This bill came at record speed through committee. Record speed—just one day of committee hearings. Just 18 people got to speak. The overwhelming sense we got from committee members, as well as the hundreds of written submissions that came in, was that Bill 39 is a very bad bill. Bill 39 threatens the fundamental tenets of representative democracy, which is that municipalities pass laws using a majority vote. Bill 39 brings in minority rule.

Bill 39 opens up the greenbelt and paves the way for thousands of acres of class 1 farmland to be used for development. It’s important to note that the developers who own the land that is being opened up to development happen to be some of the PC Party’s biggest donors. Collusion or coincidence? It’s the Auditor General’s job and the Integrity Commissioner’s job to find out. Ontarians want to know. A lot of Ontarians have already made up their minds. It looks suspicious.

I want to summarize some of my initial reactions when I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing speak yesterday. He talks about how we need to change the status quo. The government needs to be reminded that you are the status quo. You’ve been in power for over four years. When we’re talking about the cost of housing, it’s this government that is now responsible. When we’re talking about the rise in evictions, it’s this government that’s now responsible. When we’re talking about the escalating rise in home prices beyond what anyone but upper-middle-class and high-income earners can afford, it’s this government that’s now responsible. When we’re talking about the rising cost of rent and now how you need to earn over $108,000 a year in Toronto to find a two-bedroom apartment, it’s this government that’s now responsible for that too. You’re the status quo. The housing affordability crisis? It’s on you. The work that you have done to address the housing affordability crisis hasn’t helped.

I hear a lot of talk about how the government says that the NDP is opposed to building 1.5 million homes. That is simply not true. We put it in our election platform. We’ve been very clear about it. We need 1.5 million homes to meet the needs of current Ontarians and future Ontarians, but more importantly, we need to make sure the homes that we are building are for Ontarians to live in, to raise their children in, to have pets, to retire in. That’s what these homes need to be for. This government is very interested in building homes without thinking about the size of them or who owns them. What we’re seeing in downtown Toronto—and now, all across southern Ontario, actually—is this increase in the number of people who own six homes, eight homes, 100 homes. That’s a concern. This government is not addressing that, nor is this government looking seriously at what kind of homes we’re building. Are they family-sized homes? No. They’re 600-square-foot condos, and they’re McMansions. When you go to the Statistics Canada data, that is what Ontario is building right now.

We proposed targets in Bill 23, saying you need to look at what kind of homes you’re building and give municipalities these targets. No, you weren’t interested in that—no, no, no.

We are “yes” to ending exclusionary zoning. We are “yes” to fast-tracking construction workers. High school students, people coming from elsewhere—we’re “yes” to fast-tracking construction workers. We’re “yes” to increasing density near transit. We’re “yes” to establishing a public builder to ensure we build housing on public land that is affordable for people. We are “yes” to rent control so people can afford their rent each month. We’re “yes” to curbing speculation.

When I think about what else the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said, honestly, I had a lot of questions. He talked a lot about these provincial facilitators that are going to go to Durham, Halton, Peel, Waterloo, York and Niagara to once again meddle with jurisdiction—the upper-tier municipalities, the lower-tier municipalities—and also to bring strong-mayor powers into those regions as well. That’s what he indicated. Did he consult with these municipalities and with these mayors? Has he communicated with them about what they want? I doubt it, because when I look at what AMO, which represents 444 municipalities across Ontario, they tell us very clearly—they’ve done a survey on strong-mayor powers, and they have found that 77% of mayors and 95% of municipal councillors are opposed to strong-mayor powers. The AMO board is unanimously opposed to Bill 39 and the provisions of minority rule.

Yet the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is talking on and on about how he is—he’s not just going to acknowledge that he’s doing something which is harming democracy; he’s looking at doubling down and bringing it to additional regions. It’s very concerning to hear. You didn’t talk about that before the June election, did you? It’s very concerning to hear.

I wasn’t the only one who was concerned. There are many people who spoke in committee. I want to bring up some of the things that they raised.

Victor Doyle has spoken publicly about this. He is the former senior provincial planner who helped design the greenbelt. He’s devastated at what this government is doing, and his quote: I feel “deceived as a planner and as a citizen,” given that Premier Ford and the housing minister both previously promised to leave the greenbelt alone. That’s the senior provincial planner who helped design the greenbelt.

Then there’s the CCLA. They’re very concerned about this government’s decision to bring in minority rule. They say that no person, no elected representative, no member of a legislative body who supports democracy should support a bill that tries to take apart the democratic fabric of a duly elected representative body. That’s from CCLA—my goodness. This is not a radical group, you guys. That’s what they’re telling you to do, and you’re like, “No, full steam ahead. We’ve got to expand it.” It’s very, very concerning.

