It is my pleasure today to rise for the second reading of our government’s proposed Hazel McCallion Act. I will be sharing my time today with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

It is so fitting to name this bill after the late former mayor of Mississauga and former special adviser to our government. Hazel was a long-time proponent for an independent Mississauga, and today’s announcement is a wonderful recognition of her legacy. Known admiringly to so many as “Hurricane Hazel,” she guided the city of Mississauga for 12 consecutive terms, from 1978 to 2014. Think about that: 36 consecutive years as mayor. And no one knew Mississauga better than Hazel. She guided the growth of Mississauga from a semi-rural bedroom community with a population of almost 281,000 to the sixth-largest city in Canada.

Hazel and her husband, Sam, moved to Streetsville—now part of Mississauga—in 1951. In 1963, she became the editor and business manager of the Streetsville Booster, a community newspaper founded by Sam. This got Hazel interested in public life. Within three short years, being Hazel, she was chair of the Streetsville planning board and president of the local chamber of commerce. That was in 1966. In 1969, she was elected mayor of Streetsville. When Streetsville became part of the newly incorporated city of Mississauga, in 1974, she became a Mississauga city councillor. After one term as councillor, she was elected mayor of Mississauga and never looked back, retiring in 2014 from her position as leader of a city with more than 713,000 residents.

Hazel was an advocate for autonomy for her city and was always looking to the future.

This bill, too, is looking to the future. Its purpose is to prepare the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton and the town of Caledon for the decades ahead.

Let’s look at the facts. According to Statistics Canada, at the time of the last census in 2021, Mississauga had a population of almost 720,000 people, Brampton’s population was more than 650,000 people, and Caledon had a population of just over 76,500. By 2051, Mississauga is expected to grow to 995,000 people, almost one million. And Brampton is not far behind; it is expected to be home to approximately 985,000 people. And Caledon is expected to be home to 300,000 people. Those numbers are remarkable—especially for Caledon, which is expected to almost quadruple in population. These municipalities have to be prepared to house and accommodate all these expected newcomers, and that’s less than 30 years away. That requires not only housing, but infrastructure like roads, pipes for water, waste water and stormwater, libraries, schools, hospitals, parks, fire stations, and more transit. They all need to be planned and built. These municipalities have to start getting ready now, but sometimes there are barriers that cause delays and raise the cost of building the infrastructure and homes we need. These barriers include complex land use policies, with two layers of planning authority and lengthy planning approvals for new housing. When I mentioned two layers of planning authority, that may have been unclear for those members of this House who may not have come from a municipal background. Those members may not be familiar with municipal government structures in our province.

I therefore want to give a brief overview of the three types of municipalities in Ontario, as defined by the Municipal Act, 2001. Under the Municipal Act, the three types are single-tier, upper-tier, and lower-tier. In Ontario, there are no other types of municipality. As things currently stand, the region of Peel is an upper-tier municipality and Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon are lower-tier. These four municipalities operate together in a two-tier system. The Municipal Act sets out the responsibilities and powers of each type of municipality—Peel as the upper-tier municipality and Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon as the lower-tier municipalities. Another way of looking at it is, which level of municipality delivers what services.

I want to point out for some members that the official name of a municipality may include a term such as “township,” “village,” “town,” or “city.” You’re likely familiar with terms such as “county” or “region,” often used in the names of upper-tier municipalities. However, such terms usually do not determine the legal powers and responsibilities of a municipality.

To be clear, Mississauga and Brampton may call themselves cities, but they have no more responsibilities in a two-tier system than does Caledon, which calls itself a town.

Under the Municipal Act, the roles and responsibilities for the three types of municipalities are standardized and clarified. An upper-tier municipality is usually responsible for arterial roads, policing, sewer and water systems, waste disposal, and health and social services. Lower-tier municipalities are usually responsible for services such as local roads, fire protection, recreation, and local land use planning.

I want to add that municipalities in an upper-tier/lower-tier system can work together to agree upon and change which tier is responsible for certain services and can migrate that responsibility between tiers.

Lower-tier municipalities collect taxes for their own purposes and for the associated upper tier and for school boards.

All of these municipalities—single-tier, upper-tier and lower-tier—have municipal councils.

So far, I have described the system as it works in the upper-tier/lower-tier municipal structure.

Now let’s look at single-tier municipalities. An example of a single-tier municipality is the city of Toronto. A single-tier municipality is responsible for all local services. That usually means roads, transit, policing, fire protection, sewer and water systems, garbage collection and waste disposal, land use planning, health and social services, and recreation. These municipalities collect taxes for their own purposes and for school boards. That is the status that our bill, if passed, would give the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton and the town of Caledon. The region of Peel would no longer exist.

Speaker, calls for the dissolution of the two-tier structure among Peel, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon have been heard for many years. The current mayors of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon are on board.

Let me quote Mayor Crombie: “This is a historic day for the people of Mississauga and for our future. I want to thank the minister and the Premier for answering our calls for an independent Mississauga. As Ontario’s third-largest city that’s home to 100,000 businesses and the province’s second-largest economy, we’re ready to stand on our own two feet and make our own decisions about the future of our city. An independent Mississauga will allow us to be more nimble when it comes to responding to the housing crisis, increase efficiencies, reduce duplication and save residents time and money.”

Brampton mayor Patrick Brown said, “We expect to work closely with the transition board to achieve a result that respects the taxpayers of Brampton, allows our city to continue its significant growth, and treats all municipalities within Peel region equitably.”

Caledon mayor Annette Groves said, “Caledon is a special place, and the town’s residents have made it clear that they want Caledon to retain its unique identity.... We will work with the province to ensure a fair transition for our town that protects our financial security and makes sure residents continue to receive the high levels of service that they need and have come to expect.... We understand that this will be a lengthy and involved process and we look forward to working productively to reach an outcome that is fair, equitable and respects the current and future capabilities of a growing Caledon.”

Speaker, all of the mayors understand our primary goal. This proposed legislation is about growth. Our government is working with our municipal partners in Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon, and across Ontario to provide the tools and autonomy required to deliver our shared commitments to the people of this great province. And we’re counting on our municipal partners to do their part by being committed to this process and finding a constructive outcome that works for everyone. That includes addressing the housing supply crisis.

The region of Peel includes some of the largest and fastest-growing municipalities in Canada—municipalities that are poised for significant growth over the next few decades. Our government is supporting this growth by cutting red tape and improving efficiency while maintaining and improving the high level of local services Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon residents rightly expect.

Speaker, I want to give some background on how we partly identified the need for this proposed legislation.

Our government created the Housing Affordability Task Force in 2021. That task force was made up of building and development industry leaders and experts to recommend additional measures the government can take to help increase the supply of market rental and ownership housing. The task force report was published in February 2020. The task force stated in their introductory letter to the report—and I’ll paraphrase: “For many years, the province has not built enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population....

“Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to homebuyers. The long-term trend is clear: House prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now.”

The task force also pointed out that after meeting with a variety of housing sector partners, they heard solutions that fit into five themes: (1) increasing density across the province; (2) ending exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing; (3) depoliticizing the housing approval process; (4) preventing abuse of the housing appeal system; and (5) financial support to municipalities that build more housing.

As the task force pointed out, there is a bottleneck when it comes to getting shovels in the ground for new home construction. Development approvals and appropriate zoning are often delayed or hindered because of differing priorities among upper-level and lower-tier municipalities, and some projects are even abandoned. Even if the project finally gets the go-ahead, a lot of damage has been done by the delays.

The C.D. Howe Institute found that restrictions and extra costs on building new housing are dramatically increasing the price of housing development. These restrictions include delays on projects and permit approvals. These are costs that are passed down to homebuyers and renters.

Delays are contributing to an unfortunate statistic cited by the Residential Construction Council of Ontario. RESCON previously said that we were underproducing housing by 12,000 units per year here in Ontario, and RESCON is now sounding the alarm about the need to double new housing production to meet the expected demand driven by population growth in the next decade.

We clearly need to do everything we can to help ensure the unimpeded construction of homes.

Fortunately, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon have shown that they are shovel-ready, committed to growth and committed to cutting red tape. Single-tier status in Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon would help them deliver on their obligations and priorities, particularly in addressing the housing supply crisis by meeting their municipal housing pledges of 120,000 new homes for Mississauga, 113,000 new homes for Brampton and 13,000 homes for Caledon by 2031, while at the same time recognizing their unique identities and circumstances.

Speaker, the mayors of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon have also emphasized an important point: respect for the taxpayer. Our proposed legislation would enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to appoint a transition board for Peel region and its lower-tier municipalities. Appointing a transition board is important to help ensure that this dissolution process is designed from the outset to help ensure fairness, preservation of front-line services and workers, and respect for taxpayers, while providing some of our fastest-growing municipalities with the necessary tools to build the homes their current and future residents need. The transition board that the minister would appoint will provide advice to the province on a range of restructuring matters, including, but not limited to, service delivery, allocation of assets and liabilities, regional bylaws, labour relations and long-term financial sustainability. Additionally, the transition board would oversee the financial affairs of Peel region and its lower-tier municipalities to help ensure prudent financial stewardship as Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon prepare to become single-tier municipalities. This process will help ensure a stable and fair outcome that respects taxpayers while positioning these three municipalities for future growth. Our government’s instructions to the transition board and our intentions throughout the process would be very clear: There should be no disruptions to front-line services.

Speaker, our proposed changes, if passed by this House, would allow the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton and the town of Caledon to become separate single-tier municipalities on January 21, 2025. The time is ripe for these large municipalities and fast-growing communities to have the tools and autonomy they need to support growth and build homes in the years to come. And I’m proud to be a member of a government that is ready to partner with them and support them and all other municipalities in Ontario as we work to help build 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

Speaker, this legislation is very close to home for me, not only as the Associate Minister of Housing, but also as the member of provincial Parliament for the riding of Mississauga–Streetsville. The late, great Hazel McCallion has been an inspiration for me for decades, and, just as she did, I see my job in politics is to help make life better for my constituents and all Ontarians. As Hazel was my constituent, we met constantly to discuss what was best for our constituents and for the people of Ontario.

