We’ve had record-breaking heat waves in this province this summer, yet many seniors in long-term care are stuck in their rooms without air conditioning. Despite a change in the law requiring resident rooms to be fully air-conditioned by the end of June, 15% of homes have missed the deadline, and the homes that have made the deadline may not be any cooler.

Christine Zuk is sounding the alarm about conditions her mother, Shirley, has been forced to live with this summer in long-term care in Welland. After advocating for cooler rooms, Christine was told that the home was simply “in compliance.” Not convinced, Christine began temperature testing her mother’s room, and readings showed it was over 28 degrees inside her room.

Cooled public areas do not offer much reprieve when in COVID lockdown or when the residents cannot get themselves out of bed. The heat has been a challenge for Christine’s father, Kit, when visiting Shirley. The gowns required during a COVID outbreak are plastic, disposable and inappropriate for the heat.

Shirley is fortunate to have great advocates like Christine, but that is not the case for many seniors living in long-term care. Christine points out that without legislated maximum acceptable temperatures, there is a profit incentive to not use the air conditioning to its full extent.

She says, “It is profit over resident care and they need to be forced to continue to keep their air conditioning working at a reasonable level. I think this underscores the need for the regulations to include a maximum acceptable temperature in resident bedrooms.”

Speaker, I urge this government to follow through on its commitment, look seriously at this legislation and fix the loophole that is causing seniors to suffer in privately operated long-term care.

It’s an honour to rise today and speak to the newest municipal affairs legislation, Bill 3, Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, although we’re having trouble on this side of the House determining exactly how this is going to result in more homes.

It’s a real experience of déjà vu standing here. I was almost in this exact place at almost the exact time of year four years ago in 2018, after being elected and named as municipal affairs critic, when the government decided to interfere in the Toronto election and cut the number of councillors in half in the midst of candidates for mayor and candidates for council already being nominated, organizing their campaigns.

I can remember standing here and, actually, the government—this is going to sound familiar to my colleagues—was ramming through the legislation, so they had midnight sittings, and my friends on the opposite side may learn what those are because this government is not shy about using them. I remember standing here at about 4:15 in the morning delivering my first speech as an MPP and as a critic, and, behind me in the gallery, a citizen of Toronto who was protesting this undemocratic move was being handcuffed and dragged out of the gallery while I was trying to speak. So some real feelings of déjà vu here. Here we are again seeing this government, very soon after being elected and in the middle of an election, dictating to municipalities what they need to do in the middle of an election when folks are in the midst of preparing their campaigns.

Not to say there’s not a legitimate debate to be had around the issue of strong mayors, although the government’s own comments seem to indicate that they don’t appreciate its application or have considered all the consequences, and they’ve consulted with almost no one. This idea was never mentioned in relation to housing until now. It wasn’t brought up during the housing task force last year. It was never mentioned in the election. It has not been thoroughly explained. The opposition has not been provided the time and information to vet the legislation. So it’s interesting that in introducing a bill about governance, this government can’t seem to bring itself to show good governance. It begs the question as to how that encourages trust in what the government’s doing in relation to governance.

I came across an article, and it was written by Ken Greenberg on August 2. Ken Greenberg is not only the former director of urban design and architecture for the city of Toronto, but also worked in the United States in a strong-mayor system. I thought he had a really interesting perspective having worked as a municipal official both in Toronto and under a strong-mayor system in the United States. I wanted to get his comments into the record.

Mr. Greenberg says, “By the time the next municipal elections take place in Ontario on Oct. 24, the province may change the governments Toronto and Ottawa so that each will be led by a ‘strong mayor,’ with power to decide key matters such as budgeting regardless of the wishes—or votes—of those cities’ elected council members.

“The idea of a strong mayor has supporters and detractors on all sides of the political spectrum, but there’s not a lot of clarity on what it means. Based on my work experience with strong-mayor systems in the US, I can tell you that the system is not a panacea and it comes with risks.

“Supporters of a strong-mayor system see it as a way to ‘get things done’ in key areas that have been bottlenecked. Even as the housing market cools, Toronto and Ottawa still face an acute shortage of affordable homes”—as the government has pointed out. “Transit projects take decades to build, and developers complain that city governments tie their plans up with endless debate.” As a former city councillor and budget chief, I am familiar with those complaints.

