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.

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.

Last week, the Toronto Star columnist Martin Regg Cohn wrote in support of Bill 3. He wrote that the Premier “got it right with” our stronger mayors plan:

“A weak mayor system keeps Toronto weak..... municipal amalgamation, paired with mayoral emasculation, equals political gridlock.

“By restoring balance to the equation, Ontario can help Toronto balance its budgets, sparing us the” usual fiscal crisis on council.

I want to give the member an opportunity to comment on the article that Martin Regg Cohn wrote.

I’d like to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her comments. Like the member from Hamilton Mountain, I heard a lot on the doorsteps about the need for affordable housing. I heard it from families of all types and sizes, whether they owned their own home or they were renting. Another thing I’ve heard a lot about was tenants who risked being evicted from the housing that they had, because their landlord was trying to push them out, knowing that the landlord could jack up the rent to whatever they wanted for the next tenant.

What I did not hear anything about from any of my constituents—I did not hear it from my Conservative opponent, either—was a demand for any additional powers for the mayor. Even the mayor of Ottawa said he’s not interested in additional powers. So I’m wondering if the member can comment on whether it would have been a better option for the government to in fact introduce real rent control and vacancy control to address the housing crisis, rather than giving mayoral powers nobody is asking for.