transit line is built, we are helping hard-working residents get home to their families safely, conveniently and faster. When new high-speed Internet infrastructure is installed, we allow families to work, stay connected with their loved ones and educate their children in the comfort of their own communities and help online businesses grow and succeed. When we build hospitals and long-term-care homes, we ensure our most vulnerable have access to the care that they need. When we invest in new and affordable housing, we increase the housing supply and provide housing options for hard-working Ontarians and their families.

We have heard time and time again that municipalities need more funding options to meet the growing demand for infrastructure in their communities. Our government is listening, and we are taking action. For example, last month, we announced we are quadrupling the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund from $200 million to $825 million over the next three years. The initial intake of this program will help municipalities repair, rehabilitate and expand drinking water, waste water and stormwater infrastructure. Applications are being accepted until April 19. Our government has also introduced the new $1-billion Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program to support building core infrastructure projects such as road and water infrastructure to enable housing for growing and developing communities.

As I just mentioned, our government knows that investing in critical infrastructure is necessary for ensuring a world-class standard of living remains for generations to come. That is why we are giving municipalities the tools they need to build more homes faster to tackle the affordability crisis that is pricing too many people, especially young families and newcomers, out of the dream of home ownership.

As we navigate ongoing global economic uncertainty, our government’s responsible, targeted approach will allow us to build the critical infrastructure our communities need to thrive while saving taxpayer money. I’m incredibly proud to be a part of a government with an innovative strategy to build a stronger Ontario and a plan to get the job done fast.

We are investing over $190 billion over the next 10 years, including more than $26 billion this year alone, to get shovels in the ground to build priority infrastructure, such as highways, roads, hospitals, long-term-care facilities and schools that Ontarians depend on every day. These investments will also help us attract businesses and create good-paying jobs to the province. Our investments are laying the foundation for Ontario’s economic growth while supporting critical services that people need in order to succeed. Simply put, we are making life better for millions of people who call this beautiful province their home.

But it is important to remember that behind the bricks, mortar, steel and glass, and the enormous costs of these projects, the success of Ontario’s families, workers and businesses relies on our ability to maintain and build essential infrastructure quickly and efficiently.

Our government also understands that Ontario’s taxpayers cannot and should not be left to pick up the tab for the infrastructure the province needs. We must constantly find new ways to attract trusted Canadian institutional investors to help build essential infrastructure that would otherwise not be feasible, while ensuring we reduce the burden on taxpayers. That’s why we are creating an Ontario infrastructure bank called the Building Ontario Fund, a new arm’s-length, board-governed agency that will enable public sector pension plans and other trusted institutional investors to participate further in large-scale infrastructure projects across the province.

Under our proposal, our government will provide $3 billion to the Building Ontario Fund in initial funding to support its ability to invest in critical infrastructure projects here in Ontario. This initial investment will support critical projects, such as building new housing, including affordable housing options; new long-term-care homes; energy infrastructure; municipal and community infrastructure; and an expanded transportation network. The mandate of the Building Ontario Fund includes support for infrastructure projects for Indigenous communities that advance community and economic well-being. Our efforts will accelerate the development and completion of essential projects that address the most pressing needs of people across the province. Madam Speaker, I know the road ahead may not always be easy, but I also know that when faced with new challenges, Ontarians will come together to get the job done.

Across every corner of the province, we’re making incredible progress in our government’s plan to build critical infrastructure in our growing communities. Last December, I was pleased to join Infrastructure Ontario’s president and CEO Michael Lindsay for the release of its latest quarterly market update. With an estimated value of over $35 billion, this update lists 31 major infrastructure projects and pre-procurement and active procurement phases of development. The work behind this pipeline of projects is an indicator of the progress our government is making to get critical infrastructure projects built faster. It demonstrates our drive and ability to bring critical infrastructure projects to life by getting more shovels in the ground on the projects that Ontarians need, projects like:

—the West Park Healthcare Centre, which reached substantial completion last November. West Park will provide specialized rehabilitation and complex continuing care to help individuals manage difficult health challenges like lung disease, stroke or amputation arising from life-changing events or illnesses. The facility features a new six-storey hospital building providing in-patient, outpatient and outreach services;

—the site preparation under way to rebuild Ontario Place, which, once complete, will deliver over 50 acres of parks and public space woven through three anchored attractions: Therme’s water park and wellness facility, a revitalized concert venue and a brand-new science centre; and

—the construction under way at the 1Door4Care project at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, which will become a single state-of-the-art, purpose-built site on the hospital’s main Smyth Road campus, bringing care closer to home for families. IO’s track record is one we should all be proud of, and their success has been critical in maintaining the confidence of taxpayers.

Since the inception of its public-private partnership program almost 20 years ago, IO has brought 87 projects to substantial completion. That is 87, Madam Speaker.

Our government understands that Ontario’s economic success depends on a healthy, competitive market, and our approach must adapt to meet the anticipated needs of the province’s growing population.

Our well-rounded strategy is attracting investments while addressing critical infrastructure needs, fostering economic growth and promoting responsible fiscal management.

We know that, despite our government’s historic infrastructure investments, more is needed to achieve our ambitious goals. To build strong communities we must find ways to innovate and efficiently manage our infrastructure to ensure it meets existing and growing demands so that Ontario remains the best place in the world to live, work and raise a family.

This includes implementing new ways to better manage and maintain real estate to help us keep pace with the growing demands on the province’s infrastructure. Many may not know this, but Ontario’s general real estate portfolio is one of Canada’s largest realty public sector portfolios and one of the largest in North America. This portfolio consists of approximately 43 million rentable square feet of space, with 77% being owned and 23% leased.

The realty portfolio consists of over 4,300 buildings and structures used daily for offices, courthouses, detention centres, etc. Despite being one of the province’s most valuable resources, there has never been a centralized approach to managing and overseeing decisions about real estate, which ultimately comes at a cost to the taxpayers.

The lack of a centralized approach to managing real estate has resulted in poor decision-making that lacks comprehensive and strategic direction aligned with government priorities and those of Ontarians, but our government will not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors.

By centralizing and realigning resources and expertise, we can avoid the duplication of efforts, reduce administrative costs and negotiate better deals for large-scale property transactions. Centralized real estate management enables government to optimize the use of its assets.

Centralization also reduces red tape, improves information flow and enhances collaboration to ensure projects can proceed without delay. This approach provides flexibility to adapt to changing economic conditions, allowing us to respond effectively to the evolving needs and challenges in the real estate landscape.

Centralizing the management of real estate will allow Ontario to operate more efficiently, make informed decisions that are aligned with our overarching goals, and mitigate risks while ensuring consistency and transparency in the process.

Since taking office in 2018, our government has embraced the opportunity to enhance the efficiency of managing Ontario’s real estate portfolio. We have proposed a framework to centralize specific real estate authorities and decision-making processes, which will improve the overall management of Ontario’s real estate portfolio. This is part of our promise to make life better for Ontarians by working harder, smarter, and more efficiently.

