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 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?

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.

It’s my first opportunity to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin, and I wanted to go through a process that I go through every single time when a new bill is introduced here in the House. I have to thank the previous member, Gilles Bisson from Timmins, who actually guided me in doing this exercise because it sets the tone for the legislation that we’re going to be discussing.

The bill we’re talking about today is Bill 3, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to special powers and duties of heads of council. It’s introduced by the honourable Minister Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Okay? I want to go through this, and I’ll ask, Speaker, for a little bit of leniency here. I want to read it.

Schedule 1 says the “City of Toronto Act.” It says:

“The schedule amends the City of Toronto Act, 2006 by adding a new part V1.1 which sets out the special powers and duties of the head of council. The following powers and duties are assigned to the head of council under this part:

“1. Powers respecting the chief administrative officer, as described in section 226.3.

“2. Powers respecting the organizational structure of the city and employment matters, as described in section 226.4.

“3. Powers respecting local boards, as described in section 226.5.

“4. Powers respecting committees, as described in section 226.6.

“5. Powers respecting meetings, as described in section 226.8.

“6. Veto powers, as described in section 226.9.

“7. Duties and powers respecting budgets, as described in section 226.14.

“The new part contains various other related provisions, including rules respecting delegation, immunity and transition. Authority is provided to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe provincial priorities and to the minister to make other regulations.”

That’s schedule 1.

“Schedule 2

“Municipal Act, 2001

“The schedule amends the Municipal Act, 2001 by adding a new part ... which sets out the special powers and duties of the head of council in designated municipalities. In those designated municipalities, the following powers and duties are assigned to the head of council:

“1. Powers respecting the chief administrative officer, as described in section 284.5.

“2. Powers respecting the organizational structure of the municipality and employment matters, as described in section 284.6.

“3. Powers respecting local boards, as described in section 284.7.

“4. Powers respecting committees, as described in section 284.8.

“5. Powers respecting meetings, as described in section 284.10.

“6. Veto powers, as described in section 284.11.

“7. Duties and powers respecting budgets, as described in section 284.16.

“The new part contains various other related provisions, including rules respecting delegation, immunity and transition. Authority is provided to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe provincial priorities and to the minister to make other regulations.”

That’s schedule 2.

“Schedule 3.... The schedule amends the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. New section 5.3 sets out the duties of the head of council when they have a pecuniary interest in a matter and a power or duty under Part VI.1 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 or Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 respecting that matter. Various other consequential amendments are made.”

All right, we’ve gone through that exercise. I’m going to ask everyone here in this House if you can tell me how many times that I said “housing,” outside of identifying the role of the minister and his ministry, versus “powers”?

Speaker, you have a guess? Give me a guess.

This bill is about powers. That’s what it’s about, and it certainly is scary. Again, I have always committed to bringing a different lens to the floor of this Legislature and I always want to bring a lens from northern Ontario and how this is potentially going to impact mayors across northern Ontario, because they have not been consulted. They don’t know exactly what this means. And they are quite concerned in regard to, when you see language contained within this that says—excuse me, where’s my notes? I had notes. I have my notes. My notes are somewhere around here.

Anyway, in no uncertain terms, it’s going to be up to the government to designate—they’re designating Toronto. They’ve already identified that they’re going to be designating Ottawa. And then it’s pretty much in their decision-making as to who else is going to be designated.

What does that mean? Because there are a lot of them, particularly in my riding, saying we need housing. We want to move ahead with housing. However, we’ve got some huge concerns. How do we proceed if we want to do this? How do we attract those developers to coming into our community? Because our communities are growing, as well, maybe not to the tune of—and I’ll use an example. I had a discussion with one of my colleagues a little bit earlier. If you are looking at a housing development project—in one that I’m actually working on right now, we’re looking at about 25 to 40 houses in Espanola. Well, for many of you in the larger centres, my goodness, that’s like a blink of an eye. But for me, that’s huge.

What does this mean for them? How is this potentially going to impact their ability, and are they going to be the one that is going to be designated? How would they find out? This is one of the questions that keeps coming up from people.