Right now, housing is a major, if not the major, challenge to the quality of life facing Ontarians and the residents of Peel.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, as Associate Minister of Housing—we’ve been working hard to make life better for Ontarians by tackling the housing supply crisis head-on. That’s why I’m so proud to support this bill. As I’ve said before, our government is working with our municipal partners to provide the tools and autonomy required to deliver on our shared commitments to the people of Ontario, including addressing the housing supply crisis. The proposed Hazel McCallion Act would do that by removing a layer of approvals in the land use planning and housing approvals process.

Speaker, I want to tell the House a little bit about the history of Peel. Peel county was created in 1852 and was originally part of the united counties of York, Peel and Ontario. Ontario county separated two years later. This left only York county and Peel county, joined and administered out of the city of Toronto. That was until growth made it advantageous for these two counties to separate in 1867. As a stand-alone county, Peel comprised the five townships of Toronto, Chinguacousy, Toronto Gore, Albion, and Caledon. These townships elected councils and were responsible for municipal roads, assessment of properties, public utilities such as water and electricity, libraries, and firefighting and policing services. The county level of government was responsible for such services and infrastructure as the jail and courthouse, county roads and bridges, a home for the aged, a health unit, and the emergency operational plan in the event of a natural disaster or war.

Population growth and industrial growth after the Second World War put great pressure on many of the county governments within Ontario. More regional co-operation was seen as a possible solution. That meant municipal restructuring again. The regional government model in Ontario was first implemented for parts of York county in 1953 with the creation of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. It was made up of the city of Toronto and the old townships of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, and York, as well as several villages and towns that had been separated from the townships.

For Peel county, the regional government structure was created in 1974. By that time, the population had grown to 334,750 people. The old county of Peel was dissolved and replaced with the region of Peel as the upper-tier municipality. This new regional government had more responsibilities than the old county government. By 2015, its responsibilities included water, public health, waste management, paramedic services, long-term-care facilities, and policing.

The former five townships in the old Peel county, along with their respective towns and villages, were amalgamated into the cities of Mississauga and Brampton and the town of Caledon. As lower-tier municipalities, these two cities and town took control of local affairs such as tax collection, parks and recreation, firefighting, and libraries. The area continued to grow swiftly, and by 2014, 40 years after the creation of Peel, approximately 1.35 million people lived in the region.

As many of you know, Hazel McCallion had long advocated for Mississauga becoming its own independent city, separate from Peel region. In 2005, Mayor McCallion ran a One City, One Voice campaign to separate, which was supported by 99% of the residents. Unfortunately, the Liberal government said no.

Mississauga has grown tremendously over the years into a major economic engine for the greater Toronto area. We are now the sixth-largest city in Canada, yet we still have little control over how our tax dollars are spent. That must change.

Speaker, the characteristics that dominate the brief history of the region I’ve just spoken about are its fast growth and the continually evolving municipal structures needed to address the massive need for housing created by this growth. Today, growth is once again putting pressures on how the area is run. Bold change is required to address the current housing supply crisis.

As someone who has raised a family in Mississauga–Streetsville, I know very well that housing is a challenge for many in the Peel area, as it is for many households right across this province. According to Peel region officials, the average-income family would have to save for over 30 years for a down payment at today’s home prices if they wanted an affordable monthly mortgage.

Our government recognizes these pressures and has identified the proposed new single-tier structure for Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon as part of the solution to help meet housing demand, while maintaining and improving the high level of local services residents rightly expect.

Speaker, let’s be clear. Single-tier status can help these municipalities address their housing supply issues and help them meet their municipal housing pledges. But this is not all our government has done to support the building of more homes across Ontario.

We have introduced a range of bold and transformative measures over the past several years to increase housing supply. We can see their growing and positive impact. For example, in the last two years, housing starts in Ontario have reached a level not seen in more than 30 years. Just last year, rental housing starts reached an all-time high.

These positive trends are the result of the policies our government has championed. We will make sure those positive trends continue. We’ve committed to updating and revising our housing supply action plans every year so we can continue to make progress toward our goal of 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

Our government’s proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act and related measures support increasing density and building more homes in existing communities, while making sure that enough land is available for the many new homes and jobs our province needs. We’re making life easier for renters, while supporting landlords, and are committed to helping first-time homebuyers. From young people and newcomers to families and seniors, our government is helping people from all walks of life find housing.

But we cannot do this alone. We’re counting on support from municipal governments—such as Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon—to partner with us to increase housing in communities across this province. That’s why I’m pleased to see that these municipalities have signed on to the municipal housing pledges. Early this year, the city of Mississauga pledged to do its part to tackle our housing supply crisis by meeting its target of 120,000 new homes by 2031. In March, Brampton city council endorsed their municipal housing pledge to help deliver 113,000 homes by 2031. And in February, the town of Caledon council endorsed a municipal housing pledge to deliver on its target of 13,000 new homes by 2031. This is the type of commitment and partnership that Ontarians are depending on. And the support our government has received since introducing our latest housing supply action plan—Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants—shows we are heading in the right direction.

The Ontario Real Estate Association commended our government on supporting prospective homeowners, renters and rental housing providers, while also adopting a targeted approach to deliver on our goal to build a million and a half homes by 2031.

And the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing recently had the chance to speak about aspects of the plan with representatives at the Ontario Small Urban Municipalities association and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, together with the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities. Our government received positive feedback at all of these meetings.

Speaker, I want to impress upon the members of this House that our government’s goal to create a million and a half homes by 2031 includes rental homes. This is important in municipalities such as Mississauga and Brampton with many renters.

To support renters, we continue to call on the federal government to defer the harmonized sales tax on all large-scale, purpose-built rental housing projects. This measure would help spur the construction of more rental housing units while helping to create jobs, encourage economic development, and support growth.

I want to remind the members of this House that our housing supply action plans build on each other. For example, in the fall of last year, More Homes Built Faster introduced changes to help home builders to replace older rental apartments with larger, more modern rental buildings. Our intent is to help increase the supply of purpose-built rental units in Ontario while helping to ensure existing tenants are also protected. And the proposals in our government’s latest housing supply action plan would do exactly that. Currently, municipalities have the option to establish bylaws which regulate what developers can do when demolishing or converting these buildings, such as requiring that existing units be replaced.

And I’m glad to see that Mississauga already does have a rental protection bylaw. That bylaw applies to residential rental buildings in that city with six or more dwelling units. And for those municipalities like Mississauga that do have these bylaws, our proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act would give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the authority, if used, to make regulations governing municipal rental replacement bylaws. For example, they could require that replacement units have the same core features as the original units, and by “core features,” we mean—an example would be the number of bedrooms in the unit. Regulations could also require that displaced tenants are given compensation and have the right to move into the new replacement units at similar rent. This approach would ensure that if tenants move out of a two-bedroom apartment, they can then move back into a two-bedroom apartment, and that if they move out of the apartment paying a certain rent, they will have the option to pay a similar rent if they move back in. The big difference, of course, is they will have access to a more modern apartment—which we should all be able to agree is a critical part of protecting tenants.

A key aspect of our government’s Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants plan is speeding up planning approvals. We are proposing to integrate the provincial policy statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe into a single provincial planning statement. This would simplify existing policies and refocus them on achieving housing outcomes while providing specific direction to large and fast-growing municipalities like Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon on increasing their housing supply. In addition, it would ensure that appropriate planning policies are in place to support growth throughout the province and respond to market needs, while recognizing that one size does not fit all.

In our proposed provincial planning statement, all municipalities would be required to provide a range and mix of housing options.

And we propose to enable greater flexibility to build homes in rural areas such as in parts of Caledon, all while minimizing impacts on agriculture.

We also want the 29 large and fast-growing municipalities, like Mississauga and Brampton, to be required to plan for growth in major transit station areas and other strategic growth areas; for example, downtowns. Ensuring adequate density in these areas is all part of our plan in addressing Ontario’s transit needs with a comprehensive approach that also focuses on housing.

At the same time, as we encourage growth, we know we need to protect our resources.

Under our proposed provincial planning statement, municipalities would be required to designate prime agricultural and specialty crop areas to support our growing agri-food network.

We would also encourage municipalities to adopt a watershed planning approach to protect water resources while facilitating more new home construction.

Similarly, access to aggregate resources close to market would be protected. Stone, sand and gravel are essential to building and growing our communities. We therefore propose to create consistent requirements for aggregate extraction to ensure fairness between expansions and new applications.

As part of More Homes for Everyone, we made changes to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act to require municipalities to gradually refund fees for zoning bylaw applications and site plan applications in certain cases, like in cases where the municipalities failed to decide within a specified time. In the spirit of collaboration, we did listen to municipal feedback, and we have postponed the start date from January 1 to July 1 of this year to give municipalities time to adjust.

Municipal representatives have also told us they need to be able to address the type of concerns that may come up in a site plan review of some smaller projects—for example, smaller projects like housing near train tracks—so we’re proposing to allow municipalities to use site plan control for residential projects with 10 or fewer units in specific circumstances.

Speaker, it’s always an honour to talk about our government’s housing supply action plans and our strong record on getting more housing built to bring the dream of home ownership closer to everyday Ontarians.

I do call upon the members of this House on all sides to join our government in supporting our municipal partners to get more housing built in their communities.

The proposed Hazel McCallion Act would help municipalities like Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon work more efficiently and effectively. It would enhance their ability to meet their municipal housing targets by 2031 and help us tackle Ontario’s housing supply crisis, and it would get us closer to our goal of helping build that 1.5 million homes.

I want to thank everyone for listening intently today.

