I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas our government was elected on a promise to the people of Ontario to rebuild the economy after the devastating impact” of the COVID-19 pandemic; and

“Whereas the creation of new jobs, new opportunities and bigger paycheques will enable Ontario workers to bring home more money for their families and to their communities; and

“Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is seizing on opportunities in industries and fields that the Liberals and the NDP gave up on; and

“Whereas we are investing $1 billion for critical mineral infrastructure, such as all-season roads to the Ring of Fire and the implementation of our very first Critical Minerals Strategy; and

“Whereas through the hard work and good policies building an environment for economic growth we have attracted more than $12 billion in new investment in electric and hybrid vehicles, including Canada’s first full-scale electric vehicle battery plant in Windsor; and

“Whereas our plan for driving economic growth includes building an end-to-end supply chain for electric and hybrid vehicles from mining to processing to manufacturing, all of which will happen right here in Ontario; and

“Whereas our government has delivered an estimated $8.9 billion in cost savings and supports for Ontario employers, especially small businesses, who are the backbone of our economy; and

“Whereas the province has created more than 500,000 new jobs since 2018, 500,000 new paycheques and opportunities for families in every corner of the province;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to build on this progress and rebuild Ontario’s economy.”

I support the petition, affix my name and send it down with page Noella.

Further debate?

I would like to thank Ernest Lefebvre from Onaping in my riding for these petitions.

“911 Emergency Response....

“Whereas when we face an emergency we all know to dial 911 for help; and

“Whereas access to emergency services through 911 is not available in all regions of Ontario but most Ontarians believe that it is; and

“Whereas many Ontarians have discovered that 911 was not available while they faced an emergency; and

“Whereas all Ontarians expect and deserve access to 911 service throughout our province;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“To provide 911 emergency response everywhere in Ontario by land line or cellphone.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and give it to my good page Adam to bring to the Clerk.

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 17, 2022, on the motion for 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.

This petition is entitled, “Stop the 413 GTA West Highway.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government is pushing ahead with plans to build Highway 413, a redundant and wasteful 400-series highway through the greenbelt that would cost taxpayers an estimated $10 billion or more;

“Whereas according to a TorStar/National Observer investigation entitled ‘Friends with Benefits?’ powerful developers and land speculators with political and donor ties to the Premier and the PC Party of Ontario own thousands of acres along the proposed highway corridor and would profit from its construction, suggesting that this $10-billion taxpayer-funded highway is about serving the private interests of the Premier’s friends and donors, not the public interest;

“Whereas the Ontario government’s expert panel concluded in 2017 that Highway 413 would be a waste of taxpayer money that would only save drivers 30 to 60 seconds on their commutes; and

“Whereas that expert panel identified less costly and less destructive alternatives to new highway construction, such as making better use of the underused Highway 407, just 15 kilometres away;

“Whereas Highway 413 would pave over 400 acres of the greenbelt and 2,000 acres of farmland, destroy the habitats of at-risk and endangered species and pollute rivers and streams; and

“Whereas building more highways encourages more vehicle use and increases traffic and congestion;

“Whereas the highway would cause significant harm to historic Indigenous sites;”

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop their plans for building Highway 413” to nowhere.

I proudly support this petition, I will affix my signature to the petition and I’ll hand it to Natalie for tabling.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas today Ontario is facing the largest labour shortage in a generation with over 300,000 jobs going unfilled, 300,000 paycheques and opportunities for families across the province; and

“Whereas our previous work in expanding the employment services transformation builds on the success of the first three integrated regions in Peel, Hamilton-Niagara and Muskoka-Kawarthas, where 87% of clients completing their employment plans have found jobs and 81% are working more than 20 hours a week; and

“Whereas the second career program has traditionally helped laid-off unemployed workers access the training they need to become qualified for in-demand, well-paying jobs; and

“Whereas in Ontario’s 2022 budget, Ontario’s Plan to Build, we introduced the Better Jobs Ontario program; and