It’s not only CCLA that is opposed. It’s former mayors, it’s thousands of citizens, it’s the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, it’s CELA, it’s AMO, it’s Ecology Ottawa, it’s Friends of Kensington Market, it’s Friends of the Golden Horseshoe, it’s the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, it’s the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, it’s the Toronto and York Regional Labour Council—thousands of people who have contacted you. They’re very concerned about this bill.

I want to bring up what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture said. They note—and many people have noted this to you—that the Housing Affordability Task Force, your own blue-ribbon, hand-picked task force, very developer-heavy, was very clear that you do not need to open up the greenbelt and you do not need to open up new land in order to meet the housing supply crisis. They’re very clear. OFA says this in their submission as well. They go into detail about the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act specifically because that’s in schedule 2 and that’s the largest chunk of the greenbelt land that’s being opened up for development. They talk about the quality of the land there. They say, “Land within the DRAP consists mostly of class 1 soils—Ontario’s most productive, yet finite, agricultural land.” That’s what you’re doing. It’s very concerning.

I urge you to vote against this bill. I urge you to keep your election promises and keep the greenbelt intact. I urge you to respect the power you have and keep majority rule and ensure that municipalities have majority rule. I also urge you to take a serious look at how you’re looking at addressing the housing affordability crisis. It is not just about increasing the supply that the developers want to build for maximum profit. It’s about affordability, and it’s about ensuring that the homes we build are for Ontarians to live in. Thank you.

I recognize the member for University–Rosedale.

A developer bought up greenbelt land—listen to this. He borrowed $100 million at 21% interest, but didn’t know the bill was coming forward. Eighteen times the minister and the Premier promised not to touch the greenbelt.

My question is to the Niagara Centre MPP: As a former city councillor yourself, do you believe that the loss of development fees will hurt their communities and cause all municipalities in the province of Ontario to raise taxes?

Point of order, Speaker.

Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Can you explain to the people of Ontario why democracy is so important and why this government is attacking the democracy in this province?

It’s a great question and something that municipalities all over Ontario are grappling with. As a matter of the fact, Markham’s mayor and councillors began their new term at council with a special council meeting where they rejected Bill 23 precisely for that reason, and that’s in the government House leader’s own riding. Taxes are going to have to increase $600 to $1,000 per year for the average homeowner. That’s what the town of Markham is saying.

I think the government House leader should pay attention to home and talk to his mayor and council about how much their taxes are going to go up because of the irresponsible actions of this government.

He can get as mean and nasty as he wants in the Legislature. We’ll continue to talk about real issues here on this side of the House.

I want to ask the members opposite, because they keep going on and on and on about what we shouldn’t be doing, yet I never hear anything but—well, we’ll hear a story from some so-called social engineering expert who has all the answers about how we’re going to fix our housing problems. But every time this government has tried to do something—and the one thing that all the experts agree on is that we are not building enough homes to satisfy the needs of the current population, including the projected growth.

When are we actually going to hear a plan from the leaderless, or leaderless contest, NDP? When are we going to hear a plan about how we’re actually going to meet the goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years?

To the member from University–Rosedale, I’m just curious—you guys like to talk about the term “McMansions.” It’s a bit demeaning I think, but fine, if that’s the term you want to use. But as someone who has seven people who live in my house, I do need a larger house. I’m just curious to know whether or not you have a threshold for what you consider to be a house that’s too big to be built here in the province of Ontario.

It is now time for questions.

I recognize the member for Mushkegowuk-Thunder Bay.

I’d like to address this question to the member from Niagara Centre.

Speaker, at the core of this legislation, it is very simple. I’ve read it over a few times now, and it is very simple. It gives local legislatures elected by Ontarians the extra tools that support efficient local decision-making. That’s something I want to reiterate: efficient local decision-making.

It also gives elected officials the tools they need to remove barriers that are stalling development, like housing. I want to reiterate that point: It’s stalling development.

My question is: The proposed legislation, if passed, will give local legislatures elected by Ontarians the extra tools they need to get shovels in the ground and help us prepare for Ontario’s future growth. Why doesn’t the opposition trust Ontarians to—

I’m honoured to be able to speak on behalf of the Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022. Before getting into the specifics of the bill, it is important to put this bill into context. Ontario has a shortage of over 300,000 workers right now, and that shortage is expected to increase. Without new workers, we will struggle to fix health care and grow the economy for all Ontarians. These 300,000 workers need an affordable place to live, a place to raise their families and become part of their communities. In addition, the federal government’s recently enhanced immigration target of half a million new residents per year will put even more pressure on the existing housing market.