And I want to let everyone know that in the past few weeks, in my role as the Associate Minister of Housing, meeting with many, many different areas in this province, talking to housing providers, municipalities and all of those who desperately need housing—it has been an honour to see that the work we are doing is really making huge advances right on the ground.

I would now like to open the floor to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I also have a petition to read to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the federal government is increasing the escalated carbon tax by 14%, on April 1, 2023;

“Whereas carbon tax cost increase will put more pressure on consumers who are already struggling with inflation;

“Whereas we call on the federal government to stop the carbon tax, which is a tax hike” on Ontarians and Canadians, and they cannot afford it;

“Whereas the government of Ontario is helping to reduce the cost of living by keeping taxes low, freezing and eliminating licence plate renewal fees and scrapping the requirement to have licence plate stickers for passenger vehicle, light-duty trucks, motorcycles and mopeds and building on these measures in Bill 85, Building a Strong Ontario Act ... 2023, the government continue to help Ontarians with the cost of living;

“Whereas we call on the Ontario government to urge the federal government to halt the carbon tax increase, that will raise the cost of everything....”

To support this bill, I will be adding my name to it. I feel it’s unfair.

Mrs. Tangri, on behalf of Mr. Clark, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 112, An Act to provide for the dissolution of The Regional Municipality of Peel / Projet de loi 112, Loi prévoyant la dissolution de la municipalité régionale de Peel.

I turn to the minister.

I am pleased to read this petition.

“Protect the Greenbelt.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bills 23 and 39 are the Ford government’s latest attempt”—well, an attempt—“to remove protected lands from the greenbelt, allowing developers to bulldoze and pave over 7,000 acres of farmland in the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ontario is already losing 319.6 acres of farmland and green space daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ford’s repeated moves to tear up farmland and bulldoze wetlands have never been about housing, but are about rewarding PC donors and making the rich richer;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats and prevent flooding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to remove what has long been protected land from the greenbelt, pass the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act, and protect irreplaceable farmland in the province of Ontario.”

Of course, I support this petition. I will affix my signature and will send it to the table with page Solomon.

The member from Perth–Wellington.

Thank you to the Associate Minister of Housing for her great work in her relatively new role, as well. I was able to host the minister in my riding of Perth–Wellington during the break week last week, and I know we had a very fulsome day seeing some of the very innovative solutions to the housing crisis we currently face in Ontario from my rural riding’s perspective. So I just want to thank the minister for all the tireless work she does.

Speaker, it’s my privilege to speak on the details of our government’s proposed Hazel McCallion Act. As the Associate Minister of Housing said, this bill is about supporting housing, moving to greater efficiencies, and preparing Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon for growth in the years ahead, all while respecting the taxpayer and ensuring the continued delivery of high-quality services to the residents of these municipalities.

To set the stage for my remarks, I’d like to highlight the principles behind the proposed dissolution of Peel region and the creation of three single-tier municipalities. I think these principles make clear what our government wants to achieve and hopes for the future of this thriving region.

(1) We respect and support the effective administration of local government.

(2) We continue to recognize that municipalities should be empowered with the tools needed to plan for population growth, including the tools needed to build more housing options, and, importantly, they should work together fairly and in good partnership with neighbouring municipalities.

(3) We understand that safe communities and the delivery of effective front-line services are key pillars for local government, including preserving front-line workers.

(4) We appreciate the importance of value-for-money and high-quality services, delivered in an efficient manner for taxpayers—because, Speaker, as you know, there is only one taxpayer in the province of Ontario.

(5) We acknowledge that, particularly where there are shared assets and services, municipalities should be treated in an equitable and fair manner whereby all residents, regardless of where they live, are respected and have access to excellent services.

Speaker, we think our bill reflects these principles and includes elements to help achieve our objectives; namely, the dissolution of the region of Peel and the creation of three independent, thriving, single-tier municipalities: Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon. The process to accomplish this, if our legislation is passed, would help ensure fairness and the preservation of front-line services and workers, all while providing some of our fastest-growing municipalities with the necessary tools to build the homes their current and future residents need.

Our proposed changes would help these three future single-tier municipalities deliver on their obligations and priorities. It would help them meet their housing pledges—and I’m pleased to share with this place that all three municipalities in the region of Peel have committed to their housing pledges, under the leadership of the Premier. In Mississauga, in particular, they’ve pledged to build 120,000 new units; in Brampton, they’ve pledged to build 113,000 new housing units; and in the town of Caledon, they’ve pledged to build 13,000 new housing units by 2031. These are important steps to address our housing supply crisis that all communities in Ontario face, while at the same time we’re recognizing their unique identities and circumstances.

Speaker, I’d like to point out to the members in this place the two-step process we are proposing to undertake. The bill before you would begin the process of dissolving the region of Peel and establish Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon as single-tier municipalities. Should the proposed Hazel McCallion Act pass, we intend to bring a second bill before this House to complete the dissolution process and bring the proposed changes into effect on January 1, 2025. Our government will be taking the time to get things right.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would appoint up to five members, or a number prescribed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to the transition board to help facilitate this change in local government. This transition board would have individuals with a mix of expertise and experience in areas such as municipal operations, finance, service delivery, housing, and labour relations. This board can be appointed only if this proposed legislation before this place is passed. If this legislation is passed, the minister would make the appointments as quickly as possible so that the transition board can get started on their important work and help bring certainty to the region of Peel, its three lower-tier municipalities, their employees and all of its residents. The board would be disbanded at the end of January 2025, or a date prescribed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

And as with past practices used in municipal restructuring in Ontario, the cost of the transition board would be the responsibility of all four municipalities involved: the region of Peel, Mississauga, Brampton, and Caledon. These costs will be allocated in a fair and transparent way among the four municipalities involved.

The board would have two primary responsibilities. First, it would provide advice to the province on a range of restructuring matters, including service delivery, allocation of assets and liabilities, labour relations, and long-term financial stability, among others. Second, the board would oversee the financial affairs of Peel and its lower-tier municipalities to help ensure prudent fiscal stewardship. This process would help ensure a stable and fair outcome and respect taxpayers while positioning Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon for future growth.

I also want to point out that the board’s work would touch on a range of sensitive matters, including labour relations and contractual obligations in respect of municipalities. As such, our government does not intend to make the board’s findings public. However, the board would work closely with all parties as it works through the transition process.

Once the transition board is in place, their recommendations to the government would be due next year. This is to provide the board members with adequate time to work with the four municipalities and provide expert advice to our government on a range of complex matters. The transition board’s recommendations would inform subsequent legislation. If passed, it would address any outstanding restructuring matters to ensure an orderly transition on January 21, 2025. This transitional board would work closely with Peel, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon to ensure the public interest is protected throughout the entire process in local governance structure and local services people rely on every day.

Speaker, I want to impress upon this House that, if the proposed legislation is passed, the instructions to the board and our government’s intention throughout the process are very clear: There should be no disruption to front-line services.

What our government also wants to make clear is that if the proposed legislation is passed, Peel region would still continue to exist until January 1, 2025.

And our government wishes to reassure the 1.5 million residents of Peel region that, as it stands today, there is no change to the role that municipal councils and staff play in making decisions and delivering services to them.

Once the transition board is appointed, it would work with Peel, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon on a transition plan, including any changes to the decision-making process that lead up to the proposed dissolution date of January 1, 2025. As I said earlier, the board would be tasked to ensure sound decision-making processes. It would also be empowered to give directions with respect to certain municipal decisions to help ensure fairness to all three municipalities during the dissolution process.

Speaker, I’d like to address some questions that we’ve heard about the boundary adjustments for the three current lower-tier municipalities. On behalf of the government, I can state in this House that there is no plan or intention to alter the municipal boundaries of the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton or the town of Caledon as part of the dissolution of the region of Peel.

I also want to address questions about the financial impacts of the proposed legislation on Peel residents if it is passed.

Part of the transition board’s work would be to bring to light the full financial impacts of this change. Our government is looking forward to that full and detailed analysis, and we are committed to supporting a fair and equitable outcome for taxpayers no matter where they live in Peel. As I mentioned earlier, there is only one taxpayer in Ontario.

Again, I’ll repeat: There should be no disruption to municipal services local residents rely on at any time throughout the transition process.

I mentioned them already at length, but let’s look at those services that are currently provided in the region of Peel, which is responsible for providing shared services between the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton, and the town of Caledon. These services include such things as public health, garbage, waste and water services, paramedics, and social housing. Protecting those services for the residents of Peel is a top priority of our government if our legislation is passed. And we would expect Peel and the lower-tier municipalities to put the public interest first and foremost and ensure front-line services are protected and service levels are maintained for all residents of the region.

The transition board would also be considering service delivery, among other things, in its analysis and recommendations. The proposed timeline for dissolution has been set for January 1, 2025, to allow the transition board and the four municipalities enough time to work through these complex issues and ensure the services that Peel residents rely on are protected.

Speaker, in addition to services, there is also the question of how regional assets and revenues would be divided among Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. It’s a significant question. The proposed dissolution of Peel, with nearly 1.5 million residents and more than 9,000 employees, needs to be done in a prudent manner.

For example, according to Peel’s 2021 Financial Information Return, the net book value of the region of Peel’s infrastructure, which is primarily made up of water, waste water and roads, was close to $11 billion. There are shared assets and revenues, of course, and municipalities must be and would be treated in an equitable and fair manner whereby all residents—again, regardless of where they live in Peel—are respected.

That’s why we have proposed enough time before the dissolution on January 1, 2025, to give municipalities and the transition board time to analyze and resolve the complex matters, including allocation of assets and liabilities, contractual obligations, services, governance, and employee relations.

Full consideration must also be given to the impacts on municipal labour processes and staffing if the proposed Hazel McCallion Act is passed. Our government respects and values the contributions of Peel region staff, and we recognize that this restructuring would be a significant change. We would expect the region to put in place measures to protect front-line services and ensure there are no service disruptions. Our goal is to protect services, respect taxpayers, and ensure that local governments continue to deliver throughout the transition process.