“Whereas the Better Jobs Ontario program is another major step in our mission to work for workers by:

“—providing access to the program for people with limited or non-traditional work experience, including gig workers, newcomers and the self-employed who need training to get a job;

“—investing $5 million in new funding in 2022-23, in addition to the nearly $200 million invested over the last three years, paying up to 28,000 for short-duration, job-specific training, including those on social assistance, those who are self-employed, gig workers, youth and newcomers;

“—expanding on the current second career program, more applicants will be eligible for up to $500 per week in financial support for basic living expenses, improving client experiences, supporting short-duration training, increasing funding for wraparound supports and prioritizing supports for laid-off and unemployed workers in sectors most impacted by COVID-19.

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the progress being made in support of workers through transformative programs such as the Better Jobs Ontario program.”

I am very happy to sign this petition and provide it to page Julia.

Mr. Speaker, it’s truly an honour to rise for the first time in the Legislature to debate a bill here—and I just want to thank the people of Carleton and my constituents for voting for me to represent them once again—in the 43rd session.

I rise today in support of Bill 3, the government’s proposed Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. Our government trusts Ontarians to elect the right local leaders, and that’s why our government is introducing legislative changes that would, if passed, give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa new tools to advance provincial priorities. That includes building 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure to help build housing faster. Key municipal staff and departments help advance work on shared municipal-provincial priorities. The proposed changes would give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa—which includes the riding of Carleton, which I represent—the flexibility to appoint their municipality’s chief administrative officer themselves, or delegate the decision, such as by asking their councils to make this decision. Mayors would also be able to hire certain department heads. This does not include the clerk, treasurer, integrity commissioner, chief of police, chief building official or the medical officer of health. The mayors would also be able to delegate this power, whether to the council or the CAO. When making any changes, the mayor and municipalities would be expected to follow existing collective agreements or contracts.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities and their councils are often supported by committees and local boards. If passed, these changes in Bill 3 would allow mayors to create new identified committees and appoint the chairs and vice-chairs of identified committees and local boards. These changes would also allow a mayor to change the makeup of a committee in order for it to best support a municipality.

Provincial priorities, such as building more housing, need to be achieved in partnership with municipalities. In my riding alone, there is a desperate need for more housing, and that is one of the top concerns that I have heard from constituents in the area. There are not enough homes being built fast enough. These proposed changes would empower mayors to direct items to council that could potentially advance a provincial priority. Our provincial priority, one that we campaigned upon and one that Ontarians entrusted us to accomplish, is to build more homes. This proposal would also empower a mayor to direct staff to develop proposals to be brought forward for council consideration.

Municipal budgets help define priorities for their communities when they deliver services and prioritize projects each year. If passed, this legislation would make a mayor responsible for proposing the municipal budget for council consideration. As part of the budget process, council would be able to make changes to the mayor’s proposed budget, which the mayor could then veto if necessary. Council could override a mayoral veto with a two-thirds majority vote. So there is still accountability within the entire process. The result at the end of the process would become the municipality’s budget for the year, with oversight and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I’m proud to support Bill 3 is that these proposed changes would give a mayor power to veto council’s passing of a bylaw if all or part of a bylaw could potentially interfere with a provincial priority. Those provincial priorities are set by the people of Ontario, the ones who voted us in with a historic super majority to get things done. They voted us in to build Ontario. That’s what we are going to do. We’re here to ensure that there is no abuse of power, and if passed, council could override a mayoral veto of bylaws related to provincial priorities with a two-thirds majority vote. The mayor would remain as a member of council for council decision-making with one vote.

There are times when a mayor’s seat may become vacant before a regular election. If passed, these changes would require a municipality to fill the mayor’s seat through a by-election. The existing rules for how by-elections are run would still apply. These new changes would mean a municipality is not required to fill the position if a mayor’s seat becomes vacant within 90 days before voting day in the year of a regular election. That’s going to save taxpayers a lot of money. If a mayor’s seat becomes vacant after March 31 in the year of a regular municipal election, the municipality would be required to appoint a mayor, who would not have these new powers. Therefore, this would not impact the flexibility that these municipalities currently have in deciding how to fill other vacant council seats—they would have the choice to appoint someone or have a by-election.

