This government has a habit of admitting mistakes only when they get caught red-handed. The $8.3 billion greenbelt giveaway, well-documented by the Auditor General, the Integrity Commissioner and now under criminal investigation by the RCMP, is only their latest scandal.

They also have a habit of blaming problems in our province, which they govern, on every level of government except their own. We have an affordability crisis, and yet what does this government do in their fall economic statement? They create a new bank with $3 billion of taxpayer money.

Speaker, 2,023 days ago, on May 10, 2018, the government made a promise, one that remains broken to this day: They promised to lower taxes for lower- and middle-income households. That would put up to $1,691 back into those households’ bank accounts.

My question to the Premier: When will the government stop playing the blame game and finally keep their promise to lower taxes and help Ontario families?

Speaker, families earning between $46,000 to $92,000 could save up to $1,691 if this government were to simply keep its promise. That’s money that could help those families deal now with high rents and the cost of living. This government, and this government alone, has the power to keep its promise, but instead of doing so, it’s going to spend $3 billion to set up an infrastructure bank that will only attract the money the government says it will if the government privatizes our public services.

Once again to the Premier: Will the Premier keep his promise and make life more affordable for Ontario families by lowering taxes now?

We know from the sound work of the Auditor General and Integrity Commissioner on the $8.3 billion greenbelt scandal that this government has been meddling in land development processes to benefit their friends. The government is now under criminal investigation by the RCMP for potential wrongdoing related to these development changes.

The public knew and opposition members knew from the beginning that the greenbelt changes and municipal boundary changes smelled bad. Similarly, changes to Toronto’s Midtown in Focus plan smell bad too. The midtown plan for Toronto, developed with extensive consultation, was thrown out by this government without any consultation with the city or its residents.

My question to the Premier: Given the government’s track record of political interference in land development, can the Premier assure the people of Don Valley West and Toronto that there was no political meddling in the decision to overturn the Midtown in Focus plan, yes or no?

My community had a plan in place to ensure thoughtful, deliberate density, but now the proposed developments in my community have big signs from the TDSB and Catholic school board warning future residents that their children will be unable to go to school in their own communities. That’s not responsible development, it’s not good for community building and it’s not good for safety.

City staff, residents and elected officials did not ask for this change to the official midtown plan; in fact, quite the opposite. They continue to be shocked and outraged by the irresponsible development taking place in my community.

Once again, I will ask the Premier through you: Who advised him to overturn the Midtown in Focus plan, eliminating height restrictions and increasing the underlying value of the real estate, and are they the same people who stand to profit from these changes?

Last December, I asked the Premier if the people who told him to pave over the greenbelt were the same people who stood to benefit. I didn’t get an answer then, but we know now, thanks to the Auditor General, that that is exactly what happened.

This government’s decision to finally accept the Auditor General’s most important recommendation—to reverse the greenbelt land swap—is a welcome decision. However, it’s not that simple. There are still lots of questions that need answers. What will happen now? Developers and companies that bought greenbelt land were expecting an $8.3-billion payday from their close relationship with this government.

My question to the Premier: Will he assure this House and the people of Ontario that not one red cent of taxpayer money will be spent to make good on their $8.3-billion payday deal with developers?

Speaker, usually “sorry” means “I will do better,” and yet the Premier’s apology has not extended to other major files that the people of Ontario are concerned about. We have Ontario Place, where this government made a 95-year deal with an Austrian mega-spa, and the names of the people who own it are not known. We have the surprise decision to move the science centre, another flawed process with no public consultation.

Speaker, my question to the Premier: Is he sorry enough about the greenbelt’s flawed process that he will open the books on Ontario Place and the science centre and assure the people of Ontario know that he has put an end to brown-envelope backroom deals?

Thank you to the member from London for the question.

I would say no, that is not good business practice, of course. I think that was a nice friendly question over here, so thank you.

Again, that’s the crux of some of our questions about this bill.

Certainly, the Auditor General had some strong recommendations for Infrastructure Ontario and how it does its procurement, how it manages its suppliers—and that their tenants are not getting the services they need on a timely basis or perhaps in a cost-efficient way.

I’m still trying to understand why this bill is specifically only focusing on one particular recommendation, which was number 10, where the Ministry of Infrastructure says they will undertake a review of the realty operating model and associated financial model in order to study and implement improvements to the management of government properties, and that they will work closely with Infrastructure Ontario and all ministry tenants to examine different options for effective service delivery and the management of government properties—so again, I would say that that is really what the focus should be, as opposed to a recommendation to immediately seize control over these properties.

Thank you to the member opposite for his discussion about this bill.

The government’s news release about this bill talks about this being in response to the 2017 Auditor General’s report.

I’m wondering if the government has had consultation with the Auditor General about this legislation in advance and what their office’s response was, i.e., does this actually meet their recommendations; does it fulfill all of the recommendations from that report? If not, what other steps will the government be taking to close those other gaps found by the Auditor General?