Our government is committed to putting into place a fair process through the transition board to help ensure employment matters are addressed in an equitable way. And where possible, we expect the transition board to bring forward solutions that use the existing expertise in the region to meet the growing needs of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon.

Speaker, our government appreciates that this is a complex task we are proposing. And we are confident that we can accomplish a smooth transition in 18 months. Our proposed legislation, if passed, includes the time and expertise required to facilitate a structured and orderly transition. In addition, our government intends to bring forward subsequent legislation, informed by the transition board’s recommendations, which would provide a further opportunity to ensure that the transition proceeds in a timely and effective way that supports local implementation by January 1, 2025.

And I will repeat for the record: Our government expects Peel, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon to put the public interest first and foremost and ensure that front-line services are protected and that the service levels are maintained for residents. However, if there are ongoing issues, the Hazel McCallion Act, if passed, would also provide the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with the authority to make orders with respect to certain municipal decisions if necessary.

I’m proud to be part of a government that does not shy away from taking on tough work or hard questions.

Much of the media attention has been focused on Mississauga and Brampton, but our government is fully aware of all of the lower-tier municipalities in the region of Peel.

We know the town of Caledon has its own challenges unique from those of Mississauga and Brampton. Caledon has the potential for massive growth over the coming years. We want to ensure that this transition supports that. The transition board would, if our proposed legislation is passed, advise our government on important considerations like financial stability and infrastructure issues like servicing to help address Caledon’s needs. We are prepared to carefully consider the transition board’s best advice related to Caledon. If the proposed Hazel McCallion Act is passed, we would receive that advice next year.

Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to address some other questions and speculation that have appeared in the media.

As many in this House are aware, on May 4, 2023, our government launched the process to procure third parties to audit the finances of six selected municipalities. Along with Toronto, our government is seeking participation from the regions of Peel, Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon and Newmarket in the audit. As an aside, some of the municipalities have already confirmed their participation. We intend to use these audits to reach a shared understanding of any potential or perceived impacts of our government’s More Homes Built Faster Act as regards to changes to the development-related fees and charges. Once the procurement process is complete, the third parties would conduct the audits later this year. The findings of these audits could be used to help inform Peel’s restructuring process.

Another question that has come up across certain areas of the province is the regional facilitators which we intend to announce for the regions of Durham, Halton, Niagara, Waterloo, and York, and the county of Simcoe. To be clear, there will be no regional facilitator appointed for the region of Peel. We are taking swift action with the proposed Hazel McCallion Act, and, if passed, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would appoint a transition board to work with Peel, Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. Our government will, however, continue with our commitment to appoint facilitators to assess two-tier governments, again, in the regions of Durham, Halton, Waterloo, York, and the county of Simcoe. Details on these appointments are under development, and our government will have more to share on that in the coming weeks.

Speaker, the proposed Hazel McCallion Act is a historic piece of legislation. Nothing less would honour her memory, as the Associate Minister of Housing alluded to in her remarks on the great legacy that Hazel McCallion left in this province and how she influenced the minister herself in her public life, but also many people in this place on all sides of the aisle. This really does honour Her Worship McCallion’s memory to the fullest extent, I believe. Our government’s intent is to help the people of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon prepare for their futures as thriving and successful communities—as Hazel McCallion built Mississauga into such a thriving city. Just as with all communities across Ontario, our government is ready and able to help them not only continue to be the best places to live, to work and to raise a family; we’re there to help make them even better.

With this transition board and with this proposed legislation, if passed, it will help ensure, as the Associate Minister of Housing mentioned, we reduce duplication and ensure we get more homes built faster, achieving that goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031.

As I mentioned in my remarks, it takes bold action to meet those commitments. I know we have laid that out in this piece of legislation, ensuring that we are going to get it right, ensuring that we are maintaining the services the residents of Peel should expect of all levels of government—those services that they depend on, ensuring that there is a seamless transition. This piece of legislation does that to great effect and lays out that process—the first step of a minimum of two. But as I alluded to in my remarks, the minister has the ability, if this legislation is passed, to adjust as needed to ensure that we have a fair transition for all single-tier municipalities in the region of Peel.

I know we are very aware that we want to ensure that we set up the town of Caledon for success in the future, to ensure that they can seize the day and really benefit from the growth they are experiencing, and to ensure that the city of Brampton and the city of Mississauga continue to be places that thousands of people across Canada and Ontario call home, and also to ensure that the thousands of new Canadians coming to our country every year can continue to rely on the city of Brampton and the city of Mississauga to call those places home. Our government believes this legislation will ensure that those communities continue to thrive in that aspect and that they continue to share the prosperity they have experienced over the years.

The proposed transition board really will focus on the expertise I listed in my remarks, around labour relations, service delivery, and waste water infrastructure, ensuring that their expertise is at that board, working with those lower-tier municipalities, ensuring that a smooth transition occurs in that process and that we see a great outcome of this. I know it has been asked for, for many years, it seems, as the associate minister alluded to in her remarks—that in the dissolution of Peel region, we ensure that we give Mississauga, Brampton and the town of Caledon the support they need and deserve for the future and the growth that Ontario has seen. This is just one of many.

As I mentioned, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be announcing the regional facilitators for the other regions of Durham, Niagara, York, Waterloo, the county of Simcoe and Halton in the coming weeks, and I know we look forward to seeing those findings.

All of these pieces of legislation that the Minister of Municipal Affairs brings forward are really about getting more homes built across Ontario and ensuring that, as I mentioned in my remarks, all our communities—whether it’s in the region of Peel, whether it’s in my riding of Perth–Wellington, or whether it’s up north in Thunder Bay, or anywhere else in Ontario—remain a great place to work, live and raise a family.

This piece of legislation will continue to build on those past successes that our government has brought forward, and I hope all members of this place would consider supporting it. It really is a testament to Hazel McCallion and her legacy to name this piece of legislation after her. If she was still with us, she would probably find it a great honour that this is named after her, building upon her successes as the mayor of the city of Mississauga.

We’re ready to help them become even better—the city of Mississauga, the city of Brampton, and the town of Caledon. We are ready to help them achieve their best and their brightest.

Questions?

I’d like to thank the associate minister and the member from Perth–Wellington for their introduction today.

I believe it would be an understatement to say that this government has an embarrassing track record when it comes to respecting local democracy. In my area, the removal of ranked balloting—a popular, forward-thinking and successful democratic innovation was stripped away by this government, even though that was wasteful and costly. It seems that the government has dropped “collaboration,” “consultation” and “listening” from their vocabulary, and even if the government does use these words, it’s almost as though they ring hollow.

Some of the problems with Bill 112 are that the preamble mentions supporting local governments, but there’s no negotiation process, there’s no requirement for local council approval and there’s no consideration of even local viewpoints.

I would like to ask the member from Perth–Wellington—Bills 23 and 39 weaken local democratic institutions and authorities. How can the member convince anyone that Bill 112 isn’t more of the same?

Thank you to the member for the question.

As I alluded to in my remarks, we’re establishing a transition board to work with, including the region of Peel, the four municipalities involved.

With Bill 23, I talked to many municipal colleagues in my riding—I believe it is 72, all told, in my riding of Perth–Wellington, and they always appreciate the open-door policy I have with them, working with them. When Bill 23 came before this place—they all understand that we need more housing, and that includes in rural Ontario and the region of Peel, which this piece of legislation helps to achieve, among many other things. They all know that this government will continue to work with them to get more housing built and to continue to support them where they need to be supported, whether that’s through infrastructure funding to get those—

I do want to thank the member for the question.

Newcomers and those looking to purchase their first home in our province play an absolute vital role, whether it’s in our economy, our growing, our enriching, our social fabric and our culture, and it’s our duty to make sure that we have housing available for them. As we know, we’re looking to about a half a million more newcomers coming in the very new future, and we must get that housing built.

This bill and the measures within this bill help alleviate duplication and red tape to allow more housing to be built faster. When housing can be built faster, there are less costs, and those cost savings can then be passed on to those purchasing new homes or to renters.

For example, I was touring Perth–Wellington the other day, and we saw everything from women’s shelters to purpose-built rental, mixed-use, supportive housing—mental health and addictions—all the way up to new homes and single-family homes.

We learn from many of our service providers and those not-for-profits, those people who are on the ground, who are providing those services, about what is needed. For example, in my riding, we have a community not-for-profit build for some supportive units, but we also have to make sure we have those wraparound services provided. We can’t build units and have them empty. We want to make sure those wraparound services are also provided for those people who are most vulnerable and who desperately need them.

My question is for the Associate Minister of Housing.

We know we have a housing crisis across the province. Certainly, in my riding of Simcoe–Grey, we’re seeing, with two growth nodes, both in Alliston and Collingwood, that there are incredible pressures there for housing.

But there’s also incredible population growth in our province. For the first time in our history, we exceeded 15 million people last year, and we know we’re going to be growing substantially. We grew by 400,000 new residents in Ontario last year. The federal government is planning to bring in 500,000 immigrants per year.

I’m wondering if the associate minister could please explain how this legislation, if passed, will help us to continue to grow to prepare for future growth and welcome new Ontarians looking to lay down roots in our province.

Just listening to the debate, one of the concerns I have with this bill is how quickly it’s coming through. It was tabled on our last sitting day in the afternoon, and then my understanding is that it’s going to be debated all night tonight to rush it through.

I think of Caledon, which has a very small population and a large land area. It reminds me of Greater Sudbury, where we have a small population and a land area of roughly the GTHA. If you’re trying to fund infrastructure with a small tax base, it’s very difficult to do, when you’re trying to cover infrastructure and roads and things like that.

I’m wondering, how do we ensure that Caledon has the feedback required when bills like this are rushed through as quickly as possible?

Question?

Interjection.

Further debate?