In partnership with Infrastructure Ontario, the Ministry of Infrastructure has developed a process to review and evaluate government surplus properties. We want to ensure that properties no longer needed by the government are repurposed to address the needs of Ontarians.

We want those properties to be used for government priorities like building more homes, including affordable housing and long-term-care homes. By doing so, we’re addressing a need, generating revenues, and reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

To ensure the government’s real estate assets are maintained and can continue to operate, our ministry has invested an additional $250 million over three years for capital repairs. And starting in 2023-24, we are investing $107 million over four years to address funding gaps for improving accessibility.

We are also continuing to optimize and centralize the provincial office real estate portfolio, which supports the workplaces of Ontario public service employees and associated organizations. We are supporting new ways of working in the office and designing modern workplaces to unlock and increase the value of government real estate assets. This includes projects in Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa that will optimize government-owned office spaces. These projects will drive workplace transformation and reduce operational costs to improve the effectiveness of the Ontario public service and associated organizations. Our efforts have already seen a reduction in over 450,000 rentable square feet across the government’s real estate portfolio.

The government has recently revealed the new site for the head office of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, or WSIB, in London, Ontario. We anticipate this move will generate annual savings of $70 million for the WSIB, or a 40% reduction in overall costs compared to its existing head office in Toronto. Scheduled to open in 2025, the new office will initially employ at least 500 individuals and is expected to support the creation of a minimum of 2,000 jobs in the London area over the next five years. This will allow us to harness a skilled and top-tier workplace that can live and work within their local communities.

Last spring, the Legislature passed the Reducing Inefficiencies Act (Infrastructure Statute Law Amendments), 2023. Part of this legislation will empower the province to enhance real estate management. The other part of this legislation implements efficiency modifications to the class environmental assessment process. The passing of this legislation marked the first step in our government’s plan to establish a framework for centralizing real estate authority. The amendments for real estate management established an initial framework to remove and/or modify the real estate authority of specific organizations and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with authority over their real estate portfolios.

Only with the initial framework set out in the Reducing Inefficiencies Act can we propose some of the changes we are here for today, through Bill 151, the Improving Real Estate Management Act, 2024. The proposed amendments, if passed, would facilitate centralizing or realigning the real estate authority of 10 organizations and one proposed organization, allowing the government to act as one holistic organization to manage real estate while also meeting those organizations’ highly specialized service delivery needs, such as museums, science centres, convention centres and art galleries.

The proposed legislation before the House today suggests modification in two key areas. The province is proposing changes that would, if passed, create a framework to remove or modify four organizations and one proposed organization’s ability to deal with real estate, if prescribed. It would provide the Minister of Infrastructure with control of real estate property previously under the control of these organizations. The four organizations and one proposed organization impacted by these changes would include the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion—Public Health Ontario; Ontario Health; the Centennial Centre of Science and Technology—Ontario Science Centre; the Niagara Escarpment Commission; and the proposed Ontario Health atHome.

Secondly, this bill also proposes a tailored approach to modify the realty authority, in part, for the following six organizations: the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp., Ottawa Convention Centre Corp., the Royal Ontario Museum, Science North, and the Algonquin Forestry Authority. Under the proposed approach, these organizations would be restricted from engaging in specific real estate activities. The organizations that fall under a tailored approach would maintain control over real estate but also need government or ministerial approval and must adhere to potential regulatory requirements to dispose of freehold interests in real property.

For instance, if passed, this legislation would prohibit the Royal Ontario Museum from buying or selling property without permission from the Lieutenant Governor in Council, also known as the LGIC. The museum would only be allowed to sell property if it followed specific rules set by the LGIC, so the museum could only sell its prime location at the intersection of Bloor Street and Queen’s Park if the LGIC approved the sale and the museum followed a prescribed set of rules.

Another example is the Algonquin Forestry Authority. They would need permission from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to buy or sell any property.

Madam Speaker, the history of Ontario has shown us that a one-size-fits-all approach is not always the best approach when it comes to managing real estate. We can meet the varied needs of our province far more effectively by streamlining real estate authority to ensure our decisions contribute to our economic growth and prosperity and align with the well-being and high standard of living that Ontarians rightfully deserve. The proposed legislation before the House would create a more responsive, agile and accountable system to manage the complex nature of Ontario’s real estate governance.

Since 2020, the Ministry of Infrastructure has engaged in consultations with essential stakeholders as part of our government’s ongoing efforts to enhance the use of real estate. This collaborative effort includes 15 oversight ministries representing 39 organizations. Of these 39 organizations, 10 organizations and one proposed organization would be impacted by the proposed legislative amendments under Bill 151, the Improving Real Estate Management Act, 2024.

During these consultations, I was pleased to hear support to enhance real estate management, and that our plan was aligned with initiatives to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. This support of our plan is reiterated in the numerous third-party reviews on the benefits of a more centralized real estate model to optimize decision-making capacity.

In 2017, the annual report of the Auditor General detailed recommendations to ensure the effective and economical management and maintenance of properties in Ontario. The AG’s report recommended that the Ministry of Infrastructure thoroughly examine and implement enhancements in the management of government properties. It also highlighted the potential for increased efficiency in the operation of the ministry’s real estate portfolio through centralized authority and decision-making.

The 2018 Ernst and Young line-by-line review of government spending, entitled Managing Transformation: A Modernization Action Plan for Ontario, also verified the Ontario government’s commitment to restoring trust and accountability and maximizing the value of tax dollars. The report recommended that ministries manage their capital assets with the assistance of IO and emphasized the benefits of a centralized approach to real estate management and a more efficient asset management process. The benefits of a centralized approach could lead to reductions in overall government spending, a streamlined and efficient asset management life cycle, and improved policy alignment, enabling more efficient and cohesive government-wide decision-making.

The 2018 PricewaterhouseCoopers assessment of the general real estate portfolio operating model highlighted challenges in the way ministries and IO managed real estate, particularly for office space. The report emphasized that adopting an enterprise view for government real estate could enhance transparency, decision-making and reporting, while fostering integration with ministry programs.

The advantages of a more centralized model for managing real estate are clear. Rethinking or better managing the use of real estate can enhance accountability and align its use more tightly with our government’s overall priorities. We’ve seen first-hand how managing real estate in a decentralized manner can lead to underperforming assets that waste taxpayer dollars. Siloed approaches resulted in decisions that lacked a strategic and holistic vision.

Madam Speaker, the research and feedback on the ground reiterates the benefits of a centralized real estate model—the same model we are proposing, in part, through the proposed Bill 151, the Improving Real Estate Management Act, 2024. If passed, it will help increase efficiencies by allowing organizations to plan better and help maintain and manage real estate, allowing organizations to act in a clear, focused way that enables them to take an enterprise-wide approach when making decisions, while reducing costs by eliminating duplication of responsibilities and by providing clear guidelines, all while improving the quality of services that Ontario delivers.

Ontario has come so far after the challenges we’ve faced the past few years, and while we have made progress, we know that there is so much more to do. As we face challenging economic headwinds, we must continue creating the conditions for economic growth and prosperity while saving taxpayer dollars. And we must take more action to ensure people are connected to the high-quality services they expect and deserve no matter where they live.