“Those against having a strong mayor see the move as a sinister plan by” the “provincial government to ignore the wishes of elected city councils.

“Ford’s record is already alarming on this front. His previous government sliced the number of councillors in half just before the last municipal elections in 2018, and his cabinet has had a field day issuing ministerial zoning orders ... to let developers”—

“Critics also worry about what might happen if a strong mayor comes to power who is ... a populist bent on crushing the careful official plans drawn up by cities for sustainable smart growth. When he was a Toronto city councillor,” the Premier “himself”—

“Thankfully, his scheme failed.

“I have worked in the US for strong mayors,” says Mr. Greenberg. “Municipal government is different there, as is the definition of ‘strong mayor.’ US cities typically operate with party politics at the municipal level”—something this government should look at—“since the mayor and councillors run on party platforms. They also have taxing powers we do not have.

“But these same powers also can let them back dubious schemes, such as massive ‘urban renewal’ projects that destroy neighbourhoods. Many big American cities have faced bankruptcy too.

“An American mayor’s biggest rival for power is not the city council, it’s the city manager”—and that’s a very important distinction between the Canadian and American systems—“an appointed bureaucrat who has vast power and can make elected councils weak or irrelevant.

“Canadian cities have chief administrative officers, but they’re not really the mayor’s rival; they’re professional civil servants who have only a fraction of the powers that many US city managers enjoy.

“I worked in Boston for former mayor Tom Menino as interim chief planner. He was a relatively good mayor according to many, but all decisions happened in his offices. I rarely had any interaction with the councillors.

“While it is true that a ‘good’ strong mayor may be able to accomplish more things more quickly, what happens when we elect a bad one who tries to run the city with hare-brained slogans and schemes?

“My concern is that under the guise of seeking to ‘get things done,’ Doug Ford’s strong-mayor move”—my apologies, Speaker; the Premier’s strong-mayor move—“to centralize power may undermine a critical virtue of Canadian cities: the need for consensual city building.

“Democracy, in cities and everywhere else, relies on hearing many voices—not just the strong one—and having a non-partisan group of civil servants who are loyal not just to a single politician, but to the city itself.”

I thought that was an important article that was written, Speaker, because not only does it point out the differences between the Canadian and American system, which this government doesn’t seem to appreciate, but it also talks about the issue of mayors using precedents and convention, not just what’s written in legislation.

Now, this Premier’s history with local democracy, we all know about, and I have mentioned what I was doing four years ago when 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, which invoked the “notwithstanding” clause to bypass charter rights. After an appeal—expensive for the people of Ontario—the court overturned the stay and Bill 5 went ahead. Bill 5 is still the subject of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.

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. This government, this party, has not been shy about drafting omnibus bills and slipping things in, as new members to this House will learn.

I’m going to talk for a moment about the weak- and the strong-mayor system. In what’s often referred to in the media as the weak-mayor system—Toronto, Ottawa and all other Ontario municipalities currently have what’s referred to as a weak-mayor system, where only council, and not the mayor, is authorized to exercise municipal powers, and the mayor is just one more vote on council. As a result, to implement their agenda, the mayor must obtain the votes of the majority of council.

In Ontario, the formal roles of councils and mayors are described in sections 224 and 225 of the Municipal Act, and similar sections of the City of Toronto Act. Section 132 of that act says, “The powers of the city shall be exercised by city council,” except during declarations of emergency when the mayor assumes many of these powers. While council wields the powers of the municipality, the mayor’s statutory role includes providing leadership to council, representing the city at ceremonial functions and promoting the purposes of the city.

Something we don’t discuss at great length in this House is the role that informal powers play in governance. Just yesterday, we saw the impact of formal and informal rules on the debate on official opposition Speakers and Vice-Chairs in this House. Mayors wield additional informal powers by virtue of being directly elected, granting them legitimacy to speak on behalf of the city as a whole through what David Crombie has called the “bully pulpit.”

For example, in 2011 the Ontario Liberal government agreed to cancel the council-approved Transit City plan and support the transit plan proposed by newly elected Mayor Rob Ford, even though Rob Ford had not obtained the authorization of council, which would later reaffirm its support for the earlier Transit City plan.

