J’aimerais remercier M^me Carmen Girard de Hanmer dans mon comté pour ces pétitions.

« Rendre l’autoroute 144 près de la rue Marina sécuritaire.

« Alors que les résidents de Levack, Onaping et Cartier, et les gens qui voyagent sur l’autoroute 144, sont préoccupés par la sécurité d’une section de l’autoroute 144 près de l’intersection de la rue Marina et aimeraient prévenir d’autres accidents et décès;

« Alors que trois accidents sont survenus l’été dernier et quatre accidents sont survenus cet été, qui ont entraîné des blessures, le déversement de diesel dans l’eau et la fermeture de l’autoroute 144 pendant des heures, ce qui a retardé la circulation et bloqué les résidents;

« Alors que le ministère des Transports a terminé l’examen de l’autoroute 144 près de la rue Marina, et ils ont recommandé des améliorations et se sont engagés à réévaluer pour que l’autoroute devienne sécuritaire. »

Ils pétitionnent « l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario pour que le ministère des Transports revoit immédiatement l’autoroute 144 près de la rue Marina et s’engage à la rendre sécuritaire, le plus tôt possible, » mais au plus tard, au mois de décembre 2022.

Je vous remercie. J’appuie cette pétition et je la donne à Lucia pour l’amener à la table des greffiers.

“MS Specialized Clinic in Sudbury.

“Whereas” northern “Ontario has one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis (MS) in Ontario;

“Whereas specialized MS clinics provide essential health care services to those living with multiple sclerosis, their caregiver and their family;

“Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is recognized as a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly ... as follows:

“Immediately set up a specialized MS clinic in the Sudbury area that is staffed by a neurologist who specializes in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, a physiotherapist and a social worker at a minimum.”

I support this petition, Speaker, will affix my name to it and ask my good page Ria to bring it to the Clerk.

Mr. Clark moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 3, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to special powers and duties of heads of council / Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les pouvoirs et fonctions spéciaux des présidents du conseil.

I would love to, Speaker. Thanks so much.

It is a real pleasure and a privilege to rise for second reading of our government’s proposed Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. I want to, right off the top, say that I’ll be sharing the government’s time with the Associate Minister of Housing and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. So the three of us will share the government’s time.

Speaker, Ontarians re-elected our government at a time when they are facing rising living costs and a shortage of housing. They sent us back to work with a strong mandate, because we promised to get more housing built faster. We know that Ontario is in the middle of a housing supply crisis; people are desperately looking for housing that meets their needs and their budget. Yet today in Ontario, Speaker, too many families are frozen out of the housing market. Young people are searching for their first home, a home where they’ll have room to have children and grow their family, while still being close to work, schools and essential services. Seniors are thinking about downsizing and want homes that meet their needs as they age, without having to move far away from the people and the places that they love.

Everyone is looking for something different, and we knew we needed clear support to get the right policies in place to build more homes faster.

Nous savions que nous avions besoin d’aide pour adopter les bonnes politiques afin de bâtir plus d’habitations plus rapidement.

Our government created the Housing Affordability Task Force of industry leaders and exports to recommend additional measures to increase the supply of market housing to address the housing crisis, and that task force stated in their introductory letter of their report—I’m going to paraphrase it for members now, Speaker:

“For many years, the province has not built enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population....

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

Speaker, the task force also pointed out, after meeting with a variety of housing sector partners, that they heard solutions that fit into five themes:

(1) increasing density across the province;

(2) ending exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing;

(3) depoliticizing the housing approvals process;

(4) preventing abuse of the housing appeals system; and

(5) financial support to municipalities to build more housing.

I want all members of the House to keep the second and the third recommendations in mind. Those are ending exclusionary municipal rules and depoliticizing the housing approvals process.

Speaker, our government’s target is to build 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years. We have and we will continue to explore ways to help municipalities get more homes built faster. As the task force pointed out, there’s a bottleneck when it comes to getting shovels in the ground for new home construction. Development approvals and appropriate zoning are often delayed or, in some cases, hindered because of opposition from some members on local municipal councils. Some projects are even abandoned. Even if the project finally gets a go-ahead, a tremendous amount of damage is done.