The proposed legislation before the House today is not just about buildings and real estate; it’s about good government management. As we work to meet the demands of a rapidly growing population, Ontario must adopt a more centralized strategy for real estate management. A more centralized approach will allow us to align the allocation and use of properties to support Ontario’s broader goals and initiatives.

This proposed legislation represents the next steps in a clear and comprehensive framework our government has created to consolidate information and decision-making processes—a framework that prioritizes fiscal responsibility by identifying and eliminating redundancies, negotiating favourable terms and, overall, making more cost-effective decisions. This increased efficiency serves the interests of taxpayers and aligns with the complex and ever-changing regulatory landscape of governing public properties.

By consolidating real estate authority under the purview of the Ministry of Infrastructure, our government aims to enhance accountability for how we spend taxpayers’ dollars while safeguarding essential services that people rely on. Despite the unprecedented uncertainty facing the province today, our government continues to work shoulder to shoulder with Ontarians to find new ways to create the conditions to attract new investments and jobs across every corner of the province.

We are building a stronger and more resilient Ontario today and for future generations to come.

Minister Surma, back to you.

This petition, signed by around 300 of 7,000 signatures, is in support of stronger mental health services in the province of Ontario. It’s a petition that was inspired by the Roth family, who lost their daughter Kaitlyn to suicide.

Kaitlyn didn’t fit into the mental health services and supports that exist in the province of Ontario. She sought help. She wanted help. She wanted to get better, but at the end of the day, she was turned away and/or received insufficient or improper mental health supports.

This petition really calls on greater training, targeted funding, specifically asking the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to earmark funding for training to ensure that when people have enough courage to come forward, to request help in very difficult circumstances, that help is there for them.

It’s in honour of Kaitlyn Roth. It is my pleasure to affix my signature and call on the government to address the mental health crisis in Ontario.

Miss Surma moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 151, An Act to amend various statutes regarding infrastructure / Projet de loi 151, Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives aux infrastructures.

I have the honour to table a petition today that’s signed by many residents of the greater Sudbury area.

We know that air quality in our schools has a significant impact on our children, on their health, on their capacity to learn, on whether they’re present in school or not. But in Ontario, there are no standards for measuring or monitoring air quality and reporting on it. In our neighbouring province next door, Quebec, there are such standards, and so these petitioners are calling on the government of Ontario to require the Ministry of Education to take action to improve air quality in our schools and child care centres in Ontario by supporting and adopting the Improving Air Quality for Our Children Act.

I am very happy to add my signature to this petition and send it to the table with page Manha.

I recognize the member for Brampton West.

Thank you very much to the member for the question. In my remarks, I mentioned that we are one of the largest real estate portfolios in North America. I would argue, given the fact that we own such a diverse portfolio of physical assets, that we should probably pay close attention to it because (1) it costs money to maintain those buildings; (2) we have to keep our workers safe; (3) through modernization of workplaces and technology, we want to provide the best environment for our workers; and (4), we also want to make sure that we have a good view of all of the real estate within this portfolio so that we can manage it well.

If there is an opportunity for a building to be used by government for some other purpose, we would have insight. I guess the members opposite, the NDP, don’t think that 43 million square feet of office space and government assets is important, but we, on the other side, are fiscally prudent, good managers, and we do find that very important.

At the same time, we’re also responsible for government services and government assets and real estate. And so, of course, it is our responsibility to make sure that we manage those assets well, that we have a plan and a strategy in place to make good use of those assets. Having that centralized view of, again, all of those real estate properties and assets is important, so that government can be a good manager and can be fiscally prudent, especially during these difficult times.

I, as the infrastructure critic for the official opposition, have had the opportunity to stand in this House and debate this bill with a one-hour lead, sit at committee and hear from Ontarians, and now, again, put the same question, frankly, that I put at the beginning of this debate: What is this bill seeking to measurably fix?

If we had a dollar for every time the minister used the word “optimization,” we almost could have paid for the parking structure at Ontario Place. But I don’t tangibly know what that means. I understand “optimize” is making it better, but in what way will this bill make the realty portfolio in the province measurably optimized?

Questions?

I want to thank the member and the minster for their presentation. Providing homes for our most vulnerable, including those in long-term care, is an investment that our government has made a priority. How would this bill align with our government’s initiatives to invest in infrastructure and supporting communities?

Further questions?

Interjection.

In my remarks, I clearly identified the fact that should these institutions and their agencies want to sell or purchase real estate, they simply notify the minister responsible and/or seek an LGIC, which could include conditions as part of it.

We just want to know, if there is an agency or institution, when they are selling real estate. We want to know, because if there is some other purpose that government can use this real estate for—be it long-term care, be it affordable housing, be it providing additional space for ServiceOntario or anything else—then we may have that opportunity. But we wouldn’t know if we weren’t notified. That’s all this is doing. It’s just for us to have some insight on realty decisions moving forward.

Interjections.

To the minister’s point, this is a bill that takes more of the gems of the properties and brings them under that government umbrella—so Infrastructure Ontario, I guess—the Ontario Science Centre being one that folks have talked about in this space, and I’m looking forward to my one-hour lead and delving more into that.

But the Royal Ontario Museum, the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Science North: When the minister talks about how there might be other opportunities for the province, does she have something in mind for those?

In terms of the government being able to put eyes on or to be notified or to have insight into—I don’t disagree that we hope that the government has insight into big provincial decisions. But Infrastructure Ontario had previously taken over the property management of the Ontario Science Centre, and they failed to do the necessary repairs. One would imagine that the government would know about that, since Infrastructure Ontario is the de facto landlord allowing this neglect to unfold; one can only surmise why.

So I guess, if they’re looking to have insight, they already had it, and we have Infrastructure Ontario who have already been proven to be a bad landlord. So how come we’re giving them more provincial treasures to be responsible for?

Speaker, this particular bill is interesting because, after having followed it all the way through the process, I’m not sure what it is seeking to accomplish, actually. I’ve listened to the presentations from government. I’ve heard a lot about modernizing, optimizing and whatnot. But I don’t really know what they’re hoping to accomplish, and I’m a little short on trust with this particular government, so I have that quiet little voice in the back of my head that worries when I see a bill like this. There is no evidence that further centralization of real estate management will indeed make things better in Ontario. In fact, there’s some evidence that it will make things worse. There is no reason to trust this government’s intentions, especially when we’re not even clear on what they are.

This bill continues the government’s centralization of their real estate holdings, and they have significant real estate holdings. They say “modernizing”; we get worried. I had said earlier that, if we had a dollar for every time the minister said “optimization,” we might actually be able to pay for that parking structure at Ontario Place.

But this bill seems to solve a problem that we can’t identify and that this government has not explained. The 2017 Auditor General’s report was scathing, and it outlined numerous recommendations for this government to clean up its act and improve real estate management. Instead, we got Bill 69 and now this Bill 151, which tinkers around the edges. Instead of public civil servants, who are accountable, looking after things, the government is putting even more under the Infrastructure Ontario umbrella, where they rely on expensive private contractors to be in charge. The private contractors show up a lot in the Auditor General’s report, and nothing is good where it shows up in the Auditor Generals’ report. The public doesn’t trust this government’s decisions. Frankly, I don’t either, and I would like this minister and government to prove that they’re not doing something harmful.