The council may also delegate some of its formal authority to the mayor. For example, Toronto council delegated to Mayor David Miller the power to appoint the executive committee and chairs of standing committees, which grants the mayor additional formal powers. Because executive committee roles are desirable to councillors, the power to appoint or fire committee members tends to ensure that the mayor can usually count on close to the majority of council votes. In other words, Toronto mayors already informally wield many strong-mayor powers. The caveat is that they can be taken away by council. I would suggest that this could be an important check and balance to a mayor who is out of control or involved in corruption.

For those who may be wondering, “Why a strong-mayor system, and why now?”, some of our answers may go back to the Premier’s time at the city of Toronto. In 2011, over a decade ago, the Premier said in an interview, “I believe in a strong-mayor system, like they have in the States. The mayor should have veto power ... so he has enough power to stop council.” He also said: “The mayor should be the mayor. At the end of the day ... the mayor’s responsible for everything.”

That article can give us a lot of insight into the legislation before us. The Premier, then a councillor, outlined that it was a challenge to get legislation passed with 23 votes to woo. The Premier expressed admiration for the mayor in Chicago and Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion. My friend across the way mentioned the city of Chicago, which I’ll get to.

It would appear that the strong-mayor system is one that the Premier has been considering for some time. It’s interesting to note that the Premier himself acknowledged how important informal powers were to building a cohesive unit on city council, like Mayor Hazel McCallion has done.

We’ve heard a lot about the mayoral system in Chicago, in the Premier’s comments from 2011 and over the past few weeks. What’s interesting is that Chicago is a charter city, first of all—an issue that we floated in this House previously. We’ve met with members from charter city groups across Toronto and Ontario and many of the mayors, through municipal associations, who have raised the issue in our delegation meetings with them. Charter cities give cities more independence, not less.

To complicate matters, Chicago, which the Premier touted as a great example of municipal governments, is actually a weak-mayor system under its charter. In an article by Mari Cohen in the Chicago City Bureau, she says, “In terms of official structure, Chicago is considered a ‘weak-mayor’ city when compared to other cities.... That’s because the city council has certain powers, including voting on the budget that Chicago is required to pass each year and approving certain administrative appointments, that it can use as leverage against the mayor. But despite what’s on paper, Chicago mayors have historically exercised significant authority in practice by working the political system.

“‘Structure makes the mayor weak, politics make the mayor strong,’” said the author.

In practical terms, Chicago has an extremely powerful mayor. Chicago shows how informal rules in practice are often vastly more relevant than the formal ones.

In our initial reading of the bill—and I have to note that I raised the issue of how this government is exercising governance. We had a ministerial briefing yesterday at about 4 o’clock, and at 10:45 last night, the opposition was informed that this would be debated today at 1 o’clock. That’s an interesting side note to “Is a government interested in debate?” They control those levers, as they’ve demonstrated over the last couple of days. Those levers can be used responsibly, or they can be abused.

As a former city councillor and budget chair, I’m very familiar with city budgets and the work that it takes. In the time that I did it—and it wasn’t in a city the size of Toronto; it was in a large urban municipality, St. Catharines. There’s a lot of transparency to the budget process. The press are usually present. Boards and groups make presentations in front of the press. Citizens make presentations. Things are debated, things are considered, and they’re voted on. It happens out in the open.

We had a ministry briefing, as I mentioned, yesterday evening, and it’s our understanding that under this new legislation, the mayor can draft a budget and present it to council. Council may pass amendments, but these amendments can be vetoed by the mayor. Presently, Toronto has an executive committee which oversees setting strategic priorities and fiscal policy. The process of a budget committee is allowed under the bill, but it’s not required. In practical terms, a lot will depend on a mayor’s personal commitment to democracy and accountability—something not provided for in the legislation, obviously. There is no guarantee of a transparent budget process. The only requirement is that the budget be tabled at a meeting for council’s consideration. The mayor is only required to make changes if more than two thirds of a council override the mayor’s veto. There’s also an issue of committees of control, which can be utilized by a mayor by stacking a committee they form with an appropriate number of friendly councillors and directing important decisions to that committee.

