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.

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—

I want to thank the member from Oshawa for all the work she did in preparing for the last hour. Thank you very much. I also want to assure her that the new science centre will have a foundation underneath it. I’m 100% confident of that.

But I want to talk about change: the changes to technology that we see today, the changes to building materials, the changes to safety requirements, accessibility requirements for our buildings. It provides the need to support and manage these changes. This needs to be done efficiently: cutting red tape, practising good governance, minimizing administration through centralization and reducing regulations through red tape reduction. Would the member not agree that these are good initiatives for the taxpayers of Ontario?

The member opposite spoke a lot of the science centre. Of course, we are very proud of the decision that we made, because now we will have a brand new science centre that families will be able to enjoy for another 50 years, as opposed to letting an old facility continue to break down and never actually address the issue. But nonetheless, Ontarians will have a brand new science centre.

The member opposite spoke about it. She refuses to acknowledge the facts that were mentioned in the AG report, which do confirm everything the government said in terms of building a brand new facility and some of the challenges of the old building. My question is, then, will the member opposite accept the recommendations and comments made by experts in the field like Lord cultural planning, Ernst and Young, and Pinchin, all of which have commented on the science centre and conducted business cases to move the science centre over to a new—

Thank you to the member from Oshawa for her very enlightening remarks on this bill and on the science centre this afternoon.

I want to ask a question about the fact that the Ottawa Convention Centre is included in this bill. I’m not aware of anyone in Ottawa who asked for this to be included. I haven’t heard any hint of a concern that the Ottawa Convention Centre was going to acquire or dispose of property.

I know that the real concerns of Ottawa residents are the affordability crisis, the lack of affordable housing and our health care system, which is falling down around our ears. So how does this bill make life any better for the residents of Ottawa?