Last December, this government created the Housing Affordability Task Force to recommend measures to increase the supply of market housing. One key finding from the task force was that, for many years, the province has not built enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population.

Measures to cool the housing market have provided only temporary relief to homebuyers. The numbers are clear, and the timeline is clear. The only way to get housing costs under control and meet the new demand is to increase the supply of housing to meet the unique needs and budgets of our growing population. We need to build 1.5 million new homes in the next 10 years, and those homes need transit, schools and services nearby. There is no single solution to address a problem this large. We’re committed to looking at every impediment and putting practical, timely solutions in place.

In 2019, after consultation with over 2,000 stakeholders, we introduced More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan. This comprehensive plan addressed five key issues:

—speed: of getting construction projects through the approval process;

—costs: of layers of permits, approvals and development charges;

—mix: making it easier to build different types of housing that suit different buyers with different budgets;

—rent: increasing the rental stock;

—innovation: supporting creative designs and using environmentally sustainable building materials.

The action plan paired a housing boost with the necessary infrastructure and transit investment, but it wasn’t enough. Housing rental and purchase pricing was getting further out of reach. We went back to our municipal partners at the Ontario-Municipal Summit and the rural housing round table and asked for more input. From those consultations, we developed our second housing supply action plan, titled More Homes for Everyone. The second action plan addressed increasing the supply of rental stock and making better use of our already developed neighbourhoods by allowing more missing-middle homes to be built without local bylaw amendments. It seeks to reduce the burden on homebuyers and renters by exempting those units from development and parkland dedication fees.

We should take a moment to clear up the misconception that was brought to my attention recently. There is a notion going around that development fees don’t affect the price of housing because they’re paid by the developer and not the buyer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fees and delays get built into the price of a home, just the same as the price of lumber, concrete and shingles. It all ultimately gets passed to the purchaser and added to the mortgage. Reducing development fees and reducing the time to get projects going makes homes more affordable. And still, it isn’t enough.

The Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act gives the mayors of Ottawa and Toronto more tools to deliver on shared provincial-municipal priorities, including increasing the supply of housing. The purpose of the legislation is to give mayors of Ontario’s largest two cities the tools needed to streamline process and address local barriers to increase the housing supply.

We’ve been making the bold decisions to accelerate new housing supply, but still more needs to be done, which brings us to the Better Municipal Governance Act before the House today. To further reduce red tape and accelerate building new homes and supporting infrastructure, this bill will enable democratically elected mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to propose certain bylaw amendments related to provincial priorities. If the proposed bylaws are related to prescribed provincial priorities such as building new homes, the bylaw can be passed with one third of council.

So the question is, why do we need to change the status quo? The answer is, the status quo isn’t working. Transformative change isn’t easy, but we can’t continue to have decisions on housing requirements of those who need it held captive by those who already have it.

Protectionism has costs. There are hard costs brought on by delays. The Building Industry and Land Development Association estimated that each month of delay can cost between $2,600 and $3,300 per unit. Putting that into perspective, a 12-month delay will add an additional $39,600 to the cost of the unit. That additional cost gets passed on to the ordinary homebuyer. Tacking that onto the mortgage over 25 years adds another $29,561 in interest at today’s mortgage rates. So those first-time homebuyers already struggling to find housing within their means get stuck with a $69,000 bill because someone insisted on yet another round of consultations. That is $69,000 that could be put towards furnishings, a child’s education or starting a business. Instead, it’s lost to the person and to the Ontario economy. This needs to stop. This government is giving the tools to strong mayors to make it stop.

Strong, efficient decision-making must be balanced with appropriate accountability and oversight. Already, mayors in all municipalities are subject to their local codes of conduct, and persons can make complaints to the local integrity commissioner, who has the power to investigate and report findings to council. In addition, mayors are subject to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which was recently amended to prevent mayors from using their new powers if they have a financial interest in the matter.

This government is working on creative solutions to meet the housing demands of today and tomorrow. We’ve introduced measures to make more effective use of existing housing stock, created the opportunity to make better use of environmentally friendly building materials, reduced housing costs by limiting development fees, eliminated red tape at the province level and provided strong-mayor cities with some of the tools they need to further streamline the process of getting housing and related infrastructure projects approved.

Thank you to the member for the question. I guess it’s a difference of philosophy between us. I don’t think that democracy is a tool to be used or not used. I think that majority rule is the basis of our democracy. As I mentioned earlier, this is the first jurisdiction in North America that’s going to institute minority rule, and people are absolutely shocked by it. I think it’s something that’s going to follow this government around as they continue to attack democracy and violate people’s charter rights.