It’s a pleasure to rise today and provide some comments on Bill 112, the Hazel McCallion Act, detailing the dissolution of Peel region.

I’d like to start off by saying that certainly myself and the folks on this side of the Legislature would not suggest that the dissolution of a region is necessarily a good or bad thing. I think we all know that across the province, different regions have different circumstances, different demographics, different histories. The member across the way detailed much of that history in her speech. So the devil will be in the details of this agreement.

Like any agreement or any plan, there has to be an element of public trust to move forward with. As my friend from Sudbury just mentioned, it’s really difficult to start out on the right foot, to have that trust, when there is a lack of consultation and the appearance that a bill is being pushed through. This started with some news reports, media leaks, a sudden decision on our last sitting day that they’re going to move forward with this very quickly, a tabling—and as was mentioned, we have night sittings all night tonight. So that is, by any stretch of the imagination, rushing a bill through.

We have to ensure that there is the right motivation, as well. This has to be something that will be good for taxpayers, be good for employees—which I will talk about. It can’t be to speak to a former mayor’s legacy or a current mayor’s leadership aspirations or as a way to pass MZOs or strong-mayor legislation. Those are all things that are swirling out there, and the reason that those suspicions are out there is because of the lack of consultation and the speed with which this is being put forward.

I’ve also had a lot of comments about, is this really a priority? There are all kinds of concerns about hospital care in Brantford, affordable housing concerns—we all know about that—and the issue of affordability in general. There are so many issues out there that the government could be focusing its attention on. Is this really where we want to go? Of course, the government will answer that they’re trying to address the housing concerns.

I spoke this morning, before question period, with Salil Arya, who is the president of CUPE 966, something I would suggest the government really should have done. They have about 3,500 members, and 2,000 of them work at the region of Peel. They work in public works, public health, OW; there are four long-term-care homes. What the president told me, after speaking to his members over the weekend, was that they all remember the Premier going around during COVID and calling them heroes. They actually lost several members to COVID. Long-term-care workers are still dealing with COVID to this day in those long-term-care homes, and they’re disappointed. They want me to let the government know they’re disappointed and they’re concerned about what will happen to the workers, many of them women. The reason they’re so concerned is because there has been such a lack of consultation. It didn’t take much for me to reach out and speak to union leaders, speak to workers. That’s something this government should have done. That’s part of their job. Workers are important. These aren’t just jobs; there are people in these jobs. There are families who depend on these jobs. Legislation that’s like this, this size of an endeavour, pushed through this quickly, creates great anxiety among workers. They want the Premier to know that he should come clean about the plans and indicate if workers’ jobs are in jeopardy. What are the plans? Can he reassure them that there will be no privatization and contracting out?

I heard about the transition board, which will be five people, and I kept hearing the words “service disruptions.” Well, that’s not the same as talking about the workers. It’s not the same as talking about maintaining our public services and not seeing them privatized or contracted out.

Speaker, that leads me to some of the things that we as the official opposition will be looking for in this legislation.

First of all, in speaking to Fred Hahn from CUPE—and he has written a letter which I will speak about shortly, that CUPE, representing 2,000 workers, the majority of the workers in Peel region, have a seat on the transition board to represent workers. I think that’s a reasonable request. I understand the need for a labour relations person, but I’d really like the government to consider putting someone from CUPE on that transition board. I’ll read some parts from Fred’s letter shortly, where he very clearly explains why.

We want to make sure this bill goes to committee. We don’t know what the government’s plans are. I can’t say they’re not planning to. They have options where they don’t send it to committee, but it needs to go there because there hasn’t been the necessary consultation up to this point and there needs to be that consultation, and that’s what committee is for.

There needs to be an explanation how this will contribute to more affordable housing. We’ve heard over the last several days and the last week, I guess, that this is a bill to create housing—that’s the main part of this bill. The main focus of this bill is to create more housing. How will it do that? I don’t see a clear line between what’s happening here and creating more housing anytime soon.

There has to be a commitment, as I mentioned, to no privatization and no contracting out. There is great anxiety among the workers. When I talked to the president and some other labour officials this morning, they’re very concerned, and there are rumours going around. There have been rumours for some time about utility companies taking over some of the services, privatization, and that creates great anxiety among workers. If the government had done their job, their task, and talked to the workers ahead of time, they could have headed off some of this anxiety.

We know that throwing these municipalities into chaos will not help streamline the system to create more affordable housing. As I said, the devil is going to be in the details, and there’s much to be concerned about with this bill because of the lack of details and some of the things that the government could have put in a bill that would have eased folks’ minds.

There’s nothing there to ensure that the board fairly represents the interests of the people of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. If he wants, the minister could put whoever he wants on the board. I’ve mentioned that I believe there should be a worker representative on that board, and I hope that the government takes that seriously.

The word “consult” is completely missing from the bill. There’s nothing requiring the government or the transition board to consult with Peel residents or businesses about a restructuring process that will have a huge and as-yet unknown impact on their taxes and services.

There’s no requirement for the government to publish the findings of the board with respect to the costs, benefits and risks of various restructuring options prior to making a decision. This wouldn’t be the first time that this government spent a lot of time and a lot of money and didn’t release or make public the results of that work.

The bill does not give the local municipalities of Peel an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the dissolution themselves rather than having a settlement imposed on them by the government.

There’s no requirement that the government obtain the approval of local councils for its dissolution plan or even consider their viewpoints.

There are no guidelines to address impacts on municipal workers whose jobs are at stake, or the fate of various collective agreements, which is why it’s so important we have a worker representative on that board.

There’s no provision to compensate any municipality for the loss of access to any regional asset it helped pay for. In fact, the bill explicitly says that no one is entitled to compensation for anything under the act.

While large, urbanized municipalities the size of Mississauga, which is 718,000—or Brampton, about 656,000—certainly have the capacity to exist as single-tier municipalities, Caledon is medium-sized, with 76,000, a mostly rural town, representing about 5% of Peel’s population but more than half of the region’s land area. With enormous provincially mandated growth expected for Caledon over the next few decades—much of it sprawl-oriented, driven by MZOs and Highway 413—the town will face serious challenges in funding and building the infrastructure required to support this growth. There will be further challenges in maintaining that infrastructure and providing the services currently provided by the region with a small tax base but a large land area to serve. Addressing such challenges is one of the reasons regional governments like Peel were created in the first place. The Ford government has not explained how it intends to address this issue.

It’s not clear whether the three existing municipalities will retain their current boundaries. I think I heard a verbal suggestion that the boundaries would not change, but some regional restructuring proposals have envisioned Caledon’s rural areas being added to Orangeville and/or Dufferin county, and Bill 112 doesn’t rule out such annexations.

This dissolution was not sought by Brampton or Caledon. They’ve taken a position since the announcement, but how will the government ensure that a dissolution will benefit all three local municipalities and not just the one municipality that has pushed for it?

Brampton mayor Patrick Brown has claimed that dissolution would require Brampton to replace whatever regional assets may be transferred to Mississauga, including the Peel police headquarters or regional water and waste water facilities located in Mississauga. However, it’s not obvious that the dissolution of Peel would necessarily result in the transfer of assets to Mississauga or require Brampton to replace any regional assets or deliver all the services currently delivered by the region. For example, Peel police could continue under a joint board—Caledon’s policing services are delivered by the OPP—and Peel’s water and waste water services could be delivered by an independent utility with the municipalities as shareholders each retaining their existing equity. In fact, the 2019 Deloitte report assumed such an arrangement will emerge. In that situation, how do we ensure that services are not privatized and that workers are protected?

On the other hand, if Peel residents, including Mississaugans, will still be required to share the cost of regional infrastructure and services by being bound to an independent utility rather than the region, then what’s the point of dissolution at all? The bill gives this government an enormous amount of power over Peel residents and businesses, who are now required to give a blank cheque to a government that has a record for not dealing respectfully with local governments and local democracy.

I would like to talk a little about some of the stakeholder response. Because the way the bill has been rushed, of course, we’re still gathering those responses. We’ve been hearing a lot of reactions and feedback to the bill. We know this government has a proclivity for ignoring the public, so I thought I would read some of the comments into the record, starting with the comment I mentioned from CUPE president Fred Hahn. Fred, very quickly in learning about this, wrote, “Your government has embarked on a large and transformative project with Bill 112, the Hazel McCallion ... Act. The Canadian Union of Public Employees ... is a key actor in the region with several local unions representing thousands of workers that provide exceptional services to residents. We are requesting that CUPE and its locals be included in formal consultation on this legislation and offer our expertise for this reform.

“CUPE has the in-depth granular knowledge of the region that would be an asset to the transition board that will be set up to execute any migration of services to constituent municipalities. Including a CUPE representative on the transition board would give the government access to decades of knowledge on municipal reform, not least of which is how to harmonize workers’ collective agreements which straddle across the three municipalities. An appointment to the board would channel one of the region’s greatest assets—its workers—to this complex process.”

So there’s the offer by CUPE, and I hope the government will take it seriously. I think that they would be a great benefit to this transition board.

I’ve not been a part of a municipal dissolution or amalgamation, but I was very much involved in hospital amalgamations in Toronto when I worked for the service employees union. Some of you may remember the Humber River Regional Hospital, the three sites merging. There was a merging, and then a dissolution of the Sunnybrook Women’s College hospital ONA that I was involved in negotiations with. It is a messy, messy process. There’s the transition of collective agreements. There are representation votes. I think the timeline that the government has laid out is very, very ambitious from a labour relations perspective.

I want to talk a minute about infighting among municipal leaders, because one of the ways that that an inappropriate process can fuel discord is obviously with a lack of information. The Toronto Star printed an op-ed by Patrick Brown, and I think it’s important to read some of that into the record, because it’s a very concise and, I think, very factual letter. He writes, “This is an exciting time for Brampton. We are a vibrant and mature community that is the fastest-growing large city in Ontario.”