If Bill 3 is passed, the government plans on making accompanying regulations to set out our current provincial priorities. Priorities could include building up to 1.5 million new homes in 10 years to address the housing supply crisis, something that we campaigned upon, something that Ontarians expect us to do—and that’s one of the reasons we have a historic super majority here in the Legislature. It also includes the construction and maintenance of infrastructure such as transit and roads to support new and existing residential development.

The people of Ontario spoke in the last election, Mr. Speaker. They voted. They spoke their minds. That’s one of the reasons that there are so many members of government here today, that there are 10 of us on this side of the House, because there is not enough room for all of the government members on that side of the Legislature. That’s how successful Premier Ford was, and that’s the mandate the people of Ontario have given us.

Je veux parler en français un petit peu. Le gouvernement de l’Ontario propose des modifications législatives qui, si elles sont adoptées, donneront aux maires de Toronto et d’Ottawa de nouveaux outils pour faire avancer les priorités provinciales, y compris la construction de 1,5 million de domiciles sur les 10 prochaines années ainsi que la construction et l’entretien de l’infrastructure permettant de bâtir des habitations plus rapidement.

L’Ontario avance vers ces objectifs en proposant des modifications de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, de la Loi de 2006 sur la cité de Toronto et d’autres lois pour appuyer ses partenaires municipaux, lesquels jouent un rôle crucial dans la détermination des politiques et des processus locaux qui influencent l’offre de logements.

Le personnel et les services municipaux clés contribuent à l’avancement des travaux liés aux priorités municipales-provinciales communes. Les modifications proposées donneraient aux maires de Toronto et d’Ottawa la possibilité de nommer eux-mêmes le directeur général de leur municipalité ou de déléguer la décision, par exemple en demandant à leur conseil de la prendre. Les maires pourraient aussi engager certains responsables de services, sauf ceux dont le poste est prévu par la loi, comme le secrétaire, le trésorier, le commissaire à l’intégrité, le chef de la police, le responsable du service du bâtiment, le médecin hygiéniste, etc. Ils pourraient également déléguer ce pouvoir, notamment au conseil ou au directeur général. Lorsqu’ils feraient des changements, les maires et les municipalités seraient tenus de respecter les conventions collectives et les contrats en vigueur.

Dans l’éventualité où les modifications sont adoptées, le gouvernement prévoit prendre des règlements connexes pour énoncer les priorités provinciales actuelles. Ces priorités pourraient comprendre la construction de 1,5 million de domiciles sur 10 ans pour atténuer la crise de l’offre de logements, ainsi que la construction et l’entretien de l’infrastructure, comme les transports en commun et les routes, qui soutient les aménagements résidentiels, nouveaux et existants.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, 35% of Ontario’s projected growth to 2031 is expected to happen in Toronto and Ottawa. I know that in the Ottawa region, the majority of that growth is going to happen in my riding of Carleton. Communities like Findlay Creek, Riverside South, Stittsville, Richmond, Manotick, North Gower, Kars, Osgoode, Greely are growing exponentially, and I look forward to seeing more homes being built in my riding of Carleton. That is why addressing housing supply issues in these communities such as mine and across Ontario is absolutely critical.

This government is committed to cutting any red tape that would stand in the way of anyone in Ontario wanting to fulfill their dream of building a home. These purposed measures are intended to support efficient, local decision-making to help cut through unnecessary red tape and speed up development timelines.

Mr. Speaker, we promised to get it done for the people. We promised to put shovels and boots in the ground. This government intends on keeping its commitment to the people.

Questions.

I’d like to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for the question. Congratulations on getting elected. I look forward to working with you to serve the people of Ottawa in the next four years.