The C.D. Howe Institute found restrictions and extra costs on building new housing are dramatically increasing the price of housing developments. These restrictions include delays on projects and also permitting approvals. The institute found, Speaker—you really have to listen to this, because this is staggering—that these barriers add approximately $168,000 or 22% to the average cost of a single detached home in the city of Toronto. What’s more, Speaker, the Ontario Association of Architects concluded that for a 100-unit condominium building right here in Toronto, delayed approvals cost home builders almost $2,000 per unit per month—unbelievable. These are costs that are ultimately passed down to homeowners and to renters.

Delays are contributing to an unfortunate statistic that was highlighted recently by Rescon, Ontario’s leading association of residential builders. Rescon says that we are underproducing housing by about 12,000 units per year here in Ontario. I think we all agree: We need to do everything we can to help ensure that there is unimpeded construction of homes.

A good step, Speaker, would be for us to tackle the political logjam in getting approvals. As the Housing Affordability Task Force found in its consultations, stakeholders agree with us that ending exclusionary municipal rules and depoliticizing the housing approvals process are good first steps. This is an issue that transcends municipal ward boundaries, yet it can be at the ward level that the logjam begins. In fact, the cost of housing is the top issue for voters in the upcoming municipal elections this fall. People with well-paying jobs are unable to find housing in both urban city centres and communities across the province because of how quickly costs are rising.

In our electoral system, residents vote for the mayor of their lower-tier and single-tier municipality, in addition to their local councillor. They expect the mayor to look after the overall challenges their community faces, including the need for more housing. However, it’s often unrealistic for mayors to meet the demands under our current system. I want to quote the Premier. Our Premier has said mayors are “accountable for everything. But they have the same single vote as a single councillor.”

In Ontario, a mayor has got one vote on their municipal council, just like all other members. That means the mayor, who could be responsible for three million people, has just as much say on a local issue as one councillor. And yet, despite this, voters have an expectation: Voters expect their mayor to be responsible for all the major city projects and priorities. They’re counting on their mayor to get things done. They count on their mayor to find solutions important to them, including housing.

Today, I think we can agree: Priority projects simply take too long to get through municipal councils and through committees. To be truly effective for their communities, mayors need our support. They need to be empowered. That’s why, Speaker, I am so very proud that we’re leading off second-reading debate on the proposed Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. The changes would, if passed, give the mayors of the cities of Toronto and Ottawa the ability to drive policy changes, select municipal department heads and bring forward budgets, and it would help our municipal partners deliver on our shared priorities, including housing.

Our government is keeping costs down, and we’re going to build 1.5 million homes to address the housing supply crisis. We know that empowered mayors can better help the province and municipalities work together on housing and other initiatives that are critically important to communities. It is something we need to keep in mind as we expect record growth in the province.

The population of our province of Ontario continues to grow. As it grows, housing has to keep up. I said this this morning: The reality is over one third of Ontario’s growth in the next decade is going to happen in Toronto and Ottawa. These cities have shown us that they’re shovel-ready. They’ve shown us that they’re committed to growth and committed to cutting red tape.

Now I’d like to take a few minutes before I pass the torch along to my colleagues. I’d like to explain specifically how our proposed changes would support growth in Toronto and Ottawa. Our bill proposes changes to the Municipal Act, the City of Toronto Act and other pieces of legislation that, if passed, the changes would provide the heads of council in the city of Toronto and the city of Ottawa with additional governance tools and increased powers to align municipal decision-making with provincial priorities. These increased executive powers would allow them to better organize city hall.

These mayors would be able to hire and fire the chief administrative officer, as well as other department heads. They would also be able to create and reorganize departments, and they would also have the authority to appoint chairs or vice-chairs for committees and for local boards identified in regulation, as well as establish committees. These mayors would also be able to forge a path on the council floor.

If passed, these changes would allow the mayors in both the cities of Ottawa and Toronto to direct provincial priority items for council consideration. This could also include directing staff to prepare proposals. We believe the proposed changes would maintain a solid municipal decision-making framework. Of course, there needs to be a system with checks and balances in place. Mayors would be able to support priority items, as well as their vision for their communities, through the ability to develop the municipality’s budget and then table it for council consideration.

Council would be able to propose amendments to the budget, subject to the mayor’s veto and the council’s override process. Mayors would also have the ability to veto bylaws passed by council in order to further a provincial priority. But as I mentioned, council would still have a role in amending the budget. They could override a mayor’s veto with a two-thirds majority vote.

We’re also proposing changes to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that would require a mayor to declare any financial conflicts related to the use of the new powers. The changes would also prevent a mayor from using the powers where they have a financial conflict.

