September 7, 2025
Published in the Hamilton Spectator, September 10, 2025
The Ford government’s lack of transparency around the potential costs of the proposed 413 Highway through the GTA greenbelt is drawing growing criticism. The 413 would run from Highway 400, just south of King City, to the convergence of Highways 401, 407 and 403 north of Oakville.
Whatever the costs of the 413 might ultimately turn out to be, it is important to recall that the project only represents the tip of what is now a more than half-trillion dollar fiscal iceberg of nuclear (estimated in the hundreds of billions, highway ($30 billion plus $50-100 billion for burying the 401 highway) and transit ($61 billion) projects now being pursued by the province.
There is no question that the province needs to make investments in energy and transportation infrastructures. But whether the specific projects the province is focused on make economic, technological, environmental and planning sense, and whether the resulting projects are being well managed, is another set of questions altogether.
None of the projects in the province’s growing portfolio of infrastructure megaprojects has been subject to any meaningful form of public assessment or review. That situation has been reinforced by the Ford government’s ‘streamlining’ of the province’s environmental assessment process to the point of meaninglessness. Many of the key projects, like the 413 Highway, 404-400 Highway Bradford By-Pass and the Pickering B nuclear plant refurbishment, have been previously assessed as unnecessary and uneconomic.
On transit, there has never been a serious explanation of how the long-planned Pape to Queen station downtown relief subway line in Toronto, morphed into the $20+ billion Ontario Line megaproject running from the now discarded Science Centre to the long-closed and partially demolished Ontario Place. Instead, the provincial transit agency has been granted authority to effectively approve its own projects, under direction from the province.
With respect to energy, serious questions have to be asked about the province’s program of nuclear construction and refurbishment projects. These now carry an estimated potential price tag in the range of $400 billion (Wesleyville new nuclear $200+ billion; Bruce C new nuclear ~$100 billion; Darlington SMRs ~$25 billion; Darlington, Bruce and Pickering B refurbishments $50+ billion – based on recent actual costs and external estimates) Do these projects represent the least costly, safest and most efficient way of decarbonizing the province’s energy systems, while meeting future energy needs? Ontario residents have no way of knowing, as the province’s energy plans are no longer subject to any form of external review, assessment or approval.
The question of how these megaprojects are being managed also has to be considered. The delays and cost overruns on provincial transit projects, like the Eglinton and Mississauga LRT projects, and the risks of similar outcomes with the much larger Ontario line project, have drawn attention to the near-complete lack of meaningful oversight and transparency around Metrolinx’s activities. The province’s handling of the refurbishment of Ontario Place, and construction of a private spa on part of the site, is raising similar questions about a lack of adequate oversight, review and assessment.
Finally, there is the question of how this portfolio of projects is to actually be paid for. This has been an area of ambiguity, if not mystery. The long-term implications of whatever financing arrangements are being made for the province’s overall fiscal position need to be fully understood and evaluated carefully. We are no longer in an age when governments can effectively borrow at near-zero interest rates.
Consideration also has to be given to the government’s emphasis on committing fiscal capacity to very-long-term, but unevaluated, infrastructure megaprojects in a period of high economic and political uncertainty. The choices being made are particularly important when the province is widely seen to be chronically underspending in areas with long-term implications for the province’s long-term well-being of their own, like education (at all levels) and health care.
Provincial investments in infrastructures are essential. At the same time, the public needs to be sure that these investments, particularly in areas like energy or transportation, make sense in economic, environmental, and social terms. Are we certain that they represent the least full-cost ways of meeting future transportation and energy needs, leaving greater resources available to respond to other pressing societal needs? Will these projects reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, or make them worse?
The province’s current, non-transparent approach to decision-making and management of infrastructure megaprojects makes answering these kinds of questions virtually impossible. It also begs questions about whether the province is laying the groundwork for a series of white elephants, whose costs and impacts may haunt Ontario residents for decades, if not centuries, to come.