I want to talk for a moment about an Ombudsman report that we had in the Niagara region, because it’s directly relevant to part of this legislation which gives mayors and possibly regional chairs the power to appoint the chief administrative officer and hire and fire city or regional department heads. It’s important to note that this power does not extend to statutory appointments, like the chief of police, the fire chief, the medical officer of health, Auditor General and the head of the transit commission or the integrity commissioner, but it does apply to the very important job of CAO. To most, the power to hire and fire a CAO may seem innocuous. But if you’re from Niagara, you will immediately see a red flag on hearing of this provision in this bill.

When I was first elected, in 2018, a tremendous amount of scrutiny was being placed on our regional chair in Niagara at the time and his senior executive team, particularly the CAO at the time. Myself, many community members and my predecessor MPP Cindy Forster had been at work for years, calling for accountability at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, where the CAO worked before being hired as CAO in the Niagara region.

Local journalists like Grant LaFleche had some incredible award-winning journalism uncovering all that went on with corruption and abuse of power in Niagara. In April of 2018, the St. Catharines Standard published its first exposé on the hiring of the Niagara region CAO, who they revealed had obtained confidential documents, including the names and biographies of other candidates and interview questions written by the staff of the regional chair during the hiring process.

Following the election, we were able to get the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate the hiring, which culminated in a report entitled Inside Job, published in 2019. That’s online, for folks if they want a very interesting read. In the report, the Ombudsman, Paul Dubé, called on the regional municipality of Niagara to improve its practices after his investigation found its hiring of the former CAO was compromised by confidential information leaked by insiders in the regional chair’s office.

“The regional municipality of Niagara’s hiring process was an inside job, tainted by the improper disclosure of confidential information to a candidate ... who was ultimately successful and became the region’s most senior administrator,” Dubé writes.

He found that the CAO was provided with confidential documents. These included a report on the makeup of the recruitment committee, the names and biographies of potential candidates and questions and suggested answers for the interview. Several of the documents originated in the office of the regional chair, whose staff also helped this applicant and played a central role in the hiring process.

The CAO was “provided with this ... content to be used in application materials by insiders who had access to information not available to the public or other candidates,” the Ombudsman notes. “The lack of fairness and transparency in the hiring process created controversy and distrust within the region and served to undermine public confidence in local government,” Dubé said.

I can’t express to you, Speaker, how much public confidence was undermined by this example which would seem to become more possible under this government’s legislation.

The scheme went back years. The Ombudsman even found a spreadsheet on the CAO’s computer entitled CAO Critical Path, which predicted the day that regional council tried to fire the former CAO and set the time of recruitment for the new CAO.

But after a year on the job, the contract was extended for three years by the regional chair—and this is where the financial part comes in—without council’s knowledge and amended it to include a provision where he would receive 36 months’ notice of termination, even if it were for cause—taxpayers’ dollars in the millions. Notably, the contract would have extended beyond the next term of council with the municipal decision in 2018.

It was a hard time for Niagara. Trust in our local government was at an all-time low. These are some of the dangers that this government should be considering with this legislation.

The Ombudsman suggested several recommendations to ensure the municipality preserved the integrity of the hiring process in the future, which include—and would seem to contradict the government’s legislation:

—ensuring that staff in the chair’s office do not usurp or undermine the role of professional staff, especially when those roles have been set by council or a committee;

—adopting a policy setting out the process for hiring a chief administrative officer, including the appropriate roles of staff and their accountability to council or a committee of council charged with the hiring—this is coming from the Ombudsman and contradicts what this government wants to do with this legislation;

—adopting a bylaw setting the parameters of the relationship between council and the CAO, including the role of council with respect to amending the CAO’s contract and salary; and

—ensuring that staff and officials act in accordance with the direction of council and committees of council.

A CAO has incredible power, particularly in larger municipalities. I think it’s important that this House is thoughtful about the implications of this legislation and its impact on the public trust in a municipality.

Another power in this bill is the authority to appoint the chairs of council committees and create and reorganize city departments. The power to appoint/dismiss committee and board chairs and vice-chairs already exists in Toronto. However, as I’ve mentioned, these powers are currently delegated by council, not granted by a statute. The bill before us would remove council’s ability to withdraw these powers as Toronto council did previously in 2013 under that mayor.