Because of this increased authority that we’re proposing for the mayors, we also want to ensure that voters have their say if a mayor leaves office earlier than expected. That’s why we would require a by-election to replace a mayor with these increased powers if their office becomes vacant, rather than having the current choice of either a by-election or an appointment.

Speaker, we did not take the development of our proposals lightly. We’ve looked at other cities that provide mayors with executive powers. Cities like Chicago, London, Los Angeles and Paris all have a strong-mayor system that works. The mayors in these cities have strengthened roles and additional administrative and executive powers in developing budgets, and some have the opportunity to veto certain items.

These strong-mayor systems support the needs of their growing communities, just as it can support the needs of growing communities in Toronto and Ottawa. This is why we’re putting our trust in local leadership of these two cities, to give the mayors the responsibility to help deliver on our shared provincial-municipal priorities.

Our government believes that a strong-mayor system will help address the housing crisis. We’re not alone in our belief. I’d like to share a quote from the Toronto Region Board of Trade:

“Toronto faces numerous urgent city-wide challenges, from housing, land use, transit, transportation, budget, economic development and climate. Effective, timely solutions require a city chief executive with clear authority to set an agenda, appoint senior city staff, and bring forward policy solutions to council.”

The board goes on to say that for almost two decades, they have long advocated stronger powers for Toronto’s mayor. And they conclude, “Now is the time to act.” We’re moving quickly on this priority as we want to get our proposed changes in place in time for that council term which begins in mid-November.

Our government trusts Ontarians. The population is growing and housing needs to keep up. We’re looking at places that are shovel-ready, committed to growth, and cutting red tape.

Nous envisageons des localités qui sont prêtes pour les travaux, engagées envers la croissance et disposées à réduire les formalités administratives.

That’s why we’re putting our trust in local leadership by giving the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa more responsibility to develop on our shared provincial-municipal priorities, including our commitment to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. The province and these two municipalities can work together to ensure housing is more attainable for the people of Ontario.

I’d be more than happy to send things over to my associate minister to continue the conversation. Thank you so much for listening.

I’d like to thank, certainly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for sharing his time with me today.

I’m very proud to rise in the House today as Ontario’s new Associate Minister of Housing to speak to a bill—

Interjections.

The rising cost of housing has had an impact on so many Ontarians. Families are being priced out of the market, seniors on fixed incomes worrying every month how they will be able to pay their mortgage, and too many members of our next generation feel they will never have a place of their own.

Every single day all of us show up to work here to make choices, tough choices, choices that aren’t always easy. Allow me to be crystal clear that this government will always choose the side of hard-working Ontarians. Today the government of Ontario is proposing legislation that will reinforce how committed we are in supporting our municipal partners to deliver on our shared priorities—priorities that matter to the people of Ontario; priorities such as our election promise to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years.

Through this legislation, the government of Ontario will empower our municipal partners to get things done, because the people of Ontario expect nothing less. This includes helping to speed up new home constructions so that we can get more homes built quicker and make sure more families can realize the dream of home ownership. A house isn’t just four walls and a roof, it’s a home; a place for families to build their futures and make memories. Our government has the firm conviction that everyone deserves to have one of their own.

Since day one of being in power, our government has been laser-focused on tackling the province’s housing crisis. In 2019, we released our first housing supply action plan. It was called More Homes, More Choice and provided a road map to help address the housing challenges our province was facing at that time. It was a call to action on the need to build more homes to keep up with the rapidly growing population in Ontario. And it was effective. Since the plan was introduced, the province’s actions and close collaboration with municipalities have delivered results. Last year, in 2021, we saw more than 100,000 housing starts in Ontario, and that is the highest since 1987. Last year also saw more than 13,000 rental starts. Again, the most rental starts since 1991.

Despite our progress, we knew it wasn’t enough. Across the province, no matter where you went, one thing seemed to remain the same: Too many Ontarians were still finding the dream of having a place of their own out of reach. We recognized we needed to go further, so we began a three-part consultation with housing sector experts, municipalities and the public to help identify and implement real solutions to address the housing supply crisis.

First, we conducted an online public consultation through which we received more than 2,000 submissions. Second, we brought together municipalities and municipal associations to hear from leaders on the ground about what needed to be done for us to be able to build more homes. We conducted these consultations through the Ontario municipal housing summit and rural housing round table. The third part of government’s thorough consultation was the creation of the Housing Affordability Task Force.