So to the member’s question, I think the responsibility is to the people that elected us, not to developers or to other politicians.

We have time for one final question.

Interjections.

I appreciate all of the statements from the other side—

Interjections.

No, sorry; I’m not here for debate. My apologies.

Interjection: Share.

I’ve been listening to the debate and I hear a lot of the word “power” being thrown around: “People who are elected have power. We’re all powerful. We have lots of power.” And when I was first elected, someone came to me and said, “You know, Teresa, with great power comes great responsibility.”

Can the member speak to who we are responsible for when we have this power?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, and yet that’s what the members opposite keep wanting us to do. The member for University–Rosedale just said that we should set targets for housing in every area of the city, which we did. When we did this, we said that they should be at every subway stop across the city so we could make better use of our transit and our transit hubs and create sustainable communities, which you would think they’d want. But what did the councillors in the city of Toronto do? They passed a resolution to say, “Yes, we agree to targets at subway stops, just not in my ward.”

So what do you think we should do with city councillors who are not even trying to make things work for housing in this city, not even trying to reach targets which they say they agree with? It’s nothing short of operating a fiefdom, in my opinion.

I want to talk about housing and, as the member has talked about, people getting their children out of basements to find housing.

Teresa and Kevin Rodger want their son to have a home too. Their son is named Patrick. Patrick’s mother has ongoing chronic pain that is causing problems for caring for Patrick. As a family, she says, they’re aging and it’s difficult to find appropriate alternate care. “To be honest,” she says, “at times I think about abandoning my family. Taking care of Patrick is exhausting and drains our energy.”

By now you know that Patrick is an adult child with development disabilities. Where in this housing discussion is there building for assisted living for families like the Rodgers?

Mr. Rice bought 700 acres of the greenbelt. He paid $80 million this September, two months before this bill came to this House. It will be worth millions of dollars more if this bill is passed. It just happens, Madam Speaker, that he is a big donor to the PC Party.

We’re losing 319 acres of prime farmland every single day in the province of Ontario. COVID should have taught us that if you can’t feed yourself, what are our kids and grandkids going to do?

My question is very clear: Why did the Conservative government never, never consult with AMO on this bill?

So I agree we’ve got a crisis in housing, and I agree that we should be building housing. What we don’t agree upon—which I think is fair and reasonable and accurate, by the way—is that we know today that there are 880 acres of land that they can develop immediately. I do not agree, and I know my other colleagues here from Niagara—he’s from Niagara as well—and right across the province of Ontario don’t agree that we should be developing on the greenbelt.

I believe that’s fair and reasonable, because if we really care about the kids and the new Canadians coming to this country, we need to make sure that we protect the greenbelt. We need to make sure we protect our air source, our quality of air. We need to protect our food source. I already said it in one of my questions today, although the Conservatives never answered: We’re losing 315 acres of prime farmland every single day in the province of Ontario.

Madam Speaker, I believe you’re around the Burlington area, or in that area. You understand how important it is to have a food source, an affordable food source. And what we should have learned during COVID is that if you don’t protect the citizens of the province of Ontario and Canada—by the way, 5,000 seniors died of COVID. Some of them died unnecessarily, and they died because we didn’t have PPE, because we didn’t manufacture PPE in the province of Ontario, which made absolutely no sense, because it was taken out of the country and shipped somewhere else. And then, when we needed it, we weren’t manufacturing. So what happened is we decided to build our own PPE, and the problem was that we couldn’t do it quick enough. And who suffered, where the military had to be called into our seniors’ homes, where seniors died terrible, terrible deaths because we didn’t have the PPE?

Why are we destroying our farmland? Why are we developing on the farmland? Why are we developing on the greenbelt if your own task force said that we have enough land to build, that we have enough land to meet what we need in the province of Ontario?

But I want to say, because I listen to these guys all the time—it drives me nuts, by the way. Well, not really, but I do listen to you guys.

Interjections.

But I want to say this clearly, and I think this is important to say, because I listen to that side of the House talk about this all the time. They talk about our skilled trades all the time. But let me tell you: I agree that our skilled trades should be building these homes. And I talked to the trades yesterday, by the way.

They had a luncheon, and I went to talk to them. They don’t want to be developing on the greenbelt. They don’t want to be ripping up farmland, because they understand how important the greenbelt is to our environment. They understand how important it is to have food, and they understand that they have kids and grandkids and they want to make sure their kids are going to be okay. Because we all—I don’t think there’s anybody in this House; I don’t even think anybody who is sitting in the gallery wouldn’t agree that when we leave this earth, we want to make sure that we leave it better than when we got here, that we make sure our kids and our grandkids can have the same quality of life we’ve had. Because quite frankly, everybody in this room is privileged. Everybody in this room makes—well, not everybody, because I don’t know what the Clerks make, but I would say everybody makes above $116,000. On that side of the House, they probably make a little more.

