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.

To the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore: Thank you for your presentation.

I mentioned that in 1998, then-Premier Mike Harris forced six municipalities and the city of Toronto—which included Scarborough, York, Etobicoke, East York and North York—into an amalgamated city. This city is now three million people in size, with almost $400 billion of GDP. When I compare that to what Mississauga is—it’s about 800,000 people, I believe, by 2019 numbers, and about $97 billion in GDP. I also recognize that we were not necessarily consulted, and neither were any of those five other municipalities, when the amalgamation happened.

Because dissolution was not sought by Brampton or Caledon, how can your government ensure that this dissolution will benefit all three local municipalities?