The task force was made up of a diverse range of experts in non-profit housing, Indigenous housing, real estate, home builders, financial markets and municipal governments. We knew that for this task force to put forward the most fulsome recommendations it needed to include every voice and needed to represent all voices across the province.

Through their engagement with stakeholders, including municipalities and advocacy groups, they developed thought-provoking and detailed recommendations in their report. These recommendations ranged from proposed changes to the planning policies to ways to lower costs for development and to aligning efforts between all levels of government to incentivize building more housing.

Along with the dozens of recommendations provided by the task force, they again issued an urgent call to action. They told us that our province does not currently have enough housing to meet the needs of Ontarians, and that if we didn’t act we would not have enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population tomorrow. So we used the task force recommendations, along with other consultation feedback, to get to work and to take bold actions. We used the task force report as a foundation to craft a new housing supply action plan designed to make sure all Ontarians can find a home that meets their needs and their budgets.

We passed More Homes for Everyone, the next step to help boost housing supply in our province. The legislation laid out ways to get rid of the red tape and bureaucratic inefficiencies that are driving up the cost of homes, all while creating more housing options for renters and buyers. More Homes for Everyone delivers real solutions and addresses the province’s housing crisis.

It includes the new community infrastructure and housing accelerator, which is a tool that helps municipalities expedite approvals for housing and community infrastructure such as hospitals and community centres.

It also made changes to the site plan control decisions. Site plan control is a planning tool that municipalities use to manage development on a parcel of land. What we saw, Mr. Speaker, was that too often, politics was getting in the way of good planning. So we made sure that our plan requires local council to delegate site plan control decisions to municipal staff.

We also extended the timeline for municipalities to review the site plan applications before appeals can be launched, from 30 days to 60 days, to make sure municipalities have the time they need to review projects while preventing unnecessary delays.

In the interests of transparency, we now also require municipalities and development charge bylaw to make their annual reporting on these charges available to the public on the municipality’s website.

These are just some of the ways our comprehensive More Homes for Everyone plan is helping us to get shovels in the ground.

But we knew we couldn’t stop there. Housing affordability is one of the greatest challenges of our time and it must be treated as such. How we, as elected officials, choose to tackle this challenge over the coming years will determine whether an entire next generation will be able to own a home, start a family and build our communities to be even stronger. As a result, we must take bold, decisive action to address the housing shortage. We mustn’t be afraid to challenge the status quo, and we must work with every partner willing to help us get shovels in the ground.

We must deliver real, long-term solutions to ensure home ownership is in reach of all Ontarians. We’re going to use the Housing Affordability Task Force recommendation as a long-term road map to help us get there, a road map that will allow us to work with our partners to develop a new housing supply action plan each year over four years. This includes our municipal partners, each with unique circumstances on the ground and in their communities.

We believe taking a long-term integrated approach will give our municipal partners the time and flexibility they need to work with us to be able to achieve our ambitious goals, because solving the housing supply crisis is a long-term mission and it certainly won’t happen overnight. It requires long-term commitment, partnerships at all levels of government and a solid plan, all three of which will happen in spades.

As the minister outlined when speaking to today’s proposed legislation, Ontario is a growing province. It’s a place where good people of all backgrounds come to begin a new life. As Ontario grows, we must help communities across the province to grow as well. That includes building more attainable homes, because addressing the housing supply issues in our communities is a critical issue and we need to have success. The time for talk is over. The time for action, the time for cutting through red tape and the time for getting shovels in the ground and building the dream of home ownership is now.

To help us get there, we committed to establishing a housing supply action plan implementation team this summer. I’m honoured to stand here in this House and give you the details of this team. The team will be a formal advisory body made up of a volunteer chair and up to eight other members representing key sectors. The team will provide expert advice to the government on implementing and recommendations on the Housing Affordability Task Force. They will help us take decisive action to get more homes built and they will make ongoing improvement to our annual housing supply action plans. Mr. Speaker, they’ll be laser-focused on market housing initiatives and will provide confidential advice to the minister on an ongoing basis about measures to increase housing supply and attainability.

I want to be crystal clear: The core mandate of this team is to get the job done. No more talk, no more reports, no more committee to study the findings of a working group to study the findings of a consultation table; this team is an action team. They will examine the commitment we have made under the More Homes for Everyone plan, as well as the vision and objectives of the Housing Affordability Task Force report and help us implement that, and they will be there to react to any emerging housing priorities and issues identified by our government.