He’s not, by the way, speaking against the dissolution whatsoever but raising some very, very important concerns.

“Our population is projected to grow by 41% by 2051 and we have a plan in place to build the homes those families will need. With this rapid expansion, outpacing that of our neighbouring municipalities, the dissolution of Peel makes sense, but it will have a price tag—a big one.

“We all know that Mississauga has wanted independence from Peel for a long time. Mayor Bonnie Crombie supports the dissolution of Peel because it will save Mississauga $1 billion. What she conveniently doesn’t mention is the fact that dissolution will cost Brampton and Caledon billions in turn. The truth is that the cost of replacing or upgrading infrastructure, future growth and other financial factors cannot responsibly be ignored when considering an undertaking like this. These costs are real—and they are enormous.

“For example, the two water and waste treatment plants that service Peel are located in Mississauga. What Mayor Crombie won’t acknowledge is that Brampton helped to pay for these essential facilities and the dissolution of Peel means Brampton will lose them as they have reached capacity—which also means a service agreement between the municipalities is not an option.

“Having to rebuild our water and waste water system from scratch is going to be both expensive and urgent—our research estimates at least $4 billion. Ontario is in the middle of a housing crisis, yet we have been forced to turn down four housing projects recently because of a lack of servicing capacity. It is now time to pay for new water and waste water treatment plants in Brampton, and just when the bill is due, Mississauga wants to leave without paying.

“Brampton has also contributed to four Peel Regional Police facilities that are located in Mississauga. Policing costs across the region have been calculated using an assessment-based formula, meaning that every household in Peel pays the same amount.

“Mayor Crombie claims that they subsidize our policing costs, but this is simply incorrect. Data supplied by Peel Regional Police shows that Mississauga makes greater use of policing services, including more calls for service, due to their larger population. Additionally, Mississauga uses Peel police’s specialized marine unit, something Brampton obviously has no need for. We’re paying fairly for the front-line services needed within our city.

“Mayor Crombie’s argument about financially supporting Brampton and Caledon over the years is missing a fundamental point: the majority of growth has occurred in Mississauga—and we have all been paying for it. It is now Brampton’s turn to grow and we should get our previous investment in Mississauga back, and we should get it in 2023 dollars, not the cost when the water and waste water facility was built 50 years ago. We all know 1970s dollars are not equivalent to today’s dollars—the cost of labour, materials, inflation, required studies, and much more have increased the price tag far beyond what the Mississauga mayor is claiming.

“The fact is that Mississauga holds billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that is needed by all three communities and I intend to make sure that the value of our previous investments and replacement costs are taken into account. Everyone knows you can’t have taxation without representation. Well, I say no dissolution without compensation.”

He goes on to say, “I, too, have been pleased to hear Premier Doug Ford commit to ensuring that ‘Brampton will always be taken care of and they’ll be made whole.’ I will take Premier Ford at his word that he will make sure Brampton gets its fair share when Peel region is dissolved.

“We know our worth—and I am prepared to make sure that we get back everything we have invested into Peel over the years. Fairness for Brampton isn’t something that we hope for—it’s something we demand.

“Brampton welcomes independence, but we expect to get our fair share.”

That’s an example, Speaker, I would suggest, of the kinds of frictions that are going to take place because of the sudden nature of this legislation. And I think everyone knows that there wasn’t the typical lead up to this bill. There wasn’t the typical consultation, and what’s happened has happened largely—the timing is for political reasons.

Caledon mayor Annette Groves said that she does not want to leave Peel region and described Caledon as the “child” of the Peel divorce, given its small size. Despite arguably facing more financial risk than either Mississauga or Brampton, Groves said, “We are confident that we will be taken care of throughout this process.” I’m not sure where that confidence comes from, Speaker, but I guess we will see.

Engage Peel organizer Harminder Dhillon said that he is concerned that “dissolution will mean ‘weaker’” responses to “environmental issues like dismantling conservation authorities and building Highway 413 through Caledon and Brampton.

“‘This is a typical conservative philosophy, just sort of divide and rule,’ he says. “It’s a local decision and then you sort of pit one against another. We had a voice of Peel; now we’ll have three voices.’”

I want to talk a little bit about the government’s desire to present this bill as a housing bill. They’ve even talked about affordable housing. The minister said, “The single-tier system would provide the municipal leaders of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon with the tools they need to plan for future population growth and get more homes built faster.” I understand the claim that this bill is to help get more homes built faster; however, not once in the bill does it reference affordable housing. You can build a million homes, but if people can’t afford them, it’s not going to benefit people who need affordable homes. This government should explain how this legislation will lead to more affordable homes.

I would refer to a press release from the region of Peel in March 2023 where Peel is calling for immediate action to address the affordable housing crisis: “Peel region joins the Association of Municipalities of Ontario ... in calling for the provincial government to work more collaboratively with municipalities on efforts to increase the supply of housing, and for it to tackle the homelessness crisis in Ontario....

“Increasing the supply of housing is a priority for municipalities across Ontario, including Peel. Regional council unanimously passed a motion calling on the government of Ontario to take urgent action to end homelessness.

“In Peel, the affordable housing crisis is seen in many ways, including:

“—shelter use increased by 26.9% in 2021;

“—50% of demand for people with need for supportive housing continues to go unmet;

“—an estimated 90,000 households are in core housing need;

“—an average-income family would have to save a down payment over 30 years for an affordable monthly mortgage at today’s home prices.

“The provincial government’s Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 will reduce Peel’s ability to fund affordable housing projects by an estimated $200 million.”

That’s the environment in which this bill is being brought forward.

The report goes on to say, “Predictable and sustainable funding is needed to ensure municipalities can provide adequate housing services to meet the needs of their communities. Peel region is advocating to the government of Ontario for the creation of a municipal compensation fund to compensate the region, and its local municipalities, in order that they be provided appropriate funding to counteract the impacts of Bill 23 on municipal growth funding revenues and expenditures.

“AMO’s pre-budget submission also highlights that the government of Ontario’s per capita spending on programming is the lowest in Canada, at $2,000 less per person than the national average. It states the homelessness crisis in Ontario is a direct result of decades of provincial underinvestment in areas such as affordable housing, community mental health and income assistance programs.”

Speaker, these are examples of how this government is making things harder, not easier, and there’s nothing in this bill that would convince us that anything is being done in Peel region about affordable housing or homelessness. Under this government, it’s becoming even more challenging to find an affordable place to live. There’s nothing in this bill to actually build the houses we need.

Their own budget shows the province moving in the wrong direction on housing, and that their dismantling of the greenbelt will make things worse. The budget predicts fewer housing starts next year than this year, and they are nowhere near on track to meet their stated goal of 1.5 million homes in 10 years. In 2022, 96,100 homes were started, with even fewer projected to be started in the following years: in 2023, only 80,300 homes; another decrease in 2024, with a projection of 79,300. As reported recently on Global News, that means over four of the 10 years set out in the province’s plan, just 23% of its total target of homes would be built.

When asked about the government’s ability to meet its targets, the Minister of Housing said Ontario will “do everything we can.... There’s things out of my control.” Well, Speaker, it is within the minister’s control to make or not make commitments and to admit when a plan is not working. It’s becoming clear to Ontarians that the plan is not working, that the government needs to change course if it is to effectively address the housing crisis and meet any of its targets. You can only make excuses for so long. Dissolving a region—while it may be the right thing to do, I don’t think it’s correct to claim that it’s going to do anything to build more homes, especially affordable homes.

In addition to the government completely missing its housing targets, we know that many of the homes that are being built are not affordable. According to Mississauga.com, the average price for Mississauga real estate jumped 17% in three months. It recorded a combined average sale price of $1,076,000 in April. The average sale price for a semi-detached home came in at $1,059,000 in April. For townhouse condos, it increased for the fourth straight month in April, hitting an 11-month high at $857,000.

According to InBrampton, the average home price in Brampton jumped $20,000 for the second month in a row. According to a recent report from the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board that found the average price of all home types in Brampton jumped to $1,028,000 in February—a more than $26,000 increase from January’s average.

According to the Toronto Star, in the town of Caledon, the average price for a home in Caledon was $1.58 million in January 2023. That’s up 33.9%, or over $400,000, from December 2022.

The stats go on and on, Speaker. It’s not just in Peel and Niagara where we’re seeing people spending upwards of 60% of their take-home income on housing alone, but it’s difficult to see how this bill can be connected to building more homes or building more affordable homes.

This government has ignored the advice of its own experts and its own Housing Affordability Task Force by not ending exclusionary zoning. The government has failed to enable missing middle housing to make it easier for people of all incomes, ages, family sizes and abilities to access affordable housing options in the neighbourhoods and communities they need to live in. There’s nothing in this bill to build new social housing or protect existing social housing in Mississauga, Brampton or Caledon.

According to Peel region, the wait-list for an affordable unit in Brampton is five to eight years; in Mississauga, five to six years; in Caledon, one and a half to five and a half years.

We’ve been calling for a strong public sector role to deliver new affordable and non-market housing that the for-profit private sector can’t or won’t deliver. This government has relied almost entirely on the private market to deliver new housing. Their main tools have been deregulation, tax cuts and sacrificing more farmland and natural heritage to urban development. This approach has failed.

They’ve focused on delivering benefits to well-connected landowners and donors while sacrificing farmland and the greenbelt instead of focusing on delivering housing that is actually affordable and meets the needs of regular Ontarians. There is a great fear, Speaker, that this dissolution will be carried out in such a way as to continue the distribution of public assets to developers and the private sector.

There is a housing development in my riding, as I’ve talked about in the Legislature, that was approved in the 1980s and has yet to break ground. AMO and the big city mayors have all pointed out that there are 1.25 million homes in the approval pipeline that are not being built.