With respect to your question, the reason that we’re putting this bill forward is because this is literally what we campaigned upon. This bill is one of the reasons that we got a super majority, with a historic 83 seats in the Legislature, and one of the reasons I’m sitting on this side of the House, because there’s not enough space on that side for the entire government majority.

Mr. Speaker, further in response, as Ontarians are facing the rising cost of living and a shortage of homes, our government was re-elected with a strong mandate to help more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs and their budget. What we have done so far is producing results. In 2021, we broke ground on a record number of new homes, with more than 100,000 new homes in only 12 months—the highest level of new housing starts in a single year since 1987. We also reached a 30-year record last year for new rental housing construction, with the most units built in a year since 1991.

Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. In the past four years, we acted, and the people of Ontario saw that. That’s why we’re here today, and that’s why I’m proudly supporting this bill.

Thank you for the comments on both sides of this room.

First of all, our objections are not about building homes or not building homes; they’re about responsible development and observing democracy.

During your last term, you undermined the ability of regional conservation authorities to manage the lands under their trusteeship and that are part of their mandate responsibility, and because of that, developers are able to go in and build where it is not necessarily wise to build. In other words, they can ignore the local knowledge, which is the best knowledge of every place, and build regardless.

So what we are looking for is responsible development. When the members talk about red tape, they forget that environmental protections are often brushed off as a form of red tape.

The question is, will this government guarantee that environmental protections will be observed when local people with local knowledge will be silenced by not consulting fully with municipal councils?

No, just a quick question, Speaker.

Next question.

Further debate?

I’d like to thank the member for his question. I agree with the member. At the end of the day, I find it very confusing that the NDP and even the Liberals find that building homes is a partisan issue. To me, building homes shouldn’t be partisan. Every Ontarian deserves to be able to afford a home and to buy a home or to afford to rent a house. Basic economics says that there’s a supply and demand issue. If there’s huge demand with not enough supply, prices go up. It’s economics 101, and I’m glad that we’re teaching that in our curriculum now because I think financial literacy is very, very important as well.

So to answer your question, the reason that we are doing this is because Ontarians deserve to have homes. We need to get through the red tape, we need to get through the administrative delays, and we need to make sure that we can get homes built quicker.

I hope that the members of the opposition support this bill and support Ontarians so that Ontarians can actually buy—

Mr. Speaker, as outlined in our government’s More Homes for Everyone plan, we’re establishing a Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team to provide advice on market housing initiatives. At the beginning of this year, our government did extensive consultations with municipalities, with experts, with stakeholders and with people across Ontario. The Premier and Minister Clark hosted the first-ever provincial municipal housing summit. The government also held a rural housing round table with smaller rural and northern municipalities. We held public consultations which received thousands of submissions from people across the province.

To answer the member’s question, we have already done the work to make sure the voices of everyone across Ontario are being heard, and that is why we’ve brought this legislation forward. It is based upon the input we have received from the people of Ontario.

I would hope that the opposition supports the voices of the people of Ontario.

That’s an excellent question.

I’d like to think that imitation is the best form of flattery. When I first read that the official opposition was also promising 1.5 million homes, after we had already announced it, it came as a bit of a surprise to me. I had to go back and read it, and I thought, “Oh, I guess they like our idea. I guess they like our plan.” And yet here they are today, opposing it. Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t make any sense to me, because at the end of the day Ontarians face the rising cost of living and a shortage of homes. We committed to helping more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs and budgets.

This problem didn’t happen overnight. This problem happened because of 15 years of neglect from the Liberal government, supported by the NDP. They ignored this problem. The people of Ontario elected us to fix this problem, and that’s what we’re doing. We’re looking at the system. We’re figuring out what works, what doesn’t, and we’re moving forward because, ultimately, we are here to support the people of Ontario.

I’m a little bit confused by this. The opposition, in their election platform, said that they wanted to build 1.5 million houses—as well as what we have said, that we want to build 1.5 million houses over the next 10 years.