We’re going to count on the expertise of this team to weigh in on a wide array of market-housing-related issues over the next four years. This includes helping us assess any initiatives that our government is considering towards increasing market housing supply. The team will also provide feedback on the best way to roll out our planned initiatives.

Speaker, I’m a results guy. Measuring our success and constantly keeping track of our progress is crucial. As I just mentioned to you earlier, the time for talk is over, and the time for action is now. As such, team members will provide advice on how we can measure the success of our plans when it comes to increasing the amount of attainable housing. This team, made up of some of the province’s foremost experts in the housing sector, will be a crucial part in helping us reach our goal of ensuring every Ontarian has a place to call home.

Because of how serious an issue this is, we ensured that the Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team has access to every tool necessary to carry out their mandate. That’s why the team will be supported by topic-specific expert ad hoc consultation tables. These additional groups will include other housing experts who will weigh in on very specific topics and provide expert technical advice. They will be formed on an as-needed basis and will be dissolved once the needs of their main team are met.

In order for the Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team to provide its best advice to market housing initiatives, our government knew we needed a strong voice to sit at the head of the table. That’s why I’m proud to say that the minister and I will be appointing Mayor Drew Dilkens from the city of Windsor as chair. Mayor Dilkens is a fierce and strong champion for getting homes built. After a successful career as a lawyer, Mayor Dilkens stepped up to serve his community, first as a councillor before being elected as mayor in 2014. He understands the challenges families face accessing the housing market, and is ready to get to work to help our government get shovels in the ground. Undoubtedly, his expertise and passion for solving the housing supply crisis will be a major asset as the team begins its work.

We’re also proud to announce Mayor Cheryl Fort of the town of Hornepayne as the vice-chair.

Interjection.

The Associate Minister of Housing.

Take your phone off your desk.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I offer my congratulations to you on your election to the Speaker’s chair—

Interruption.

I’m happy to be speaking as a newly appointed parliamentary assistant to this great ministry. That’s because I’m delighted to have the opportunity to speak about the fine qualities of our government’s bill and its obvious benefits and timeliness.

As you have heard, our proposed changes would provide the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa with additional governance tools, as well as increased powers to align municipal decision-making with provincial priorities. Because our changes are so important, I would like to remind you of them again. These changes would give these two mayors the power to hire and fire the chief administrative officer of the municipality as well as its department heads, and the mayor would be able to create and reorganize departments.

The mayor would also be able to appoint the chairs and vice-chairs of committees and local boards if any are identified in regulation. They would also be able to establish committees. In addition, the mayor would have the power to direct matters of provincial priority for council consideration, and be able to direct staff to prepare proposals.

Perhaps most importantly, the mayor would have the power to develop the municipality’s budget, and then take it to council for consideration. Council would be able to propose amendments to the budget, subject to a mayor’s veto and council override process.

At the same time, the proposed changes in this bill would make the mayor more personally accountable by giving them veto power over bylaws passed by council if, in the mayor’s opinion, it did not further a provincial priority. To counter this, council would be able to override a mayoral veto of a bylaw with a two-thirds majority vote.

The proposed changes would also affect the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by requiring the mayor to declare any financial interests related to the use of the new powers. They would be prevented from using these new powers where any financial conflict exists.

Our bill, if passed, would also require a by-election be held to replace the mayor if the office becomes vacant. Currently, municipal councils have the choice of holding a by-election or appointing a new mayor.

I want to emphasize that all of the powers and rules I’ve mentioned so far would apply to Toronto and Ottawa only. However, the proposed changes would give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the regulatory authority to designate other municipalities that these powers could apply to. The minister would also have the regulatory authority to set out in more detail how the new powers can be used.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has explained, Toronto and Ottawa were chosen because over one third of the growth in Ontario over the next 10 years is forecasted to take place in these two cities. What’s more is that we were looking for municipalities that are shovel-ready, committed to growth and committed to cutting red tape.

I now want to address some points that have been raised about our government’s proposed legislation. Some have asked why our government is introducing the bill at this time, immediately before a municipal election. The reason is that we need to move quickly to address the province’s housing crisis. Ontario has a housing supply crisis, and we have no time to spare. We also want to ensure that these proposed changes are in place before the new term of council begins in mid-November, so they can hit the ground running.