During question period, recently, I asked the minister, “Will this minister stop blaming municipalities, do what is fair and implement a sunset clause on approvals so that developers and builders must build housing in a reasonable period of time after they’ve been approved?” The minister avoided answering the question.

Our amendment to Bill 23 was rejected by this government in committee. That amendment was, “Subject to and in accordance with the regulations, a municipality may, by by-law, impose penalties on the owner of the land for failure to substantially commence development within a timely manner after the plans and drawings have been approved under this section.” That was an amendment that we put forward, and it was not successful.

Planners say that if the province could incentivize developers to build what is already approved, they’d be 85% of the way to their goal. In a CBC article, the chair of the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario, Thom Hunt, said that if the province could incentivize developers to build what is already approved by municipalities, they’d be 85%—well ahead of their target: “I think (the report) starts to tell the story that the housing supply challenge isn’t really a land supply or development approval problem. The bigger problem is, probably, how do you compel a developer to build? How do you increase the rate of construction?”

Again, there’s nothing specific in Bill 112 that would encourage these municipalities to do any of this to ensure that homes are being built. What we have in the bill is more wishful thinking by the government with no concrete plan or action, and actually, a stunning lack of information.

Another fear folks have communicated to us centres around the increase in the use of MZOs to bypass planning processes—and this has happened very recently in Mississauga. Mississauga residents and councillors are furious after this government granted an MZO request from a developer just a couple of weeks ago, bypassing local planning processes and municipal council to double a lakefront development.

In 2021, the Premier said, “We only sign an MZO once we get a letter from ... the chair of the region, the mayor of the city and council. Once it gets approved, it’s an ask by them. We don’t go into towns and all of a sudden just issue MZOs. It’s an ask from each region and each city....”

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in 2021, said, “Every minister’s zoning order that I consider on non-provincially-owned land comes at the request of a council resolution to me. It’s up to the council to do their public due diligence. It’s up to the council to do their Indigenous consultation. We value our municipal partners, but they’ve got to dot their i’s and they’ve got to cross their t’s before they send the MZO request to me.”

Well, the council wasn’t even told about this MZO in advance. It was a complete surprise to everyone.

On March 10, 2021, the minister said, “The municipality makes the request to the government and the government considers it. There is no other process, as the member opposite alludes to. Municipalities are in the driver’s seat.”

Speaker, how is the public supposed to trust this government on issues like this dissolution when they can’t trust them on planning issues or what they say in the Legislature?

There were a number of reactions from folks—local councillors Stephen Dasko, John Kovac. John Kovac said, “Maybe somebody’s listening right now from the province, maybe they’re even cackling, who knows (if) they’re laughing, I hope not.”

“I don’t think we’re the villain in this movie,” he also mused, suggesting “partner” may no longer be the correct description for the Premier’s provincial government.

Councillor Alvin Tedjo, on Monday night, when this was passed, accused the Ford government of planning Mississauga on the back of a napkin. One resident agreed, saying, “The Wild West is here.”

In this kind of an environment, how is anyone supposed to trust a government to do something like the dissolution of Peel region fairly?

Again, I want to be clear: We’re not against development. I worked as a councillor. I was very pro-development. I also like to see cities planned properly. We know we need affordable housing in Ontario. What we’re against is the way this province is treating municipalities, by forcing their agenda and their MZOs on them without the approval of local residents and councillors.

It’s difficult for anyone to trust this government to oversee the dissolution of the region.

What builds even more distrust is that again we have another bill dealing with municipalities that fails to fulfill the government’s promise to make municipalities whole after the financial ruin they may face from Bill 23. My friend across the way alluded to audits that were taking place. Four or five audits taking place across Ontario don’t put the minds of municipalities at ease when they’re facing the kinds of tax hikes and service cuts that Bill 23 is going to cause. There’s nothing to make up for the municipal deficits which will result in service cuts and higher property taxes. AMO has calculated that cities will see a $5-billion revenue shortfall from Bill 23. As I’ve mentioned numerous times to this government, a recent Peel report says Bill 23 will cost the region $2 billion to $6 billion in lost revenues, and they’ll need to raise property taxes by at least 25%. Brampton also says it will need to raise property taxes by 80% due to Bill 23.

On the city of Mississauga website, they say, “Ontario’s new legislation, More Homes Built Faster Act, has concerning impacts for Mississauga. Most notably, the bill decreased the amount of development and parkland fees municipalities can collect. These fees help us to pay for new parks and infrastructure like transit, roads, trails, sewers and more.

“It is estimated that Bill 23 changes could result in $885 million in losses over the next decade in Mississauga. In Peel region, the losses total a projected $2 billion....

“Many municipalities, including Mississauga, opposed these changes. We called on the government to reverse the proposed cuts to infrastructure and parkland funding. In response, the province committed to making municipalities ‘whole’ for any losses resulting from Bill 23. Before providing compensation, the province has announced that it will undertake” the audits that my friend across the way was referring to.

I’m not sure what audits are going to tell them when it’s very clear from the budgets of municipalities across Ontario that they’re missing billions of dollars from their budgets.

The province wants to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years; Mississauga’s share is 120,000 new homes.

However, there’s no process requiring developers to build homes, even if the municipalities have provided approvals and granted discounts. The bill doesn’t require developers to pass any of the savings they may gain onto new home owners.

The town of Caledon responded to Bill 23 with immediate action items to address impacts of the bill and position Caledon for success. The town is asking the province to further consult with municipalities and Indigenous communities before all parts of the bill come into effect.

“There are many layers of changes under Bill 23 and we are carefully working through them and what they mean for Caledon’s future growth,” said Mayor Annette Groves. “Our concerns remain with impacts to our environment, heritage, parkland and ability to plan and fund the infrastructure needed to meet the province’s housing targets. We are doing the work now to help prepare Caledon for a prosperous and successful future, and we will need support from all levels of government, residents and stakeholders to plan for what is important to Caledon.”

Property tax will go up, unless other funding tools are made available to the town. The town’s ability to use development charges to pay for growth-related infrastructure will be reduced, and taxpayers will have to bridge the gap of millions.

I have a statement from the mayor of Caledon:

“As mayor of the town of Caledon, I am expressing my serious concern regarding the fast-tracking of” these bills. “I am asking the province for more time to understand its implications and the consequences to our town’s future, our residents and businesses....

“Caledon is in a position where it is expecting some of the highest greenfield growth in the province. Bill 23 will reduce the town’s ability to ensure growth pays for growth resulting in higher tax rates and reduced levels of service. The bill will impact almost every service the town provides and result in an inability to meet the needs of our growing community.”

Municipalities are cancelling affordable housing projects. That’s one of the most troubling parts of the position that the province has put them in. The city of Toronto said, “In the event that the province does not fully reimburse the city for revenue losses incurred as a result of impacts of Bill 23, the housing secretariat will need to stop delivery of all housing capital programs, projects and initiatives.” And recently, they put out an emergency call to the federal government because the provincial government is not doing their job.

As I’ve mentioned, according to estimates that came out recently, this government is actually cutting the Streamline Development Approval Fund by 25% compared to last year’s estimates, and cutting the Municipal Modernization Program by 75%. These are the very programs that are supposed to fund initiatives to speed up housing development approvals or pay for third-party audits to make sure municipal development charges are being used efficiently. When I asked the Premier about this, his response was, “When I went down to city hall, I heard the same song and dance. First meeting with the CAO—’We’ve got to raise taxes 30%.’ Well, guess what? We found a billion dollars, did a 0% tax increase, never went once to the province hat in hand.” It has been pointed out to the Premier on multiple occasions that this claim of saving the city of Toronto $1 billion has been fact-checked and is not true. Municipalities are not beggars asking for an endless stream of funds. They’re asking for a reliable provincial partner that won’t force them to cut services or raise taxes. Telling municipalities that they shouldn’t be begging for money is like criticizing a mugging victim when they ask for their wallet back. If this top-down chaos approach is any indication of how this government plans to dissolve the region of Peel, we’re in for some troubling times.

I want to talk briefly about the controversial proposed provincial policy statement in Bill 97. Ontario’s agricultural organizations have called on the Ontario government to pause its recently released proposed provincial policy statement in Bill 97. This issue has a profound effect on Peel region, especially Caledon. The signatories include the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; National Farmers Union of Ontario; Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario; Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission; Beef Farmers of Ontario; Ontario Pork; Egg Farmers of Ontario; Veal Farmers of Ontario; Chicken Farmers of Ontario; Ontario Farmland Trust; Turkey Farmers of Ontario; and Dairy Farmers of Ontario. We’ve been to many receptions here in the Legislature rubbing shoulders with these folks. Here’s what they have to say: “Directing growth to settlement areas, urban and rural is better for both agriculture and municipalities. Housing needs can be met in serviced settlement areas on a much smaller land base. This reduces farmland loss and potential land use conflicts while encouraging ongoing investment in farm and farm-related businesses. It also ensures efficient use of municipal infrastructure investments and reduces costs to provide services. Responsible land use planning is critical to balancing the needs of our growing communities and to ensure that our agriculture and agri-food sector survives and thrives.”

There is an additional reaction in a press release from the Alliance for a Liveable Ontario: “A broad coalition of civil society organizations and individuals are calling on the province to stop proposed changes to Ontario’s planning laws that will fatally harm Ontario’s agriculture sector and waste limited construction and development resources building houses in the wrong places.”

This is what many folks are very concerned about with respect to the future of Caledon.

“This is a key takeaway in the five-page reports released by the Alliance for a Liveable Ontario that details what will happen if the provincial government proceeds with its proposed changes,” which were announced just before last Easter weekend. “The report is endorsed by over 250 individuals and 73 organizations from the agriculture, land use planning, housing, tenants, environment, neighbourhood associations, labour, health care, academia and business sectors.

“If the province proceeds with its proposal to gut Ontario’s planning laws, they will deliver a fatal blow to Ontario’s agricultural community”—that’s from Mark Reusser, a turkey farmer in Waterloo region. “They will open up prime agricultural land to development and forever remove it from growing the food Ontarians need. This will be the end of agriculture in Ontario.”