Speaker, this bill, as I said, is the second phase of centralization of this province’s real estate holdings under Infrastructure Ontario. Bill 69 started, and this Bill 151 continues that. In the Auditor General’s 2017 report, the Real Estate Services 2017 report—it was scathing, and it looked at how this province and Infrastructure Ontario looks after—or doesn’t look after—its properties, from contract management to maintenance.

I’ve had a few opportunities through the years at estimates, and I’ve asked many questions of Infrastructure Ontario, with different leaders at the helm. The answer is usually something to the effect of, “Just trust us.” Michael Lindsay, who is the president and CEO of Infrastructure Ontario—I like working with him. I have appreciated that he is quite accessible. The opposition appreciates having access to real information. But Infrastructure Ontario is not necessarily one person or one leadership team; it is all of its private contractors that are not doing the work, not doing the job, that are filling up the pages of the Auditor General’s report.

This particular bill says that it is addressing some of the Auditor General’s concerns, but we don’t see that. The overall conclusion in the Auditor General’s report from 2017—I’ll just read the overall conclusion’s paragraph:

“Infrastructure Ontario could maintain government properties more cost-effectively by better overseeing the companies that it has engaged to provide most capital repair and property management services to ensure costs for capital repairs and property management services are reasonable and projects are completed on time. As well, existing government properties could be used more efficiently, with people occupying less space per person. The agreement between Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure needs better performance standards to incentivize Infrastructure Ontario to manage and maintain government properties more cost-effectively.”

So that’s one section, the overall conclusion. None of those concerns were addressed in this bill or in the previous one. I would say that something that folks need to understand, as I said, Infrastructure Ontario is not a bad organization. But if the work isn’t getting done by the people that they’re overseeing, we have a problem. Infrastructure Ontario hands out mega contracts for a few large property management firms, and they’re sending millions of public dollars to private pockets. I don’t know how that is in the best interests of Ontarians, of the taxpayer.

The 2017 AG report found that Infrastructure Ontario’s repair and maintenance expenses are 20% higher than the private sector pays. Ontarians will pay more for repairs and inevitably get less. We ought to bring this work back in-house and restore public sector capacity and affordability. Public dollars need to serve the public interest, not private pockets.

The thing about these embedded Infrastructure Ontario contractors, and what folks need to understand, is that Infrastructure Ontario’s real estate services are actually delivered not by public servants but by embedded private contractors that add layers of shareholder profits, driving up costs for public agencies and Ontario taxpayers. According to the Auditor General, these embedded private contractors do—this is my word, not hers—a garbage job. Despite this poor performance, they keep getting rewarded with contract renewals following flawed procurement processes that favour these entrenched incumbents, these existing contracts. That is what the Ministry of Infrastructure wants to force on all these public agencies that currently manage their own real estate interests.

Bill 151 does not fix the problems that the Auditor General has identified. It entrenches these problems and expands them further, and that is enriching these embedded private contractors at the public’s expense. That does not seem like the right direction.

Speaker, trust is dwindling for this government and their connections. I had the opportunity to sit at committee, and we heard from folks there, but we also received submissions. I wanted to share a letter from the Ontario Nurses’ Association that had been submitted to all committee members, and this speaks to the evaporating trust. Again, because this is a bill that I’m saying—and I’m fairly bright and capable most days—I don’t specifically understand what this bill is seeking to achieve. Optimization, modernization: Those aren’t tangible, measurable things, and if they are, we certainly don’t know what the measures are.

Why the government is doing this remains to be seen, but others are also wondering the same thing. Here is this letter, from February 20, 2024, and this was sent to the standing committee regarding protecting public health care infrastructure in Ontario—actually, a side note before I read this: This particular bill is focused on centralizing real estate assets, and among those are Ontario Health and Public Health Ontario—those entities. Back to their letter:

“I am writing to you on behalf of the 68,000 registered nurses and health-care professionals, and over 18,000 nursing student affiliates represented by the Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA). Our members work in hospitals, long-term care (LTC) facilities, public health units, the community and clinics across Ontario.

“ONA is deeply concerned by the government’s decision to privatize components of health care. Last year, we strongly opposed Bill 60, Your Health Act 2023, which allowed more private for-profit clinics to perform surgeries and diagnostic procedures. We also opposed Bill 135, the Convenient Care at Home Act, which established the structure where for-profit provider companies can operate and erode Ontario’s public home care system. ONA continues to have deep concerns regarding the use of for-profit nursing agencies and for-profit LTC homes.

“If passed, the Improving Real Estate Management Act, 2023”—that’s this one, Speaker—“gives the Minster of Infrastructure oversight over properties that belong to Public Health Ontario, Ontario Health and Ontario Health atHome. Public health-care infrastructure in Ontario is invaluable. It is critical that buildings, labs, hospitals and other public health-care facilities continue to provide social benefit.

“We are concerned that the proposed legislation makes it easier for the government to sell off public health facilities to private, for-profit developers. We urge the Standing Committee on Social Policy to amend the legislation so that public health properties cannot simply be handed over to well-connected developers. Instead, unused properties should be repurposed for community use. Examples of this include building non-profit community health centres, long-term care homes and co-operative and supportive housing projects.”

That’s signed by Erin Ariss, president of the Ontario Nurses’ Association.

Again, this is what all of the committee members received as one of the submissions at committee. Folks are concerned. They have questions, and I would have imagined that the minister would have taken every opportunity to tangibly explain what this bill and Bill 69—the same question: what it’s ultimately for, what the goals are.

Speaker, we’ve had a few conversations in this Legislature about the Ontario Science Centre, and the Ontario Science Centre is among those properties that are included in this bill, so I will just read from this article here:

“Ontario to Wrest Realty Functions from Agencies.

“The Ontario government is moving to wrest realty functions from 10 additional provincial agencies, including the administrator of the health care system, the manager of Algonquin Park, major museums and convention centres. Newly introduced legislation”—at the time—“follows measures taken earlier this year to centralize authority for real estate management within the Ministry of Infrastructure....

“The proposed new legislation, Bill 151, the Improving Real Estate Management Act, is presented as a means to manage real estate more efficiently and cost-effectively and to give the provincial government more flexibility.”

Basically, it quotes the minister: “If passed, this legislation would create a more centralized approach to how government manages and makes decisions about real estate...”

Again, the centralization for the sake of centralization when we don’t really know why doesn’t make anyone feel good about this.

Ontario Health, Public Health Ontario, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Ontario Science Centre, Royal Ontario Museum, McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp., Ottawa Convention Centre Corp., Science North, Algonquin Forestry Authority—a central government authority would assume control of those properties, so again with the why.