Some have asked if other municipalities would get these new powers. I must emphasize again that Toronto and Ottawa are the selected municipalities at this time because of their expected growth and because they are shovel-ready. Our government is always open to, at a later date, assessing opportunities to extend these new powers to other growing municipalities where housing is needed.

There are also questions arising about the mayoral veto of bylaws. For that, we have ensured that a system of checks and balances is in place. This includes the tool for two thirds of a council to override a mayoral veto.

Please remember that the mayoral powers to veto bylaws and bring matters forward to council meetings would apply only if related to provincial priorities such as building 1.5 million new homes by 2033. It would also pertain to priorities that revolve around construction and maintenance of critical infrastructure to support accelerated supply and availability of housing, including but not limited to transit, roads, utilities and servicing.

Speaker, these proposed new powers for the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa are needed now. Passage of this proposed legislation will further empower these newly elected mayors when they begin their term of office. It would give them more opportunity to help achieve our shared municipal-provincial priorities. If passed, this legislation would allow us to work more effectively with our municipal partners as we move toward our shared goals of helping more families reach the dream of attainable home ownership.

The fact is, there simply are not enough homes that are attainable for the families who want to call Ontario home. Across the province, no matter where you go, one thing remains the same: Ontarians are having difficulty finding housing that meets their needs and their budgets. We need to help boost housing supply in this province. We need to help our municipal partners get new housing projects approved quicker and empowering mayors to take more responsibility in their communities can help us do that.

I’d like to add that strong-mayor systems work very well in other jurisdictions. The minister referenced some of this in his remarks, but I’d like to take a deeper look at some of those jurisdictions.

Let’s start with New York City. The mayor acts as chief executive officer and does not sit as a member of council. I want to add here that if our proposed legislation is passed, a mayor will still sit on council and every council member will still have one vote. However, similar to what we are proposing, the mayor of New York City may appoint and remove heads of administrations, departments, all commissioners and all other non-elected officers, except as otherwise provided in the law. Also, the mayor of New York City has the power to create or abolish departments or positions within the mayor’s office.

When it comes to budgets, the mayor of New York City develops the budget and any accompanied financial plans and submits them to council for consideration and approval. With regard to veto powers, the mayor of New York City can veto any council decision to add to, increase or place terms on budget items. Council can override a mayoral veto related to the budget with a two-thirds majority vote.

Now, let’s look at Chicago. Just like in New York City, the mayor is the chief executive officer of the city and does not sit on council. However, unlike New York City, the Chicago mayor must obtain council consent to appoint and remove heads of all city departments and officers of the municipality, all commissions, all boards and all agencies, except as otherwise provided in the law. As in New York City, and as proposed by our bill, the mayor of Chicago directs the city’s budget process and submits the city’s annual budget to council for consideration and approval. In Chicago, the mayor can veto any changes council votes to make to the budget and council can override the mayoral veto with a two-thirds majority vote.

Now let’s look at Los Angeles. Again, the mayor of Los Angeles is the chief executive officer of the city and does not have a seat on council. The mayor in Los Angeles has the power to create or abolish bureaus, divisions or positions within the executive office of the mayor, including having power to remove certain city officials. Just like in New York, Chicago and our proposed legislation, the mayor of Los Angeles directs the budget and sends it to council for approval. The mayor can veto any changes or additions council makes and, in turn, council can override a mayoral veto with a two-thirds majority vote.

So you see, our proposed legislation is not new or untried, and frankly it is not something we can afford to wait another minute on.

Of course, these proposed changes are part of our government’s greater strategy to increase the supply of attainable housing. We have introduced two housing supply action plans: More Homes, More Choice in 2019, and More Homes for Everyone earlier this year. Both of these plans put forward a list of policy changes to help address housing supply shortages with the aim of getting housing built faster in the province. We also conducted a three-part consultation with industry, municipalities and the public to help identify and implement more solutions to increase housing supply.

One element of our government’s thorough consultation was the creation of the Housing Affordability Task Force. The task force was made up of experts from all across the housing sector. There are representatives from not-for-profit housing, Indigenous housing, real estate, home builders, financial markets and economics. We wanted to ensure everyone was represented.

After speaking with a variety of stakeholders, they developed a thought-provoking report. The list of recommendations in their report focused on the best ways the province can help support the creation of more housing all across Ontario. We know that we have to look further ahead than just the here and now; we have to look at ways we can catch up to the future growth.