In your speech, you said that we had a record number of housing starts, around 100,000 last year, and that was a record from 1987 or 1991—I can’t recall which it was. There was also a record number of apartment starts from either 1987 or 1991.

Over the next 10 years, how do we get to 1.5 million if what we have always been doing is not going to get enough for us? Should we be doing something different, and does this bill allow Ontario to do something differently than we have been doing that obviously hasn’t been working?

The birth of my sons, Aleksandar and Ilija, has been my life’s greatest joy, but it has been my life’s greatest honour to represent the people of Humber River–Black Creek. I thank the voters of my community and all those who supported me to make my re-election possible.

Speaker, the more things change, the more things sometimes stay the same. Once again, it’s just after an election. We’re debating a bill that was not discussed in the PC platform and again, contrary to the title, that has nothing to do with the title. What does this bill have to do with building more homes? It is not clear whatsoever from the actual bill itself. But what it does is strengthen mayors and give them the ability, almost unilaterally, to do whatever they want so long as it is the bidding of this provincial government, a government obsessed with control.

So today I am joined by some esteemed gentlemen from the ATU, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113. We’re joined by the president, Marvin Alfred, and board members Aleem Tharani, Matthew Chau and Brian Connolly. They know a thing or two about transit, and they’re concerned, just like we are all concerned, that one of the addictions of this government is an obsession with privatization. And so if you are giving municipalities—their mayors—all sorts of power to do whatever it is within your bidding, privatization is always that.

As such, ATU 113 has provided me a submission that it is my honour to read today, that addresses this legislation and their concerns. It reads as follows:

“The Premier is proposing to give the mayors of Ottawa and Toronto extraordinary new powers. It’s not exactly clear what problem he believes is being solved by this. We have followed city of Toronto politics for many years and we do not remember Mayor Tory ever losing a single significant vote. And here we are, in the middle of a municipal election campaign, proposing to make fundamental changes to the structure of the local government.

“These kind of changes and issues should be debated in an election, and they weren’t. If stronger mayors are important for the province, the Premier should have raised the issue in the election. If stronger mayors are important for municipal governments, should they not also campaign on the issue? If there is some kind of impasse, some important issues that just can’t be addressed through the normal process, shouldn’t someone be able to tell us what they are?

“Items at council pass overwhelmingly through consent. Mayors already have a tight grip on city staff and unwavering support from their executives and council by controlling committee appointments. The more control a mayor gets, the more public engagement in local politics will decline. Election turnout will continue to drop as people feel cut off from their political leaders. Decisions will increasingly be made behind closed doors, with no transparency or public input.

“We knew the province would propose legislation to break the TTC apart. Mayor Tory and Toronto city council were petitioned to allow public input on the city’s position, just to hear from the public through normal channels. They were refused. We know the TTC is planning to break the transit system apart and contract it out piece by piece.” That’s what they believe.

“We have asked for the decisions and the supporting decisions to be made in public, with scrutiny and debate. Local leaders are refusing to allow public debate on these important issues. A stronger mayor will only make this worse. Regardless of who occupies the job, more decisions will be made in secret, well-connected friends and lobbyists will have more power, and public institutions will continue to decline.

“Four former Toronto mayors of every political stripe recently wrote a joint statement opposing these changes. They have nothing to gain from their position. They are writing because they know how much the city has to lose. They know how effective municipalities can be when they work together transparently and in good faith with other governments.

“In the past, the province and city, along with Metrolinx and the TTC, worked together to expand transit. The relief line subway and several light rail projects were agreed to through transparent dialogue and engagement. The mayor was elected on his SmartTrack proposal to have Toronto pay to add stops to GO lines. The province went along with it. Light rail lines were slowly being extended across the city and the relief line was ready to be built. This steady progress did not end because the public or council opposed the mayor’s will. It stopped when the Premier decided he did not have to listen to anyone.