In Bill 3, a mayor could veto any bylaw passed by councillors if it “could potentially interfere with a prescribed provincial priority.” This would include bylaws affecting housing developments and critical infrastructure projects like highways or public transit, and it would take a two-thirds majority vote of council to overrule the mayor within 21 days of the veto.

I think this clearly demonstrates, Speaker, that there are some real pitfalls and a real need to examine this legislation further and understand its implications. I can tell you from our briefing yesterday and the questions that were asked and the lack of answers that existed in even that briefing, there’s a lot that has not been considered by this government.

It’s called building homes—is that it?—Strong Mayors, Building Homes. But as I mentioned, a lot of people, a lot of us—not just us on this side of the House but mayors across Ontario and experts and planners—can’t figure out how exactly more homes are going to get built. We all know housing is one of the largest issues in this province. I’ve stood up in this House many times to speak this government’s housing legislation. Four years later, we’re still in a housing crisis.

When information on this bill was leaked a few weeks back, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said, “The Premier and I are both of the same mind. We need to make sure that especially in major cities that those mayors and those councils have the tools they need” to get “shovels in the ground” and help with the housing crisis.

The media then spoke to the Premier, where they asked, “What is it about the current makeup of council right now” in Toronto “that is preventing affordable housing from being built?” And the Premier said, “I don’t remember anything regarding affordable housing.”

So there’s some confusion, even in the government ranks between the Premier and the minister, as to whether the bill actually has anything to do with housing. The minister thinks it does. The Premier doesn’t think it does. But we think it’s about the Premier giving mayors the power to help him bypass local bylaws and stifle consultation.

When asked about how this will impact housing, no one has been able to give a clear answer. The minister was asked about this at length in his press conference yesterday, and let’s just say he had great difficulty.

The Housing Affordability Task Force report, which this government commissioned, never mentioned strong-mayor powers as a solution to housing affordability. It did mention ending exclusionary zoning and enabling more missing middle housing, but this bill does not include any of this, nor does it facilitate it. The word “housing,” as my friend from Ottawa pointed out, does not appear at all in the bill.

If this minister is serious about housing, I would suggest—again, as we on this side of the House have been suggesting for years—end exclusionary zoning, allow municipalities to build missing middle homes, open up public land for affordable housing, put in real rent control, clamp down on speculation, fund community housing and expand inclusionary zoning. Those are real measures that will help with the housing crisis.

Back when we were debating Bill 108, I said to this House that it stated a vision of affordable housing but introduced measures that would actually make housing less affordable. Bill 108 has nearly completely clawed back the ability for municipalities to pass inclusionary zoning policies. Now inclusionary zoning can only apply to a protected major transit station area or to an area where a development permit system has been required by the minister. That’s a step backward, not a step forward.

Just prior to Bill 108, the government announced that rent control rules no longer would protect tenants that move into new residential units coming on to the market. If you move into an apartment, a condo or basement unit that was first occupied as a unit after November 2018, there’s no legal limit set on how much your landlord will be able to raise your rent—no limit: a step backwards, not a step forward.

This government puts in measures designed to speed up development—More Homes, More Choice—while simultaneously gutting the protections that would make those units affordable once they’re built.

Just before the election, I spoke to the government’s other attempt at housing, Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act. The bill set timelines for municipalities for rezoning applications, and if they fail to make a decision within 90 days, refunds start at 50% and rise to 100%. There are similar consequences for municipalities that fail to approve a site plan application within the stated deadlines, but no penalties or no sunset period for developers who have used the official planning process and the planning process but are sitting on approved permits, which the large urban mayors have pointed out is a significant problem.

The bill created a new tool, the community infrastructure and housing accelerator, which formalizes municipal requests for minister’s zoning orders, which this government has used very aggressively to allow well-connected developers to pave over prime farmland—which we are losing at a shocking rate—and protected wetlands and build warehouses and often unsustainable sprawl. And in that bill, after all the lessons learned over the past few years, it still failed to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow for missing middle housing.

Speaker, unquestionably, housing is a crisis in this province. The number one issue in my riding of Niagara Centre is the severe lack of affordable housing, as many of my colleagues will tell you about their own ridings. A modest one-bedroom apartment in Welland right now: $1,400 a month. A basement one-bedroom apartment in Port Colborne: $1,300 a month. ODSP is—as the opposition has been raising—under $1,200 a month. Rents have risen across Ontario over the past 20 years, particularly since 2011.