As the associate minister pointed out, our goal is to deliver real, long-term solutions using the Housing Affordability Task Force’s recommendations as our housing road map. It will guide us as we work with our partners to develop a new housing supply action plan each year over four years.

Addressing the housing supply crisis is a long-term strategy that requires long-term commitment and partnership at all levels of government. We must ensure municipalities actively support our housing-related policies, and we must look to the best way we can work with our municipal partners to support more residential projects in the years to come. That is why we committed to establishing a housing supply action plan implementation team.

As the associate minister detailed, this new team would be made up of a volunteer chair and up to seven other members representing key housing sectors. The group members will provide advice to the government on monitoring progress and supporting improvements to our annual housing supply action plans. The team members will be tasked with advising on the implementation of our More Homes for Everyone plan, as well as other measures that achieve the vision and objectives of the Housing Affordability Task Force’s recommendations.

The team will also be there to react to any emerging housing priorities and issues identified by our government. We will count on their expertise to help us determine how the initiatives to increase market housing supply would impact the people of Ontario and the best way to implement them in the years ahead.

We want to achieve the best results from our policies, and the Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team will help us get there. In addition to the main team members, they will be supported by additional consultation tables of housing experts who provide technical advice and insights on specific topics.

With all of these layers of expertise, the Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team will provide ongoing confidential advice on market housing initiatives to the minister. We believe this would be the most beneficial way to deal with the ebbs and flows of the ever-changing housing market.

Mr. Speaker, we are standing here today to underline our commitment to help build more homes in communities across the province, faster than we have been seeing in recent years. Strong-mayor systems will empower municipal leaders to work more effectively with the province to reduce timelines for development, standardize processes and address local barriers to increasing the supply of housing.

We are in a housing crisis and we know that every move we make right now is critical to addressing it. We have set out a clear goal: We are building 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years. We will do this through yearly action plans, as well as our newly created Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team to support our initiatives. We are also doing it through other pieces of proposed legislation like the one my colleagues and I have spoken on today.

As the population of Ontario grows, housing needs to keep up. By empowering the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to move forward on shared priority items, we will be doing just that.

I recognize the member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

I would like to start by congratulating the PA being elected in this House and the job you’ve done.

I would say that we do agree that there is a housing crisis in Ontario. We know there’s homelessness. People are struggling to keep a roof over their head. I agree with that. You also talked a lot about supporting our municipal partners. So not only are people struggling to put a roof over their head, they’re struggling to pay their property taxes, and municipalities are drowning in infrastructure deficit. In Thunder Bay, for example, there’s about a $50-million infrastructure deficit. In Hamilton, it’s like a $2.5-billion, pushing $3-billion infrastructure deficit to keep in good working order our bridges, our roads.

We know that development does not pay for itself. So what are you doing to ensure all of this development doesn’t end up putting the burden on hard-working Ontarians, hard-working taxpayers?

I would like to thank the government members for their presentation. My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

When we take a look at this legislation, there’s a curious omission—in fact, a glaring omission: Nowhere in this document, despite it being about building homes, is there any mention of rental affordability. We know that rental is a necessary step in the housing spectrum. In fact, it was this government that created legislation that removed rent control from buildings created after November 2018. Will this government admit that this was a mistake and that it did not create more affordable housing, and will you fix it?

I’ll now invite questions to the government members who made the presentation.

I want to thank the minister and his excellent associate minister and parliamentary assistant for their speeches.

This past summer, I had an opportunity to speak to one of the local Barrie Rotary clubs about More Homes for Everyone. They’re really excited about the expedited approval process, because of things taking so long, and creating affordability not only for their kids, but for their companies and their businesses that rely so much on the housing sector.

But a clear thing that council complained about when they talked to their colleagues in the cities of Ottawa or Toronto is just the delays, and the fact that there’s a huge affordability crisis on our hands. Our government has done a lot to do things to keep costs low, but housing is a big part of it. We have local manufacturers, for example, in my constituency of Barrie where they’re attracting talent, but then the talent goes out to the housing market to try to see what they can get and it becomes very unattainable.

I want to ask the minister, on all the work that he has done to date: How is this going to build on that work, as well, to create that great attainable housing so people can actually work and live in the same community?

Speaker, through you to the honourable member: We’re supporting municipalities in many, many ways. Unconditionally, we have a program called the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund that supports our municipalities. In terms of a conditional grant, obviously, the provincial gas tax program.