“Now, the province does not present data or evidence to the public to support these decisions. Doug Ford”—sorry, the Premier—“made it illegal for the city of Toronto to do any studies on any transit projects in which the province declared an interest. In the next few years, city streets will be ripped up and binding contracts signed with private, for-profit builders before the public gets to see the real data and design decisions. We have seen in the ongoing disaster in Ottawa with privatized light rail line that, years later and over budget, still doesn’t work. This government is bringing this to Toronto and opening the door to even more on bus service. Riders will lose services, the public will lose billions of dollars, but well-connected corporate friends will even get richer.

“Worse, the TTC privatization doesn’t just help corporations make more money; it reduces wages and opportunities for workers. The TTC has always been a way for people, especially from equity-seeking groups, to gain access to entry-level jobs, get training and then advance. The current TTC leadership’s contracting-out plan will turn every TTC job into a dead-end, low-wage job.

“These undemocratic changes to municipal government mean privatization could be rammed through even if a majority of elected councillors oppose it. John Tory was mayor through all these changes. He has seen how carefully studied and negotiated transit plans have been radically transformed in secret by this Conservative government. He has seen Toronto lose the legal right to comment on its own transit plans. Toronto has already been weakened by key decisions being moved out of public debate and into secret backrooms. This proposal will only move more decisions into secret negotiations.”

This is what they have to say—it is an honour for me to read this—and they are concerned because building homes is not prescriptive in this legislation. What does this bill actually do? The mayor of Toronto appoints chairs. If you look, there is one mayor and 25 councillors who sit there. The mayor plus the executive committee is eight. He has control over a third of council, and he has not lost a single decisive vote. But that power is not enough—and I don’t believe it was asked for. What is going to be allowed is that mayors will be allowed to appoint the heads of every single division. Again, a government obsessed with control and power will want appointments like these, or hope that they get doled out to people who will do their exact bidding. That is what the result of this is. Rather than have councils come to a decision, they want to make all those votes that go to city councillors go to nothing. Does that make any sense? Is this democratic in any way, shape or form? Consider the pressure on the CAO of the city, consider the pressure on division heads—that their job is on the line if they don’t do what the mayor, whoever it is, says that they have to do. Budgets are already created by executive committees and mayors. Now, with this proposed veto power, which will ensure the mayor wins every vote—and they’re winning them already—any amendment made to a budget can be simply turned down. How is this democratic at all?

Since, again, this debate and this bill do not specifically address building more homes, other than the title—what it really addresses is empowering mayors to do the bidding of this government, and it is all about control and their priorities.

I want to talk a little bit about their priorities and the words they use.

When it comes to the environment, they will never use the words “crisis” and “environment” together. You won’t hear that. That’s why, under their last term, they weakened the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and authorities across this province, who protect our water supplies, endangered species and many different important things. They thought that this wasn’t necessary. Certainly, what’s happening to the climate is not a crisis for them.

Health care: When Queen’s Park resumed and we heard the minister speaking, the health care crisis was referred to as a “situation”—not a “crisis,” but a “situation.” They refuse every morning—as the NDP opposition tables bills for unanimous consent to call it a crisis and work on an emergency plan, they ignore it.

Housing: That’s a crisis—

I want to thank the member for Carleton for her speech today. I listened to hers and I listened to speeches earlier today as well, and I just find that the NDP over there are tripping over one another to try to condemn and demonize all developers—“The developers are all going to hell.” But the homes that we need in this province will not be built by the three little pigs. They’re going to have to be built by people who actually build homes. So we need to work together with our municipal councils, with our municipal partners, with developers and home builders all across the province. If an opposition continues to demonize the very people—they’re talking about how we need more rental properties. They have to be built, too. And they stand in the way every time we do something to try to increase the housing supply.

I ask the member for Carleton, how can we build 1.5 million homes in this province in the next 10 years if we don’t have the co-operation of the obstreperous opposition?

I apologize to the member, but I have to interrupt him.

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will, therefore, be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader or his designate directs the debate to continue.

The Associate Minister of Transportation.

We’ll return to the member for Humber River–Black Creek to continue his remarks.

Thank you very much.