In an article in the CBC, they explored why Canada is losing affordable rental housing units faster than they’re being built, and it’s not because of weak or strong mayors.

“According to research from Steve Pomeroy, a senior research fellow at Carleton University in Ottawa, rentals that were once considered affordable are seeing significant price increases.

“He estimates that between 2011 and 2016, the number of rental units that would be affordable for households earning less than $30,000 per year” declined by 322,000.

“Because many provinces control how much rents can be raised on tenants who stay in the same unit, most of these increases occur when the unit turns over.”

But “in the current rental environment, ‘there is a tremendous incentive to remove that sitting tenant.’”

My colleagues have talked many times over the last four years about renoviction and all of the problems that are associated with that. That’s what we’re seeing here in Ontario. When housing costs more than 30% of a person’s income, that housing is considered unaffordable.

In Niagara, we’re seeing people spend upwards of 60% of their take take-home income on housing. According to the Niagara Workforce Planning Board, Niagara’s average home price was $450,000. This price increased 37.2% in 2021 to $620,000. As our housing market continues to get hotter and hotter, investors are seeing housing as an investment as opposed to a home, and this mentality has become more and more prevalent. Thank goodness, we are seeing a bit of a cooling off in the housing market, but that’s not helping people who can’t afford a place to live.

Speaker, if you have spoken to anyone who has tried to buy a house over the past few years, they’ll tell you it’s an incredibly frustrating process. We on this side of the House agree on one thing: Yes, we need more homes. But we need more affordable homes.

In an interview with the CBC, Ron Butler, one of the founders of Butler Mortgage, spoke about his experience with clients and about the price increases that are resulting from speculation.

Back in 2019, I spoke to the House about the wait-lists for affordable housing in my community—and it’s the same across the province within the ridings of many of my colleagues—anywhere from a six- to 10-year wait. In St. Catharines, it’s three to 13 years; in Welland, two to 15 years; in Port Colborne, three to 13 years; in Niagara Falls, up to 18 years’ wait through the Niagara region for affordable housing.

We all agree it’s a crisis. What we’ve disagreed on in this House is the path to fixing it. But what we would expect is that this government, at this juncture in time, if they really agree that this is a crisis, would come up with real solutions—at least some of the solutions their own task force recommended.

Strong mayors, weak mayors—not a solution. It gives municipalities no additional funds to build affordable housing, something which is desperately needed. It gives them no new revenue tools for raising capital, which large urban municipalities have been requesting for many years. It does not allow them to use inclusionary zoning to ensure affordable units are part of new builds. What it does do is allow a strong mayor to veto a democratically elected council’s decision if they think it may not be in line with provincial priorities as decided by the government.

I’d like to talk about some stakeholder response now, Speaker. The minister talked about some of those who support the bill, but if you listen in the media and you talk to municipal leaders, there’s an awful lot of concern out there. In my time as municipal affairs critic for the official opposition, something I’ve heard routinely is that this government likes to present that they consult on issues, and then when you actually speak to the stakeholders, we hear that they were not consulted at all—or, what’s worse, they were consulted and their recommendations were ignored. Not long ago, this government commissioned a report on regional governance review. Ken Seiling, who co-chaired the review, said that he was disappointed the minister and Premier refused to adopt his recommendations, which remain a secret to this day.

Toronto councillors presented a motion recently to express the city’s opposition to a strong-mayor system, including the mayoral veto, but also including any additional powers beyond what is already in the City of Toronto Act. The text of the motion—I want to read this motion by councillors Josh Matlow and Mike Colle:

“(1) City council request the province of Ontario not to implement a ‘strong-mayor’ system in Toronto with legislation that includes a veto over the city’s budget, or other items before council, or any other legislative measure that would grant additional mayoral powers over city affairs than what is already granted under the City of Toronto Act.

“(2) City council request the city clerk to report to the first meeting council meeting of the next term on a governance structure that will enable the current model of mayoral powers under the City of Toronto Act, in relation to any changes to that act or others.

“(3) City council affirms its position that any changes to Toronto’s local elections or its governance structure should be decisions made by Toronto’s city council.”