Another statement from David Crombie: “This is completely unnecessary.... Report after report shows there is more than enough land already set aside within existing towns and cities to build all the housing we need. There is no reason to build on the greenbelt and natural areas. There is no reason to build on prime agriculture lands.”

“This is the absolutely wrong way to deal with the serious housing shortage that we face,” said Anne Golden, who is the former chair of the task force on the future of the GTA. “We have a limited number of investment dollars, construction workers and building supplies. The province should be working with developers to make sure they succeed in building the housing we need where we already live, not on valuable farmland and the greenbelt.”

The report also notes that more than enough land has already been designated for development in existing towns and cities to build all the housing we need through to 2051.

“Opening up farmland to development will only get us expensive, big houses outside of our towns and cities where there is no bus service,” said Alejandra Ruiz Vargas. “It will not help existing tenants nor get us the desperately needed affordable housing units built where people live.

The province has given the public until June 6 to comment on its proposed changes through the Environmental Registry of Ontario website, and I hope the province listens to that input.

There have been a number of emails we’ve been receiving, as well, and I want to read a few of those out.

“I am writing to express my strong opposition to proposed changes to the provincial policy statement.... These changes would accelerate urban sprawl and the ongoing loss of farmland and natural areas in Ontario.

“A shortage of land is not the cause of Ontario’s housing shortage, as noted by the Housing Affordability Task Force in 2022....

“It is time to listen to the experts, who have shown that the amount of land already designated for development far exceeds what is needed to meet long-range housing targets.”

What’s needed is to concentrate on affordable housing initiatives in places like Mississauga and Brampton, not sprawl into farmland in places outside of the urban density areas. There is simply no need for the policy changes that were brought forward. And we’re fearful that this is exactly where the province is going with respect to the dissolution of Peel. They would:

—eliminate mandatory intensification and greenfield density targets that were designed to rein in urban sprawl;

—allow municipalities to expand settlement areas at any time without a comprehensive review of infrastructure needs or potential impacts on farmland and natural areas;

—force municipalities to allow three lots to be severed from every farm, even in prime agricultural areas;

—exempt lands that are the subject of MZOs from complying with provincial policies and official plans;

—remove the requirement for municipalities to undertake watershed planning; and

—weaken and eliminate policies intended to address climate change.

Ontario is losing farmland at the shocking rate of 319 acres per day. The proposed new policies will make matters much worse and spell disaster for the lands and waters that sustain us.

Sprawl development will not solve current housing needs.

Speaker, I’d like to also spend a few minutes talking about Bill 3 and the strong-mayor legislation because that has interestingly been mentioned a number of times in the media by members of the government with respect to this legislation. It wasn’t brought up during the housing task force last year. It was never mentioned in the election. So I found it interesting at the time the strong-mayor legislation was brought forward that in introducing a bill about governance, the government couldn’t seem to bring itself to show good governance itself, which begs the question as to how that encourages trust in what the government is doing in relation to governance. And I would repeat that concern with respect to this government’s record is already alarming. The Premier’s previous government sliced the number of councillors in half just before the municipal elections in 2018, and his cabinet has had a field day issuing ministerial zoning orders since that legislation came in.

This Premier’s history with local democracy, we all know about. Bill 5 was tabled to cancel regional chair elections and cut the size of Toronto city council with municipal election campaigns already under way. When a lower court found Bill 5 to be unconstitutional and granted a stay, the government passed Bill 31—which was another series of all-night sittings here in the Legislature—which invoked the “notwithstanding” clause to bypass charter rights. After an appeal, which was expensive for the people of Ontario, the court overturned the stay and Bill 5 went ahead.

Then, of course, we remember that the former government tabled Bill 218, a COVID recovery bill which included a clause that repealed the legislation allowing municipalities to use ranked ballots in municipal elections. The opposition, of course, questioned what that had to do with COVID.

These are the kinds of initiatives that have come up time and time again since this government was first elected in 2018.

In this term, the government’s record in dealing with municipalities as real partners has been absolutely abysmal, from controversial MZOs being forced onto municipalities to Bill 23, which will leave many municipalities in financial ruin and will force them to either cut services or raise property taxes. Again, this was another missed opportunity for this government to fulfill their promises to make municipalities whole or to indicate how they will be treated fairly in this process.

This government claims they’re putting forward Bill 112 to help get more homes built faster; however, not once in this bill does it reference affordable housing or specific action plans to make that a reality.

As we’ve pointed out countless times, if the government would just incentivize developers to build what has already been approved, they would have reached 85% of their housing goal without carving up the greenbelt and destroying Ontario’s prime agricultural land.

As mentioned by numerous presenters in recent committee hearings, this government’s approach in bill after bill is to move fast and break things. We heard that over and over again in our committee hearings, and I’ve been hearing it in the last few days in response to this bill. This approach has led AMO and municipal planners to ask the government to slow down and realize the implications of these decisions, or we risk making things much worse, not better.

Speaker, these are the concerns that we’ve been hearing. It’s the opposition’s job to raise these concerns. I would encourage the government to take a look at the four things that we’ve mentioned in order to build public confidence in this bill.

Take a look at CUPE’s request to be on the transition board, to represent workers. It will actually help this government move forward with this legislation.

Send the bill to committee. I don’t know what the government’s plans are. As has been mentioned many times, the government is not the most open group of folks when it comes to letting us know from day to day what their plans are. I guess we plan to be here all night in a sudden night sitting, ramming this legislation through. I hope they’re not planning to bypass committee, because that is a way to get the consultation that they have failed to provide in the time leading up to this bill.

I think there is an obligation, since the government has come out and said that this is a bill that is going to lead to more housing, for the government to explain exactly how that is. They haven’t done that. I listened very carefully today. I didn’t hear it. I think there’s an obligation to explain themselves in that regard.

And if they really want to put people’s minds at ease, give some assurances to the residents of these municipalities and the thousands of workers who work for Peel region that their jobs are not going to be privatized and contracted out. Simply saying that there is going to be no disruption of service is not the same thing as saying, “We’re not going to contract out or privatize your jobs.”

As I mentioned, when I talked to the CUPE president this morning, it was discouraging to hear that the government had not reached out to the workers before they came forward with this legislation. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by doing that and, with a few simple things added to this bill, could have increased the level of public trust that folks feel. So I hope they will reach out to CUPE and to the thousands of employees who worked through the COVID-19 pandemic, whom the Premier called “heroes,” because over the last few days they haven’t felt like heroes. They’ve been telling their union leaders how disappointed they are in this government, in the way that they brought this legislation forward.

I look forward to questions.

Thank you to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, one of our neighbouring ridings. We have very similar needs.

We do see that when we put together this legislation, the key part was to have a transition board of experts from all these sectors to make sure that when the date of January 1, 2025, comes around, that transition is as seamless as possible. What’s most important, I believe, is that there is no disruption of services in policing, paramedic, services to those most vulnerable. They must continue. This transition board appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will make sure that happens. The finances of all of those municipalities and the region of Peel will be taken into account to make sure that it is fair and equitable for all of them—again, that that transition respects taxpayers, but it’s done seamlessly, as well.

The date we have set is a year and a half from now to have the transition put in place. Up until then, things will continue as they are today. We want to make sure that when that goes through—Caledon is growing absolutely exponentially. They’re going to quadruple by 2051. We are seeing that growth. I live very close to there, so I do see it today. It is great to see that people want to move into Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. It’s a great place to live. It’s a great place to raise a family. There are now more businesses also moving into Caledon, as well. So we see that growth, and infrastructure is being built today. It will continue to be built to make sure, once again, that it is seamless. Caledon, obviously, will be taken into consideration—

Thank you very much to the minister and the parliamentary assistant for the speeches today.

It doesn’t matter where you live; we need more housing. We need to continue to act quickly on Ontario’s housing supply crisis by empowering our municipal partners. I know that both you and the minister have spoken with all the mayors of the various places.

As part of this proposed change, I see that it talks about a transition board.

I’m wondering if you could expand on the role that the transition board would take and what its priorities would be.

Thank you to the member opposite. I enjoyed listening to his comments. I know he focused to a great extent on democracy, representation and consultation. When Minister Clark stood up in the House to announce this bill, we had all three mayors as well as the regional chair present, and this is all something that they support. So I’m wondering if the member opposite will also support this if he’s prepared to listen to the duly elected mayors from each of the municipalities, the regional chair as well as the will of this House. Will he support this bill to help our lower-tier municipalities take control of their destiny and forge ahead to help us meet our housing supply crisis?

Thank you to the member for his excellent one-hour presentation on very complicated subject matter, which doesn’t have a lot of details. This debate reminds me of the time that, at that point in time, Premier Mike Harris was forcing six former municipalities to merge to now create this new mega-city that we have in the city of Toronto. Toronto today, of course, has a population of three million people. We have a GDP over—I think it’s almost $400 billion.

Interestingly enough, I remember at that time in 1997, there was a pre-amalgamation report that this House had produced talking about the potential savings of $82 million by forcing those cities into a marriage. By 1999, the city of Toronto commissioned their own report and they found that there were no promised cost-savings whatsoever. So my question to the member is: Without deep analysis and serious, robust consultation, how can we be guaranteed that the promises that the Premier is making will come true?

I just had a quick question for the member. I know this bill also affects my particular area. I talk to a lot of folks in Simcoe county. It’s becoming a very mature region. Certainly, Simcoe county was formed when we had a lot of little, small municipalities and a lot of folks in my region opt in to the county. For example, the city of Barrie isn’t in the county. So they understand that as populations grow, all governments need to be nimble with change.

My question to the member opposite is, would they not be receptive to other areas that are included in this bill that may need to change and get with the times because their population is growing and this is the need that they see may be better for their residents?