Ford government’s Ontario Place redevelopment costs have ballooned by $1.8B, process was unfair and subjective: AG

Ontario’s Auditor General (AG) has released a scathing audit of the Ford government’s Ontario Place redevelopment efforts, uncovering that the province’s costs have increased by $1.8 billion since the call for action was issued in 2019.

All told, Auditor General Shelley Spence’s report also finds that the Ford government’s Ontario Place redevelopment efforts could cost taxpayers $2.2 billion.

Five years ago, the government’s projected costs to the province for the redevelopment ranged from $335 million to $424 million, but the AG now concludes that costs have grown by $1.8 billion, partially due to the government’s move to build a new science centre at the Ontario Place site.

The auditor general pegs the cost of the new science centre at “over $700 million.” It also revealed that parking at the site would cost “over $280 million.” However, the report concluded that the cost did not need to be this high as other rejected bids included options for private funding.

“We found that seven of the ten comprehensive site-wide submissions included a design for the public realm, three of which included a provision to pay for the public realm,” the AG writes. “Seven included a parking solution, three of which included a provision to pay for parking.”

Science Centre

The auditor general’s report mentions that the estimated cost of relocating the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place has increased by nearly $400 million, and it is now set to cost taxpayers more than keeping the facility at its current location.

“Maintaining the Ontario Science Centre at the existing Don Mills site would cost the province $1.304 billion in Net Present Value over 50 years,” the AG’s report states.

The cost estimate for building and maintaining the new Ontario Science Centre at Ontario Place increased by $397 million to $1.444 billion.

Unfair process

The auditor general concluded that the Ford government did not design and conduct the redevelopment of Ontario Place by best practices for large-scale, modern land-use development projects and that the call for the development process and decisions “Were not fair, transparent or accountable to all participants.”

The audit finds that, contrary to the call for development rules, some bidders had direct access to an Infrastructure Ontario Executive.

“We found a Vice President at IO, responsible for conducting the financial assessments, communicated directly with Therme Canada [Therme] and other participants during the CFD [call for development] open period,” the report states.

“The VP exchanged nine emails and held one call with Therme’s legal counsel about media interest regarding Therme’s involvement in the CFD process.”

---

As a result, the auditor general found a “risk that the process is not perceived as transparent, accountable and fair to all participants” because the provincial government communicated with only some participants during the open period.

Moreover, the auditor general found that the “social and environmental benefits and costs of redevelopment were not factored into the assessment framework or considered in the redevelopment, including in the lease negotiations with anchor tenants.”

Therme Group released the following statement after the AG’s report came out on Tuesday.

“The bid process was clear to us, and any questions we may have had were answered within the process prior to the close of the submissions deadline. Therme Group followed IO’s process and fully complied with its requirements at every stage in our submission and negotiations.

“We are pleased the Auditor General’s report confirms that Therme Group was a finalist in the 2017 process, followed the established process in 2019, and was successful on the basis of the merits of our bid.”

Opioid crisis

Beyond Ontario Place, the auditor general also found that, despite the province implementing an opioid strategy in 2016, the Ministry of Health doesn’t have the processes to meet its challenges. Opioid deaths and emergency department visits in Ontario have increased by almost 300 per cent over the last decade.

The report says the province’s decision to close supervised consumption sites “was made without proper planning, impact analysis or public consultations,” and the ministry “did not develop a comprehensive plan to assess and quantify the impacts on public health and Ontario’s health system.”

The delivery of evidence-based services for people who require help with opioid addiction hasn’t been provided in a timely manner, prescription and dispensing practices haven’t been adequately monitored, and a proper business case analysis for the new Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) hubs hasn’t been provided.

Toronto District School Board

The safety of students and staff at Toronto District School Board (TDSB) schools has been of concern, with violent incidents increasing by 67 per cent over the last five years.

The report found that while the TDSB’s rate of violent incidents is lower than the provincial average, it is currently at the highest level recorded for the TDSB.

Some of the recommendations provided to the Ministry of Education include the TDSB taking more action to implement its safety strategy effectively. The report says the TDSB is centrally tracking only some of the bullying its students are experiencing, and as a result, only 375 incidents were reported through its Student Safety Line over five years.

Minister Zoning Orders (MZO)

The audit found potential preferential treatment when handing out ministerial zoning orders.

A minister’s zoning order, or MZO, is a mechanism the government can use to speed up land rezoning instantly. For example, if someone who owns land zoned for agriculture wants to build houses there instead, they have to apply to the municipality to have it re-zoned.

That process is often long and difficult. The MZO, however, lets the government instantly override all the rezoning red tape.

The AG report found that “there was no protocol and no apparent rationale for prioritizing some MZO requests over others” and that “the minister’s office often selected which of the MZO requests to work on, setting ad hoc (and often short) timelines for the ministry to review the request.”

The AG also found that staff at the minister’s office “instructed that some requests be assessed and provided to the minister by tight deadlines.” No rationale was documented for either the timelines given to the ministry or why specific MZO requests were prioritized above other requests.