What they’re clearly saying is, “Stay out of our business.” Look, this government has been meddling in the affairs of municipalities far too much. Councillors and councils are elected municipally in municipal elections. For a government to come out in a press release and inform a council that this is what they’re doing, something that’s going to drastically affect the business that they conduct, without even speaking—ironically, they spoke to the mayor, let’s say, a member of their own party or a former member of their own party, but they didn’t speak to any of the city councillors. Just about any government that I’ve ever heard of, before they’re making a major change, especially a governance change, will put that out and will at least ask for feedback, for consultation. They don’t inform a council just before an election through the press.

The summary of the motion I found important. “On July 19, the Toronto Star reported that” the Premier “will move forward with legislation to install a ‘strong-mayor’ system in Toronto. While there are few details in the article, mayors in many American cities under this governance model have the final say on the budget and other important matters.

“Such a move would erode democracy by stifling local advocacy on the most important issues affecting Torontonians. That’s why this motion sends a strong message to the provincial government that city council does not support a ‘strong-mayor’ system in Toronto with legislation that includes a veto over the city’s budget, or other items before council, or any other legislative measure that would grant additional mayoral powers over city affairs than what is already granted under the City of Toronto Act.

“Our city’s governance structure should be designed for not only what we aspire to be, but to take into account what guardrails are necessary to protect a healthy local democracy. In Toronto’s case, we don’t need to look very far back in our own history to see how important the ability is to hold the mayor’s power in check. In fact, it was absolutely necessary. As they say, ‘hope for the best and plan for the worst.’

“This motion is urgent because there will not be another council meeting prior to the introduction of this legislation that will have significant impacts on the city’s governance structure.”

That’s a city council that is shocked by a government that did not consult with them, that is bullying just before an election, and I think that our elected councils across Ontario deserve much more respect than they were paid in the announcement of this initiative.

Burlington mayor Marianna Meed Ward said back when the strong-mayors story was leaked, “This came as a surprise; we were not consulted through either the Ontario’s Big City Mayors caucus (of which I am a member) or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (where I serve as a member of AMO’s Large Urban Caucus). OBCM is calling an emergency meeting to discuss this.... Whatever changes the province proposes should be available equally ... to all municipalities, not just Toronto and Ottawa.

“I’ve been a strong advocate in the past for more powers for municipalities and their councils as a whole through the charter cities movement. Municipalities would negotiate a ‘charter’ with the province, giving them more powers over matters including planning, electoral reform and taxation. This is similar to the City of Toronto Act already in place, but would be available to any municipality on an opt-in basis.

“I will continue to advocate for more powers for municipalities and our councils as a whole, with or without any changes made to the role of mayor. The bigger opportunity than a ‘strong-mayor’ system to advance and deliver affordable housing (if that’s what’s being proposed....) is to reform and ultimately eliminate the Ontario Land Tribunal—an undemocratic, costly and time-wasting body that adds millions of dollars and, in some cases, years to development approvals that vary only slightly from the initial proposals. The OLT is the definition of red tape and it’s gridlocking the development in Ontario—the only province with this type of system.”

So there are two things that this government could have looked at after being elected: charter cities and the OLT, things that they could have engaged in meaningful dialogue with municipalities on, not announcing something like this just before an election through the media.

David Miller, mayor of Toronto in 2006 and a recipient of additional powers granted by council, said, “The province needs to stop interfering with Toronto and return to the principles underlying the City of Toronto Act—of mutual respect. The city of Toronto is the fourth or fifth largest government in Canada by budget and population and is more than capable of self-government.... I always said, ‘You don’t need a strong-mayor system, you need a strong mayor,’ a statement which has stood the test of time.”

Toronto councillor Josh Matlow said in a tweet, “Doug Ford’s ‘strong-mayor’ legislation doesn’t create housing or strengthen Toronto. It weakens our local democracy, diminishes councillors’ ability to hold a mayor to account” and “with a veto for provincial objectives, in the wrong hands the mayor becomes a servant of Queen’s Park.”

My colleague from Toronto Centre, former councillor for Ward 13 in Toronto, said, “Why does Toronto need a ‘strong-mayor’ system? Mayor already wins city council votes nearly 98% of the time.”