Why wasn’t this part of your campaign? Why is this coming up now? Why is this a priority of this government?

I’ve always said that I want to bring the voices of individuals from Algoma–Manitoulin to the floor of the Legislature. I just got this email from Marlene. I won’t give you her last name. Marlene is at every one of my constituency clinics that I have in a particular community in my riding. This is her message she just sent to me this morning. She said, “So pleased to hear you are not letting up on the crisis with health care with the Ford government. Dissappointed”—oh, by the way, she is a card-carrying Conservative; I just wanted to let you know that. But I just love this lady. Anyway, she’s “disappointed, like so many others, that he is not overly concerned by his financing. And now the Minister of Health talking about possible more privatization? No thank you. We should know by now that doesn’t work except for the profiteers. I believe that is what is wrong with the PSW program. ParaMed and others being paid should be local hospitals, especially smaller places here in”—I’m not going to tell you. “PSWs need a living wage rather than monies going to ParaMed, and it would help the hospital finances as well, as they know local problems and caregivers. Why is Premier Ford using a personal agenda to increase mayors of larger centres’ control? Get on with health care, not your previous Toronto council concerns. It’s ridiculous.”

Thank you, Marlene.

It’s right on point, as far as what we have been raising in this House. Yes, housing is important. But housing is important to everybody in Ontario, not just in two communities. We need to do it in a way that does not infringe on the democratic process that we have by granting immunity—or what was the word that was used in here? Yes, “immunity” and “veto powers.”

We can do a lot better than this, and we need to do a lot more work as far as consulting with people here across this province. Our mayors are asking for it. Our councillors are asking for it. Our communities are asking for it. Ontarians are asking for it.

To my colleague across the way: I would never put words in your mouth, so I would expect the same courtesy from you—by not putting words in my mouth. I did not express myself in any way saying I was supportive of one thing or another. What I did actually say is that there are real concerns out there from many municipal leaders who have not been involved in the decision-making or the drafting of this legislation and the impacts of it. What does it mean?

Let’s set aside “good” or “bad” on this legislation. Why wasn’t there greater consultation on this? Why weren’t communities like Espanola, Chapleau and Wawa, who are desperately looking for housing in their communities—their communities are booming as well, as far as new mines that are opening up, new employment opportunities. There are a lot of migrant individuals who are moving to those communities because there are cultural centres there that are supportive of their wants and their needs. So why did we limit it to just the two? Why wasn’t there greater consultation that was done broadly across the province?

When you’re looking at this legislation, the answer is yes. You look at the track record in the 42nd government: Can the Speaker tell me one time that a piece of legislation didn’t go forward by this government and the likelihood—I always enjoy when the government members stand up and they’re talking about their piece of legislation and say, “If this piece of legislation goes forward.” They’ve got a majority; everything’s going to go by. They’re going to make sure everything goes by. They have the powers on committee. They have the power of a majority government. The answer is, yes, they have that ability.

Our role is one which is going to be significant in this House: to bring up these shortfalls, bring up the cracks that are within the legislation. It’s a role that we’re going to take very seriously. Yes, we will be opposing often. Get used to it.

The aspiration of owning a home, as for your son, is a dream for them. My kids—we’ve had this conversation numerous times. You come out of school, and you’re faced with anywhere between $80,000 to $160,000 in debt from your schooling. You come out, and you get your first job. You want your vehicle, so you get a vehicle because you have to get to and from work. Then, you go to the bank and the bank tells you, “Oh, sure, we’re going to approve you for a mortgage.” The maximum amount is maybe $160,000. It’s impossible to find a home at that rate. So their dream, their aspiration, their want, their idea of owning a home is almost impossible. They can’t reach it.

There’s more we could do. There’s a lot more we could have done, first, by engaging. This is a wholesome discussion. I want to go back to what I opened up with: This is one of those bills that should have gone out to communities so that we have greater engagement and have a wholesome discussion, because some of the best legislation is because we’ve reached out to communities, organizations—took the time through committee to have that wholesome discussion.

Report continues in volume B.