Here’s my concern: When we look at an example that has become familiar, because we’ve spent time talking in this room and also because many of us, as children, went to the Ontario Science Centre—folks still may go and enjoy the magic and wonder of the Ontario Science Centre. Infrastructure Ontario is their landlord, so Infrastructure Ontario is responsible for most of the Ontario Science Centre’s repairs; it’s not the Ontario Science Centre that is responsible itself. That’s according to their 2022-23 business plan. It turns out that Infrastructure Ontario is technically the Ontario Science Centre’s landlord.

Also, when you look at the business plan from 2022-23, you’ll see that the plan also described building conditions as being possibly a risk that ranked as medium high, and that it was ministry capital funding that was the solution to fix those concerns—certainly not the teardown that the minister has been describing. It’s further evidence that Infrastructure Ontario is a neglectful landlord and its privatized real estate management isn’t working, and evidently it’s sometimes oriented towards interests other than the public interest, as we’re seeing with this sad, unfolding Ontario Science Centre situation—and I don’t say the Ontario Science Centre is sad; the situation is sad, because it doesn’t have to be like this. The government could choose to invest in it and actually give it some spit and polish, but they’re choosing not to because they’re wanting to tell that—well, who knows why. But they are now able to tell the story that it is falling apart at the seams and we have to replace it.

Speaker, in the Ontario Science Centre’s 2019-20 business plan, they shared that the 10-year deferred maintenance needs of the building are $147.5 million, so I believe and understand that to be the cost to upgrade everything to appropriate standards, and I believe this would be a relevant comparator with respect to whether it would be cheaper to build something new at Ontario Place or renovate the existing building. Given the huge estimated cost of a parking garage at Ontario Place, I am confident that it is impossible that an entirely new science centre on that site would be cheaper than spending $147.5 million—forget the cost of the loss of Raymond Moriyama’s irreplaceable architectural masterpiece.

What is particularly interesting in that report, the 2019-20 business plan from the Ontario Science Centre—it says that 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 the centre can capably manage the repairs that it controls, but it says that “bigger issues” include “the degree to which the centre is able to influence decisions related to building improvements,” suggesting to me that landlord Infrastructure Ontario and its private contractor had been slacking in terms of repairs and that they have known about the need for those repairs.

Speaker, I tell you that to tell you this: Here’s a perfect example of just how imperfect this landlord and this system of the private contractors—in this case, CBRE—this is an example of what Infrastructure Ontario as a landlord looks like, and here we have a bill where we’re adding Ontario Health, Public Health Ontario, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Ontario Science Centre, the Royal Ontario Museum, McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre Corp., Ottawa Convention Centre Corp., Science North, Algonquin Forestry Authority.

We’re putting them closer, and what will that look like for them? Are they still going to be able to manage their own affairs? What will that look like? And when we ask, we get fancy words like “optimization.” Well, okay, but that’s not tangible.

Speaker, when we don’t keep costs reasonable, fewer resources are available to maintain aging assets; thousands of public assets in urgent need of capital repairs, and we’re overspending to deliver private sector profits. The deferred maintenance more than doubled from $420 million in March 2012 to $862 million in March 2017, and that’s pulled from the Auditor General’s report. These are big numbers. That’s a lot of science centre exhibit repair.

My question to the government has always been that, since Infrastructure Ontario had taken over the property management of the Ontario Science Centre, they failed to do the necessary repairs, they have been a bad landlord, so how come they’re making their role permanent, and how come we’re extending their reach?

Something else I’d like to delve into, because these are institutions that are laid out in this bill. The Ontario Science Centre: There are a lot of folks pretty unhappy about this. I’ve raised it in this House, that the minister is painting it as a teardown. But it isn’t. I would encourage everybody to take their families and go visit to explore their brilliant exhibits. But their capital repairs and building renewal are years behind, and according to their business plan—Infrastructure Ontario is technically the landlord, so it has been their choice not to invest and not to do those necessary repairs.

What’s needed is for the government to cough up the money for those repairs, and they have chosen not to. The deferred maintenance costs are $147.5 million, as I talked about, and that’s real money, but it’s far less than the cost of the Premier’s proposed parking garage at Ontario Place. There’s no way that the government doesn’t recognize that being a better landlord and doing the necessary repairs would be far less costly than building a whole new science centre.

Now, we saw the “business plan.” It was a business plan, and we waited a long time for it. The Minister of Infrastructure had said that they were going to be triple-checking the numbers. I don’t know that that’s what they were doing with the numbers. But when we saw the business plan, it doesn’t hold water—unlike the proposed parking garage might have to, but that’s another thing.

I did want to raise that the government has made a number of claims about moving the science centre, that it will allow thousands of new developments to be built on the site. The Premier wants density. But the science centre sits at a scenic ravine setting and the lands are considered hazardous due to steep slopes and flood plain associated with the west Don River. That’s not a place for houses. I don’t know what that’s a place for.

So I’m wondering—side question—what the science centre is going to become, since the government is saying it has to be moved to Ontario Place.

They have claimed that the science centre staff want to make the move. They want something new. They want something sparkling to have an opportunity to walk around, said the Premier. But the president of OPSEU, the union that represents some 400 employees at the centre, says, “Not a single one of them is happy. They’re angry. They’re upset. They weren’t consulted.”

The Premier had cited visitors to the centre were down 40%. It turns out that it was 30% that he was pointing to, but it also is interesting that the 2012-13 figures were being compared to pandemic figures of 2022-23, when attendance was slashed. That’s not comparing apples to apples. That’s not fair. It would be interesting to compare now, when people are realizing they’re faced with losing this gem and people are showing up.

The government has claimed that the new site at Ontario Place will attract one million visitors a year—and, hey, there will be people there; maybe they’ll go to the science centre too. But less clear is how many visitors are going to stay away, put off by the unbelievable downtown traffic, their inability to get there. How many visitors are we going to be losing, or people who will never choose to go? There’s a big question mark over that.

Another claim was that the existing centre is a rundown old building—but it isn’t. The centre’s 2017-18 business plan, which highlighted that the building requires ongoing upkeep of obsolete or failed infrastructure, pegged that 10-year-deferred maintenance to $147.5 million, and the government is choosing not to do it. Infrastructure Ontario is the landlord who chose not to do it.

The minister has said that this is going to be less expensive, to make the science centre part of Ontario Place, to build a brand new facility, one with new exhibits. I’m going to talk more about that business case in a minute.

They’ve also said that the new centre is going to be spectacular and state of the art. But do you know what? It’s going to be smaller, about half the current space. So what happens to some of the exhibits? I can’t find the article right now, but one of the things that I had read was that the rainforest exhibit, kind of a cool thing—and maybe the government recognizes that rainforests are also endangered, so if we’re getting rid of rainforests in real life, maybe, I guess, we should get rid of the exhibits, eh? But it’s not making the move to Ontario Place. In fact, the new science centre is going to be, I think, 45% of the size, so it’s going to be basically half the size, but they’re suggesting that it’s going to have so many more visitors—but also 53 fewer staff members to handle those numbers.

This facility was purpose-built to be a science centre, not a parking garage topper. So we are going to be missing out. I also think that, as we saw in the business case, putting this cultural gem at Ontario Place might warm the cockles of a few hearts that are otherwise really aggressively opposed to what is happening at Ontario Place. This maybe sweetens the deal a little bit.