With respect to the question of housing, I’d like to also talk about some feedback from another group that wasn’t consulted and that’s More Neighbours Toronto. I think they expressed the feelings of many in Toronto who are struggling:

“Today, in just the third day of the Progressive Conservative government’s second mandate ... the minister for municipal affairs tabled a much-anticipated bill that would provide the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa with extra powers....

“While there is little in this bill that would directly address the province’s housing supply crisis, some of the powers that will be given to the mayor could be used to hasten construction....

“Whether these powers would be used effectively remains to be seen.... What doesn’t change is the fact that there is still an anti-housing majority on Toronto’s city council.”

The article goes on to talk about the difference between legislation and the effects of a mayor who uses the current system to get their council to vote in a way that encourages affordable housing, and the desire of the city of Toronto to get the appropriate funding and the appropriate level of co-operation from the province, something they haven’t up to this point received.

David Crombie: “You Don’t Need a Strong Mayor System to Have a Strong Mayor.”

“A former Toronto mayor is weighing in ... ‘The more power you give to the mayor to act on his or her own, the less public discussion you’re going to have, and to me, you lose the juice of democracy by doing so.... We need strong mayors, but you don’t need a strong-mayor system to have a strong mayor.’

“Crombie served as mayor of Toronto from 1972 to 1978....

“The current mayors of Toronto and Ottawa are divided.... Ottawa’s Jim Watson says he does not see how the so-called strong-mayor powers will help build more housing in his city, calling instead for more provincial funding.” I think the mayor of Ottawa has been very clear in the last couple of days what he thinks of this proposal, Speaker.

In conclusion, I see nothing in this bill that will achieve the minister’s stated priorities. I do not think that this government has been able to demonstrate clearly how strong-mayor powers will create housing or make it more affordable. Once again, this government has shown that in the time of a crisis, it cannot offer solutions. Municipalities have routinely articulated to the province that the housing crisis does not solely fall on their shoulders, and what they need to address it is support and financial assistance.

Instead, what this government offers is sweeping new powers encouraging mayors to veto council priorities, hire and fire senior staff, and unilaterally create budgets. This bill does not create housing or strengthen democracy; it weakens councils and entrenches the notion that mayors should be sledgehammers for provincial priorities.

While we do not yet know the full details, we know that this bill has the capacity to make municipal decision-making less transparent and less accountable. If this government was interested in creating housing, not just enriching their friends with high-priced development and MZOs, they would listen to and work in partnership with municipal councils, and give them the legislative and financial supports they need to move forward.

I thank the member for the question. I was alive at the time; many voters weren’t. But I appreciate the question. I don’t agree with removing rent controls, no matter who does it. I think rent controls are incredibly important, and they’ve never been more important than right now, because we’re in a housing crisis. It’s a crisis because people can’t afford their rent. If we really want to do something to help keep people from hitting the streets, maybe your government will consider more than a 5% raise to ODSP.

We don’t believe that this is going to do anything for housing. But if the government truly believes that this bill is going to do something to increase housing, especially affordable housing, they should explain that and they should be meeting with housing advocates and explaining to them how that’s going to happen.

I listened to the minister’s press conference the other day. He was asked, over and over again, by journalists. He couldn’t answer the question. You’ve got to have your facts straight if you’re going to put a bill and make a claim like that.

The mandate letters have been kept secret. Yesterday, when we asked for a definition of “provincial priorities” at the ministerial briefing, we got, “Ask the minister.” When the ministry is unclear about what those priorities are—I didn’t hear a clear explanation. I was listening intently to the minister today. I think that’s something we’re sure going to have to ask him over the next few days.

Of course, they only told us we’d be talking about this at 10:45 last night, so it’s a little tough to ask those questions when you’ve got no notice of debate.

Congratulations to the member on their election to the House.

We’re not; we want to cut red tape. Our version of red tape and the government’s version are quite different. I mentioned, for example, the Ontario Land Tribunal. There’s a whole whack of red tape right there, and municipalities all across Ontario have been asking this government to do something and deal with it. Both developers and councils and citizens want something done about the Ontario Land Tribunal and this government absolutely refuses to deal with that issue. We’re in favour of cutting red tape as long as it’s done responsibly and there is demonstrated need for it. The minister could at least explain how the legislation will result in that happening.