Why did we read this submission? Because the bidding of the government, the will of the government, is to seek privatization.

Let me go back to the health care situation. As questions were raised here in this House, they referred to our public health care system as simply status quo. And when pressured on the issue of privatization, even on our sacred jewel, our public health care system here in our province and across the country, they play coy. They are not willing to speak directly against it. In fact, we know what they think when it comes to the privatization of everything, including health care.

That is why ATU, its president, members of their board joined us today to share their concerns and the real spectre of what this will allow mayors to be able to do. This legislation would even go so far as to allow municipalities that have regional chairs that are not even elected to have these mayoral powers. Think about what kind of backroom control this could have, to give unelected members, who are politicians, in a sense—to get up there and make unilateral decisions, and the ability to veto those decisions and to have complete control over everything. It does not make any sense.

When we talk about the crisis that exists in housing, there are many ways to deal with that.

This government likes to pat itself on the back so much that I think they may need to seek physiotherapy at some point.

I can say this: All of the stuff we heard about building and construction has been going on for a long time. As of 2015 until now, Toronto has had the leading number of cranes since 2015—that’s before your government, by the way—and we’ve seen a continual year-over-year increase in the number of cranes. In this current time, last year, Toronto was home to 43% of all cranes in North America—that’s Toronto. That was done under the current mayor and city of Toronto who, for the most part, control their own planning decisions. But again, this government wants complete control.

So a municipality like Toronto, where we are today, has huge teams of experts, planners who, when a submission is made—a developer comes along and says, “This is what I want to do”— go to the public and consult with the public. Again, that’s something that this government doesn’t like to do. They consider many factors such as: What is the impact on infrastructure? Do we have the existing infrastructure to support this development? Is it in keeping with the neighbourhood that’s here? Does it make sense?

In fact, municipalities like Toronto have plans for neighbourhoods, where they take time, they look ahead and they propose what makes sense, so that if a developer comes in and builds a new condominium, new homes, whatever it is—will the schools be able to have a place for new students to be able to learn; will the roads be able to deal with it; will we be able to get water to that property; will we be able to get waste away from that property? The list goes on and on.

We know that developers come with plans, very often, not in keeping with what the municipality hopes for, what communities hope for. In my own community alone, we have a development that’s coming in where what would be adequate or what would make sense to the planners and even the community would be, let’s say, 12 storeys, and developers want to come in with 30. Because of this government, they can bypass everything and go directly to the land tribunal, which, by the way, this government has weakened to not allow for community input or voices. And, certainly, outside of Toronto or in protective ravine systems they have weakened the TRCA even to have a voice.

So does this government really care about good housing, good development? No. We know that this government is all about their relationship with developers.

And when we talk about housing prices, does this government want to pursue other solutions? There are many ways to deal with it. They’re going to get up and they’re going to tell you, “Just continue to build more,” rather than deal with the issue of the fact that rent in the city of Toronto is at $2,000 a month on average. You still find vacancies in buildings. It’s not like every single rental unit is taken and so the people are being turned away. But they don’t have the guts or will to be able to address the fact that rent is out of control—so many different places, vacancies. The fact that you have properties out there that stand vacant while people are hoping for homes, other investors—the list goes on and on and on. They don’t want to address any of these things.

Speaker, in the time I have left—this was something that was mentioned in the ATU submission to me that I read out. It was a letter that was written by former mayors of the city of Toronto, of all political stripes—and, yes, a conservative is in there. This is an excellent article and, I think, is required reading. If you haven’t had a chance, well, here’s your chance to hear it right now. They are speaking unilaterally against this legislation. It’s in the Toronto Star, Monday, August 15. It’s called “Former Toronto Mayors Warn ‘Strong Mayors’ Act Will Harm Local Democracy.

“Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Housing Act, proposes a radical change to local government in Toronto and Ottawa, that risks ending meaningful democratic local government in these two cities.