We need our skilled trades working in the province of Ontario. So I agree our skilled trades should do it, but I also agree that as we build these homes or, quite frankly, if we build other infrastructure—in my area I’ve been waiting 15 years for a hospital to get built. But I believe local workers should do it. Do you agree with that, Madam Speaker? I don’t know if you can answer, but I’m sure you agree that local workers, local companies, local engineers should be doing the work.

IBW: I talked to them yesterday. I talked to LiUNA yesterday. They’re all in agreement. So when you stand up here, like you did last night—late at night, by the way—and say, “Well, that side is just the party of no,” it’s not accurate. It’s wrong. It’s misleading. I am not a party of no. I’m saying build the houses. I’m saying use our skilled trades. I’m saying our kids need it. I’m saying our new Canadians need it. What we don’t need to do is build on the greenbelt. Ripping up our farmland—what are we doing? Why are we destroying our food source?

Has anybody gone to the grocery store lately? They came out with a poll yesterday—I’m not sure it was a poll, but it said that food prices are going to go up another 5% this year. Does it make sense getting rid of our local food? Why are we not supporting our farmers? It makes no sense.

So when you come here and talk about building houses, I agree 100%. What I don’t agree with is tearing up the greenbelt. I think it’s fair, and I think it’s reasonable. I’ve already said, Madam Speaker, a developer, Mr. Rice—think about this. Again, I know you can’t talk, but I appreciate you looking at me because I’m talking to you like I’m supposed to be, right, unlike other people who kind of do this all the time.

Mr. Rice bought 700 acres of the greenbelt. He paid $80 million in September of this year. If this bill gets passed, do you know how much that land is worth? A lot more than $80 million. He just happened—and it’s in the record, so I’m not talking out of school. I believe it’s accurate. I don’t want to say anything here that isn’t accurate, unlike some people in this House do quite regularly, quite frankly. It will be worth millions of dollars more—millions. He was a donor to the PC Party. I asked the question, because I thought it was fair to ask that question, how can you support that? Do you know what happened? Nothing. They never answered; never said a word on it.

I’ve got two minutes left. I should probably start my speech. But it’s frustrating to sit here and listen every day that we don’t believe in building homes. We absolutely do. I’m going to start—I’ve got a couple of minutes left. I’ll try and get through some of it.

If Bill 23 was the nail, Bill 39 is the hammer. This legislation tightens the grip that this government has on municipalities and strips communities of local decision-making powers. It’s an anti-democratic approach to local government. I’m going to try and talk about two things: first, the construction of this bill and how it affects our municipalities, and second, the effects that this government will have on the province in the name of getting their developers and friends even richer.

I’m going to ask anybody here—and I don’t know about the people who are sitting up here, whether you guys are businesses or not, but I’ll ask anybody—because they talk about interest rates; you know, we’ve got interest rates and how hard it’s going to be for our kids to buy. We have another developer that borrowed $100 million to buy greenbelt land and—get this—do you know what it was at? Can anybody answer what the interest rates were? Anybody? Because I’m struggling to pay an interest rate if it’s 5%. He borrowed $100 million at 21%. Who does that if they don’t have advanced knowledge of what’s going on? I just wanted to get that out, because that’s exactly what happened.

Twenty-one per cent—holy God. And we remember—remember, going back in the 1980s? Anybody that old? I’m sure there are a couple on that side that are. Remember when interest rates were 21%? When you had to borrow for your house, it was 21%. How many remember that? And what happened? The government was giving people money to buy their homes—$5,000, grants and stuff like that—so people can get into, in some cases, a semi or a small house. Remember that? This guy borrowed $100 million at 21%. But he didn’t know anything. He didn’t know you were going to develop on the greenbelt. He was just lucky—lucky guy.

Anyway, I’ve got four seconds left. I appreciate you giving me the time to speak this morning. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I will point out that the person that you mentioned in your question has donated to all political parties.

I’d like to remind the member that the status quo is not working. We are in a housing crisis caused by a severe lack of supply. That is why our government introduced the Better Municipal Governments Act, which, if passed, takes decisive action to address the housing supply crisis by working together with our municipal partners with the aim and goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

With the province set to grow by nearly two million people over the next decade, Ontarians are counting more than ever on all governments at all levels to work together to increase the supply of housing. Once again, that’s why our government is taking bold action to address this crisis, and we’re working to get 1.5 million homes built in the next 10 years.