But it’s too bad, and it’s a missed opportunity. If they were bound and determined to put a science facility down at the lake, there’s a fair bit of lake science that one could learn. You could have a satellite location. You could have a science centre water edition. Why not? A little bubble in this giant spa bubble—I mean, what’s another bubble? However, that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re seeing an attack on science, which maybe isn’t just a provincial thing, but anyway.

Folks are quite upset about losing the Ontario Science Centre—I’m reading here: “Architects Rise to Defend Ontario Science Centre.”

Here’s one: “‘I have to use words that are quotable. I’m horrified,’ said Diane Chin, chair of the board of directors of Architecture Conservancy Ontario....

“Architect Joel Leon, programming director for the Toronto Society of Architects” said the Premier’s “statement took the society by surprise.

“‘It’s a very significant building. And it seems like we are in a crucial point, again, in our history here in Ontario, where we have to work quite hard to preserve buildings that maybe sometimes are a bit misunderstood or need a little bit of work to bring them back to their full life.’”

It’s reminding folks that “the science centre was designed by revered Toronto architect Raymond Moriyama in the brutalist style and opened in September 1969.”

It was supposed to have a really exciting life ahead of it, right? The government has claimed, without evidence, that at this point it would be more costly to complete long-delayed repairs to the science centre than to relocate it, with a much smaller facility built atop a publicly funded, government-funded parking structure that alone is going to cost an estimated half a billion dollars.

The late Raymond Moriyama, the world-renowned architect, had stated that with proper maintenance, the Ontario Science Centre could last “far beyond 250 years.” It also has the embodied carbon in it, instead of building a whole new one.

But back to what I had promised, which is that I wanted to talk about the government’s business case because that speaks to the heart of this particular bill, which is centralizing control of the real estate portfolio, including the Royal Ontario Museum, the Ontario Science Centre, the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Science North—all of these—Ontario Health, Public Health Ontario, the Niagara Parks Commission—lots of people looking with interest.

People love Science North, and I kind of want to know why it’s not just on the government’s radar, but on their list—their list for what? Their list for optimization, their list for modernization. I was at committee with the member for Nickel Belt, and the people in her riding don’t necessarily love the words “modernization” and “optimization” in and of themselves. They would like to know what designs this government has on Science North, if any—or if the government is wanting to use that property for something else, will it be used for community good? There are lots of things needed in her community. So there are a lot of people looking at this with interest.

But a lot of folks have been looking, to this point, at the Ontario Science Centre, because the government and Infrastructure Ontario, as the landlord of that, are at the centre of this bill, with all of these institutions being moved closer under the Infrastructure Ontario umbrella. We have been waiting with bated breath. We’ve been waiting. We’ve been begging for the business case from the Minister of Infrastructure about why they are moving the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place.

Here’s a piece that reminds us that the report, the business case, suggests the move could “counter negative perceptions of the commercialization and privatization” of Ontario Place. Yes, probably. If people are so aggressively mad about something, having a deal-sweetener or a positive thing—anyway, I’ll continue reading.

This is from a CTV article:

“According to the report written by Infrastructure Ontario ... about $396 million minimum would be required in the next 20 years to address this repair work, the report suggests.

“Much of the repair work is due to deferred maintenance that has been put off for years. The building’s roof, wall, mechanical, electrical and elevator systems, among other things, are in disrepair and require significant investment.

“The report”—and this is the government’s business case—“also notes that impact from construction related to multiple transit projects in the area, including the Ontario Line, may result in a decrease in visitors.”

Michael Lindsay, president and CEO of Infrastructure Ontario—I mentioned him earlier—had told reporters at a technical briefing, “In short, no matter what money we spend on updating the existing OSC site, it will always be less efficient, oversized for its current needs and be more expensive to operate and maintain.” He also “added that the benefits of having the science centre at Ontario Place was the ‘clustering effect.’ Visitors will be able to enjoy all of the other features at Toronto’s waterfront while also visiting the science pavilion.”

Okay, so this whole bill is about infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario. This is a quote from Michael Lindsay, and I’m going to read it again because it made me think: “No matter what money we spend on updating the existing OSC site, it will always be less efficient, oversized for its current needs and be more expensive to operate and maintain.”

There’s a rainforest in there. I don’t know how efficient a rainforest exhibit is, but how is the government and how is Infrastructure Ontario measuring efficiency? It’s a science centre. You walk in and you’re in an experiment, okay? You walk in and there’s the magic and majesty of the building, of the place and of the exhibits. It’s not an office building. You don’t walk in and there are tight little cute cubicles that maximize production and whatever; it’s a science centre, and there’s lots of space in there for learning.

In fact, the building also has a lot of nooks and crannies in behind where people can repair exhibits; they can build and make. They’ve got maker spaces. It’s not just about the kids who go there and learn; you also have businesses who use that space for fabrication, that they might make props for community theatre. They use that facility.

Side note: None of those spaces and places are going to be part of the parking garage cherry down at Ontario Place. That’s something that is no longer going to be a part of this. Is that efficient use of space? I don’t know. How are we measuring it? It was bringing money in to the Ontario Science Centre as a side venture, to actually allow people to come in and use their fabrication space. That will now be gone. Rather than the Ontario Science Centre bringing money in to offset some of their costs, that will be gone, so aren’t we reducing the efficiency of the space?

Anyway, “oversized for its current needs.” Guys, the people in this building who have offices—and I know the government members don’t all have offices in this building. There are 14-foot ceilings. I want to point out that we are standing in a beautiful hall of majesty. I don’t know that I would deem it efficient. I still am going to protect it, and I’m going to celebrate it, and I want to ensure that it gets to live longer than the 53 years that the science centre gets to exist because the minister says it’s so old. Well, so is this building, and we are all united in preserving it, ensuring that it has a future for future parliamentarians. We can see the potential in this space, but is it efficient? Maybe you could move the science centre into this room; it already houses the circus on some days. This is not about efficiency necessarily, so for the Infrastructure Ontario folks to only point to money or only point to whatever measures of efficiency they’re using, I don’t think that that’s fair, not when we’re talking about the science centre. It’s not an office building.

I want to thank someone named Elsa Lam. I don’t know Elsa, but I appreciate her work in this article from Canadian Architect. I don’t know how I missed this article from the first debate, but it’s still good and I’m going to use it for this debate. This article is called “Debunking the ‘Business Case’ for Relocating the Ontario Science Centre.” The business case—we waited and we waited and we begged and we begged. The minister said, “We’re triple-checking the numbers.” Then we got the numbers, and I kind of had to triple-check my own ability to do math, because it didn’t add up. It doesn’t add up.

“Infrastructure Ontario has released its business case for a major, and controversial, component of their Ontario Place plans: the closure of the existing Raymond Moriyama-designed 1969 Ontario Science Centre, and its relocation to a smaller, new-build facility at Ontario Place.