“The legislation assigns the mayor, regardless of who that person might be, the power to do almost everything—from preparing and approving the budget, to appointing the chairs of committees, agencies, boards and commissions, the hiring and firing of city staff—and the power to direct them to do what he or she wants.

“Such a proposal eliminates any meaningful role of city councillors and therefore the voice of the local residents who elect them.

“It gives the mayor almost complete power—and by providing a veto to the mayor over decisions thought to ‘potentially intervene with provincial priorities’ (often defined in secret by the provincial cabinet)”—we heard that before—“the province is ensuring that the all-powerful mayor becomes accountable to the province, not to the electors in their city.

“This is profoundly undemocratic and a formula for poor decisions made in the interests of those very few who have access to the office of the Premier.

“Toronto and Ottawa are large, cosmopolitan cities: in Toronto’s case, with a population larger than that of most provinces, whose residents must have the right to make democratic decisions about who represents them, and how their city government should work.

“The nearly three million residents of Toronto and the one million of Ottawa deserve better: local governments responding to their needs where decisions are made publicly and transparently.

“It is through the efforts of a local city councillor that residents can be engaged in the day-to-day business of building a city. There are numerous issues the city confronts that such public engagement supports—from development proposals, to transit routes and stops, to community facilities like libraries, to public health, housing, protection of nature and much more.

“There is no preordained answer to these questions. They are best answered by the community itself, brought together by someone they elected who is directly accountable to them—listening to each other, asserting their needs and supported and empowered by the public service, which in turn is accountable to the community through city council. Engaging people in such processes produces better answers, builds community, and helps create an engaged public, who are aware of their rights to participate in democratic processes, and use them frequently.

“Provincial and federal governments are marked by political party control, tight messaging, extreme reliance on polling and slavish adherence to the party leader. Municipal government has always been different—a place which, at its best, engages residents in the decisions that affect their lives and has debate among varying points of view, often reaching compromise on difficult issues, at council.

“The proposal to allow a mayor to have a veto on issues of provincial concern and set the budget undermines exactly that and gives the province far too much influence over decisions that should be those of the residents of Toronto and their elected officials. By doing so, it will lead to worse outcomes, and far less opportunity for residents to have a real voice.

“There are substantial risks to the proposal: A mayor who has such significant power will be subject to enormous pressures from lobbyists who want public decisions to go in their favour.

“Secondly, giving the mayor power to hire and fire senior staff destroys one of the basic principles of democratic government, which is the separation of the legislative and executive function, and eliminates the effective check and balance that exists today, where council as a whole has ultimate responsibility for the public service.

“Furthermore, taking away all effective influence from members of council means that it is far less likely for individuals of merit to want to run for an already challenging role—discouraging exactly the kind of forward-looking and publicly minded people who we need on council.

“It’s the kind of proposal that no party would run on in an election, because it has so little merit. Perhaps that’s why we didn’t hear of it until after the election was over.

“Collectively, we have been mayors of Toronto for more than half of the last 50 years. We all worked with systems where, like every other member of council, we had one vote. The mayor does not need the powers proposed in this legislation: The prestige of the mayor’s position provides more than enough of a platform for the mayor to provide leadership and have a strong influence on city council’s decisions on the city-wide issues on which they were elected.

“We urge all members of the Legislature to reject this legislation.”

I thank former mayors David Crombie, Barbara Hall, Art Eggleton, David Miller and John Sewell for writing this incredibly important opinion piece, and I thank the Toronto Star for publishing this so that we could all hear it today and read it.

They and all of us have laid it very clear: This has nothing to do with building new homes. This is all about power, tabled by a government that’s obsessed with control and power. Now they have a means to reach out to the mayors in every municipality—because it’s not going to end with Toronto and Ottawa—to say, “You do our bidding.” This is absolutely and undeniably undemocratic. It should be voted down. The members of this government themselves, if they take the time truly to understand what’s at stake here, I believe would be voting against this in that sense.

I thank the ATU Local 113 and its members for being here, and I thank all of you who have fought against this.

We’d like the debate to continue, Speaker.

Questions?