The member opposite mentions infrastructure. The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund—the province is doubling its annual investment to nearly $2 billion over five years, and then there are other cost-sharing programs that the member is aware of. We support municipalities in many, many ways: land ambulances, public health, child care. There are a lot of supports that our government has given and continues to give our municipal partners.

During the pandemic, we made a significant contribution. We continue to. My Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing—this morning in question period, there was a reference to the Social Services Relief Fund. I’ve travelled all around the province. I’ve travelled in your city with the Minister of Tourism, and saw our investments and saw how municipalities were able to make our investments work in their communities to help fight homelessness.

But make no mistake, Speaker: Municipalities also have tools. They have a range of opportunities through revenue tools that they have, through development charges—many, many other opportunities for them.

So we know that there’s no silver bullet that is going to solve the housing supply crisis. We know that there have to be a number of measures done both by legislation and by regulation. We need support from our municipal partners, and we also need support from our federal colleagues. I know the members opposite have heard me talk about our desire to have them support us when we go to the federal government for additional funds; I think we have a really good case to make.

We’re very aware that our Housing Supply Action Plan transcends all of the types of housing. I’ve been very clear in this House and outside of this House: When we talk about the 1.5 million homes that we need to build in the next 10 years, it means every type, every shape, every size and every price range, including a strong increase in rental accommodation. That’s what Ontarians need; that’s what they deserve: a house, whatever form it takes, either rental or home ownership or attainable ownership, that meets their price and their budget.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and on your election, congratulations for your leadership and the passion for the Speakership. It’s good to see you in the chair.

Through you to the minister: I know you’ve covered a lot of ground, and we have a few minutes left. Could you explain—I know the red tape and the bureaucracy is a huge issue in any municipal government—moving one file to another, one table to another table, all pieces of the plan. I know it’s a huge issue, zoning and building permits. How is this bill going to address those issues?

The honourable member opposite knows we’ve been absolutely clear that we’ll not tolerate any workplace harassment or discrimination of any kind. We expect that our mayors and our councillors will carry out their duties as elected officials in our province in an ethical and responsible manner.

I’m very interested—I’ve been a bit busy this week because of this bill. I understand the member opposite has either tabled his private member’s bill or re-tabled it. I haven’t had a chance, to be honest with you, to see whether you’ve changed it in any way, but the member opposite knows that the last time his bill was on the order paper, we supported that initiative. I appreciate that he’s put it back on the order paper. I’ll make him this undertaking that I will look at his bill to see if there have been any changes. But our government has been crystal clear, full stop: We’re not going to tolerate any of this activity by any councillor in the province.

The stat that I want to talk to members about that I haven’t tabled yet was this OECD report where Canada ranked 34 out of 35 countries—Slovakia was the only one worse than Canada—that couldn’t get shovels in the ground fast enough. So we know and we acknowledge that, collectively, our country needs to do a better job. This was a topic that we talked to mayors and regional chairs about—the Premier and I did in January. One of the things they said was it’s not just us. They felt very strongly that there were some changes that they needed by the provincial government so that they could get shovels in the ground faster. That’s exactly what this is going to be doing to our two largest cities: It’s going to give them the tools to help get shovels in the ground. Yes, some of this is going to be done through regulation, but we want to be in a position where, after the election, when that new council in Toronto and Ottawa gets sworn in, they’re shovel-ready, they’re committed to growth and committing to cut red tape. So, excellent question.

Point of order.

It’s interesting that in a bill that is about the expansion of housing, the words “home,” “house,” “zoning,” “land use,” “affordability, “planning,” “development” and “density” do not appear once in the bill, nor were these powers requested by either municipality.

Something that the city of Ottawa and other municipalities—I think Brampton—and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario have asked for is a process to remove bad actors from municipalities across Ontario, to remove city councillors who abuse their colleagues, who abuse staff sexually, emotionally and psychologically. So I’m wondering why the minister chose not to include those powers in this bill which is about increasing municipal powers.

The member for Ottawa–Orléans.

I’ll ask the member to continue his remarks.

I would ask him to continue his remarks.

To the member from Niagara Centre, thank you for your presentation. This legislation, at its core, is quite simple. We need to support efficient local decision-making to help cut through the red tape so that we can build more homes. Why doesn’t the opposition trust Ontarians, our local citizens, to elect their own efficient local leaders?