“The 78-page document, accompanied by a 333-page appendix, argues that the Ontario Science Centre will require $369 million in deferred and critical maintenance over the next 20 years”—over the next 20 years. That’s not the cost to repair it today; that’s the cost to repair it and then maintain it for 20 years. That’s a 20-year figure, but we’re using it just to explain what it will cost to repair. Also “an additional $109 million to upgrade its exhibitions and public spaces,” so the total is $478 million. In comparison, the report said that “the cost to build a new science centre at Ontario Place would be $322 million, plus $64 million for its exhibitions, for a total of $384 million—$94 million less.”

So just comparing those numbers: $478 million all in, apparently, to rehabilitate the Ontario Science Centre, according to the government’s numbers, versus $384 million for a new one at Ontario Place. Okay? Okay.

However, when you dig into those numbers, the new science centre is proposed to sit on top of a 2,000-space underground parking garage, which, if built, is going to cost—I forget the numbers now.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Infrastructure on Bill 151. Most people, and certainly most people in Ontario, would have no idea that the Ontario government is such a large landlord, that it owns so many properties across our large province. Today, when we are a province emerging with technology and innovation and reinventing ourselves to be a province for a future generation of explorers and entrepreneurs, it begs the question—to the minister—in the absence of a centralized management approach, how would we be able to take on the infrastructure of tomorrow?

$450 million.

Okay, half a billion, give or take, so a lot of money, and the science centre is going to be on top of that. So the science centre won’t have a basement or a foundation because that will actually be the parking garage, right? It’s on top. We don’t have to build a basement. It’s sitting on a parking garage. The parking garage is its basement, so that doesn’t count.

We’re talking about building a new science centre, but we’re not factoring in a basement or a main floor because we’re assuming the parking garage. Now, if the parking garage moves to the different location, it’s going to need a foundation. In order to build a foundation, a basement foundation, it would cost perhaps some hundreds of millions. That’s not in the number, okay? So we’re building a science centre that doesn’t have a foundation if the parking structure doesn’t work out—not comparing apples to apples here, kids.

Beyond this, the government numbers for what it would cost to build a new science centre on top of a parking garage, it also “excludes the cost for a 150-metre-long underground, two-level link between the new science pavilion on the mainland”—proposed—“and the bridge to the pods”—think of the iconic pods—which is going to be “an enormously expensive component of the project,” and it will be “an essential element for allowing ticketed visitors to move from the main science pavilion to the pods and cinesphere.”

This massive two-level connector, 150 metres long, underground, beside a lake, isn’t part of the figure. So what it will cost to build a new one doesn’t include this two-level, 150-metre-long link; doesn’t include a foundation or a basement, because it assumes a parking garage, so shh.

Now, on the other side, the science centre’s required repairs: The government has chosen not to invest over many years. Someone will have to pay that eventually, but that’s someone else’s problem, I guess.

“The cost of building a new science centre, which the report pegs at $384 million, disregards pricing put” out “by its own consultants. It doesn’t include quantity surveyor A.W. Hooker’s allowances for soft costs and a construction contingency—including consultant fees”—sorry, these are numbers that are not in the cost of building a new one, okay? So it doesn’t include “consultant fees, project management fees, independent inspection and testing, third-party commissioning, legal fees, development and permit charges, client FFE, and the cost of change orders made post-tender—which amount to an estimated additional $100 million.” That ain’t in the number. “A.W. Hooker’s overall estimate for the project is $499,200,000. And that’s for a building whose program relies on” a 150-metre-long underground link next to the shoreline, not included, and “2,750 square metres of underground functional space—a full floor—but whose price tag does not include that floor, nor any type of parking, basement, or foundations.” Again, it ain’t comparing apples to apples here.

I want to thank Elsa Lam because she puts this all very clearly. I’m happy to share this article with folks.

She goes on: “The business case’s costing for the relocated Ontario Place omits the costing for the rehabilitation of the pods and cinesphere, as well as the cost for building the underground science link … detailed in the test fit documents as a two-storey underground link.” Okay. So the pods and cinesphere that everybody thinks of—and that’s where exhibits will eventually be and whatnot. That’s the link we aren’t paying for, or we’re not talking about, that’s where it goes—they’re old, okay? And they have to be rehabilitated. The money for that rehabilitation—not in this. So we’re going to put exhibits in the pods, but we’re not going to talk about what they’ll cost. But interestingly, that $499-million price tag—and that is from their own consultants. The A.W. Hooker’s allowances and all of that is their work. The $499-million price tag also excludes exhibitions from the majority of the pods.

It says that the Ontario Science Centre—I guess this is their board—“has opted to not program three of the pods on opening day” and that “removes $16.8 million from the previous allowance.” So we have heritage pods that need to be rehabilitated, but the money to do that isn’t included in how we’re going to put the science centre there.

It doesn’t include the “$25.5 million currently being spent on recladding those structures” and the Ontario Science Centre—I don’t know if it’s the board—has opted not to program on opening day, so we don’t even have to count the $16.8 million to have exhibits in three of those pods. Because on opening day, they won’t be ready, so we’re not factoring that into the cost of putting the science centre—

Props aren’t allowed.

Oh, it is so.

This also “assumes that there will be no phased work, no accelerated construction schedule, and no work completed during the winter, after hours, or on weekends.” All of those things would be more expensive and “command premiums.” Thank you, Elsa Lam.

I’m going to read this section, also from her article. For folks following along at home, this is the article “Debunking the ‘Business Case’ for relocating the Ontario Science Centre.” She has written, “For the sake of simplicity, a somewhat more accurate high-level comparison might be to just put the two consultant estimates, in full, side by side: $499 million for a new science centre and partial exhibitions, to which should be added the cost of a basement level” and “foundations … versus $328 million to repair the existing science centre, including giving its exhibitions and public spaces a generous $100-million refresh,” or a $109-million refresh.

Also, “the massive carbon cost of building an underground, multi-level concrete parking garage … next to a lake—as opposed to renovating an existing building whose embodied carbon has already been locked into place” is something that we should value.

Another piece of this math is “the government’s case for relocating the … science centre is strongly based on the efficiencies of a smaller facility, but also on its ability, paradoxically, to attract more visitors. It estimates that 1.15 million people will visit the relocated science centre in its first years. It also expects to accrue cost savings through staffing reductions: the estimates count on laying off 53 people, or one out of every six people who currently work at the science centre.” Yes, firing one out of every six is going to save them some money.

However, it continues, “They are expecting that 50% more people will visit a facility that is 45% of the size of the current science centre, with a significantly reduced staff managing it all.”

A few more interesting pieces is that, if we were looking at reasons to keep, or what would happen if we kept the science centre where it is—if we actually looked at the numbers, this business case that the government has put forward “assumes that the opening of the Eglinton LRT and eventually the Ontario Line, the densification of the area with condo towers, and the investment of over $100 million in exhibitions and public spaces in the building will result in precisely no increase in the visitors to the science centre in its existing location.”

So all that housing, all the transit, all the money into new exhibits, maybe a couple of bucks to advertising, but no one else will come. And so those are the numbers presented in this triple-checked business case.

Another fun fact, again, from this article: “When you remove the ‘adjustment factor’ of 1.3 that” Infrastructure Ontario “instructed its consultants to apply to the replacement value of the existing building, which carries forward in maintenance costs that are inflated by 30%”—yes, the savings from the Ontario Science Centre evaporate and, in fact, are reversed.

So if we didn’t actually doctor the numbers, if Infrastructure Ontario had not instructed their consultants to use an adjustment factor of 1.3, maybe we’d have a sense of the real number there.

The business case contorts itself and makes clear a justification for relocation.

Two years before any public announcement, it was determined to relocate the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place. The business case clearly supports that plan, but there does also have to be value. So, real numbers aside, there should also be value in a gem like the Ontario Science Centre, in the experiential value science should still have value.

It’s a great article. I’d invite everybody to read it. Thank you, Elsa from Canadian Architect, “Debunking the ‘Business Case’ for Relocating the Ontario Science Centre.”

But all of that to say that Infrastructure Ontario and its contractors have not made the case for themselves to be given more properties to look after, that the embedded private contracts are more expensive, significantly so, as clearly laid out by the Auditor General. The Minister of Infrastructure has said at some point that this was in answer to the Auditor General’s 2017 report, but certainly nothing we can point to and all of the other very clear solutions and challenges, as laid out by the Auditor General, remain unaddressed.

Speaker, as I said earlier, I had the opportunity to speak at committee—I’m sorry, not to speak at committee; to sit at committee. I did speak, though. Don’t worry. And I had the opportunity to listen. There were a few folks that came. There was thoughtful discussion. There were also some shenanigans. One of the independent members had brought—

The committee process was a rushed process, and that’s too bad. We have seen that the government wants to do away with the science centre as we know and love it, that they have other plans, but plans that people aren’t clear on. The contract, the lease, anything to do with real estate holdings, the government pulls behind the cabinet curtain and folks don’t get to know. That doesn’t mean they don’t care, and that doesn’t mean they don’t have questions.

I would think that the minister would bend over backwards to be transparent and share those clear numbers with folks, but the breakdown of the business case where Infrastructure Ontario has been the landlord for the science centre and we see mathematic or financial gymnastics in that business case, and that’s not what people are looking for.

I don’t see much accountability in the province for many things. I would challenge the government to point to numbers, to point to where in the budget, to point to a contract that anyone in Ontario is allowed to see. The only thing that we get to see is through the Auditor General and what we can glean from their reports.

This is the second part of an initiative, this bill is a second part in a series of pieces of legislation, as the minister has told us, to pull more holdings under the control of Infrastructure Ontario, to make their role permanent with many more public gems, public treasures, public agencies, and I think Ontarians broadly have concerns. We had someone come to the committee and say that they did not agree with the centralization for centralization’s sake and was challenging them on that, but they raised that we don’t have accountability.

I asked questions of the minister at committee about why the need for more and more privatization, more and more opportunities to pull public entities behind that government curtain, but again we’re not entirely sure for whose benefit. If they’re going to sell stuff, we want to know. Is someone planning to sell something? Like, is there something in the works? Does the government know something the rest of us don’t about the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Science North or the Ottawa Convention Centre Corp.?

We don’t know what it’s for. Is the ROM planning a sell-off of its assets and property? Is Science North planning that? I don’t think so, but if they know something and they want to stop it, there’s more conversation to be had.

I’ll take the last bit of my time to raise an issue that my colleague from Nickel Belt has raised repeatedly, with much frustration, in this House in various ways. I sit beside her, of course. She spent so many minutes of a debate, one time, breaking down the housing in Gogama story. If you google “Gogama housing” and the MPP for Nickel Belt, you’ll get stories that go back to 2015 or 2014 and whatnot. But the more recent version—I’ll share some of her thoughts from committee that she was actually able to ask the minister directly about. That was a first because, to this point, the member from Nickel Belt has been able to send letters to various ministries and ministers and has received boilerplate responses—and then sends back, and they get the same one. It has been quite a ridiculous process. It was a big deal that she raised it in committee and actually had the minister acknowledge what she said. So I’m hopeful this may one day be remedied.

What the member for Nickel Belt said was, “In September 2020, the Premier, the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Northern Development, the Minister of the Environment—a whole bunch of ministers came to my riding for the grand opening of the Iamgold mine. While they were there, I showed them—’Look across the street, in the community of Gogama. You, the government, own 11 properties that people want to buy.’

“In January 2021, I wrote to your ministry, I wrote to the Premier, I wrote to the Minister of Mines, I wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources—I wrote to seven different ministers to say, ‘There are 1,800 workers sleeping in bunkers at the mine across the street from Gogama. You own 11 properties in Gogama that hundreds of people want to buy. Would you put them up for sale?’ The answer I got back in January 2021 from your predecessor was that you had to do due diligence—’Give us a few months.’ A year later, I checked, and they said it would be one to two years. Two years later, I checked and I wrote to you, and you wrote me back the exact same letter—’Give us one to two years to do due diligence.’

“If having government oversight of real estate is to improve efficiencies, taking three years—actually, we’re going into four; we are into February 2024—to sell 11 homes, and most of them are not worth more than $200,000, is not efficiency. That’s leaving 1,800 workers to sleep in bunkers across the street from where you own properties that are beautiful, that you have paid to maintain—to cut the grass, to shovel the snow, to trim the hedges. They are beautiful. You’ve paid for all this for years.

“Why don’t you put it up for sale? And how is that efficiency, four years later?”

That’s a great question.

The minister said, “I can appreciate your frustration. Certainly, I am aware that there is a need for more housing in northern communities, given the government’s investments in mines.

“The response that was provided to you in the letter is correct.”

She went on to explain the involved process and said, “But it’s noted. I will take that back to the team....”

I’m saying that with a little bit of hope for the member from Nickel Belt, who raises this issue all the time. But it’s an example that, as we’re talking about a government initiative to centralize their real estate portfolio—to make it optimized, maybe more efficient. These are not measurable things—maybe they are, but we don’t know what the measures are. We have a community that has been begging for years and years and years to have those properties be usable. Maybe the government wants to do something else. Maybe it doesn’t want to sell them—but then tell them. Maybe it wants to keep the land but sell the houses on it and it’s—I don’t know. But is there not a conversation to be had? This is why the relationships, the open back-and-forth, are so important and why privatizing real estate and centralizing real estate—why people are nervous.

Speaker, I have had a second opportunity in this House to speak for an hour about Bill 151. Knowing that this is just the second in a series, I have a sneaking suspicion I will be back to deliver what I hope is a very different speech; what I hope is a speech, next time, that says, “Wow, look, the government did something that the folks can trust, that they have full understanding that this solves a problem that’s been identified by an officer of the Legislature.” But I have a sneaking suspicion that may not be the speech I get to deliver.

We don’t know what problem this bill is meant to solve. It certainly does not solve the very clear problems that were revealed in the Auditor General’s 2017 report. This may make them worse. In short, this bill does nothing to address the actual problems cited by the Auditor General with respect to the Ministry of Infrastructure’s poor oversight of real estate services in Ontario.

With that, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.