My question is to the Premier. The government has said it is looking at continuing its assault on democratic norms by bringing strong-mayor powers to more regions, including Halton, Durham, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York. We do not have to sacrifice democratic norms to address our housing crisis.

Instead of doubling down on minority rule, can your government withdraw Bill 39 immediately?

That’s a very specific question. I’m going to take a broader approach. We had an expert come in who has worked for many years at CMHC, Carolyn Whitzman, and she recommended that the Ontario government take a more holistic approach, where they give municipalities targets and those targets are overall targets. This is how many homes the government needs to build or that we want this municipality to build, and there needs to be some minimum thresholds on how affordable they are based on income and also what kind of square footage we’re aiming to build.

Is it government’s job to say no, every single house has to be this set size? No, but there is an acknowledgement that this government needs to make—

Interjections.

It took thousands of years for citizens to secure democratic rule—

Interjections.

Bill 39 is a direct attack on democracy because it is giving mayors the power to use minority rule, when Ontario has always used majority rule. I think you should repeal this bill.

My question is to the Premier. Bill 23 is about to eviscerate Toronto’s affordable housing construction program. Removing housing services from development charges is going to cost the city $230 million in revenue. It will restrict Toronto’s ability to deliver on its 10-year housing targets, invest in new shelter services, and carry on with several of its affordable housing development and protection programs.

Will the government help Toronto deliver its affordable housing plan and cover the loss in development fees?

The money that is received from development charges is already committed, and ignoring the revenue losses from Bill 23 risks virtually every significant program Toronto has to provide affordable housing. Giving the mayor the power to pass bylaws over the objections of two thirds of Toronto’s elected council will do nothing to fix that.

What is the government’s plan to help municipalities build truly affordable and supportive housing?

I’m proud to stand today to speak on Bill 39, because the bill is so important. What I’m not proud about is seeing this government introduce a bill that is a real threat to democratic norms and a bill that will double down on suburban sprawl in areas that we should protect.

I want to explain the bill to you. Bill 39 consolidates power in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, at the expense of everybody else. The bill consolidates the democratic power in the hands of the mayor of the city of Toronto, at the expense of the 2.9 million citizens in Toronto and the city councillors that were elected to represent them. The bill has very little to do with solving the housing affordability crisis and helping people get a home that is affordable. There is no evidence that I have seen from this government that Bill 39—or its twin bill, Bill 23—is going to lower housing prices to make homes affordable again or lower rent prices to make homes affordable for lower-income, moderate-income and middle-income people. What this bill is about is bulldozing the province to help the Premier’s wealthy developer friends. That’s what this bill is about. It is an affront to democracy.

I want to go through the three schedules in the bill. It’s a small bill, unlike Bill 23, which was a very big bill. I wonder if you’re going to take this bill to committee, I really do, so that city councillors, citizens, can speak about the consequences of this bill in this region. I wonder if you’re going to take it to committee. I hope you do.

This bill has three schedules. Schedule one, the City of Toronto Act: What this bill does is, it says that the mayor of the city of Toronto can get a bylaw passed with just a third of the members of city council. That is a slap in the face of representative democracy and majority rule—50 plus 1. Now the mayor can get a bylaw passed with just eight councillors. That’s really astonishing. It is truly astonishing.

I am also really disappointed, and that’s a polite word, to hear that Mayor Tory asked for these powers. That is a real shame. Because he didn’t say anything about asking for those powers when he was running for office, nor did this government say that they were once again going to meddle in municipal elections and local democratic decision-making when this government was running for government in June 2022. So it is, quite frankly, shocking to see this.

The second schedule that is in this bill is the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act. What this schedule does is, it eliminates more of the protections that exist in this area, the Duffins-Rouge area, in order to make it much easier for some of this government’s wealthiest donors, developers, to build on this land, even though, for the last 50 years, governments of all political stripes, from Bill Davis to Mike Harris to Dalton McGuinty, understood the value of protecting the greenbelt and protecting our farmland.

This land on the greenbelt is cheaper than land that can be used for development, because it has easements on it to ensure that it is protected as farmland. These developers, including some of the Ontario provincial government’s—the PC Party’s—wealthy developer friends, bought this land cheap over the years, and now they’ve finally got their own way and they get to develop it and make a huge amount of money. That’s what the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act is really all about.

Then, schedule 3, and this is also very concerning, allows the Premier to hand-pick regional council chairs. That is very concerning because the regional council chairs are democratically elected by city councillors within that region. So we’ve just gone through an election. These city councillors—some of them are new to office. Some are just getting inaugurated, they’re getting a tour of offices, they’re learning the ropes, they’re finding out the rules, they’re hiring their staff, and then all of a sudden this provincial government bill comes through and says, “Actually, there’s one thing you aren’t going to be able to do anymore: You’re not going to be able to elect your regional council chair, because we have decided that the Premier gets to hand-pick the regional council chair,” and that’s exactly what you’re going to do. I really hope you take this to committee so that we can hear from regional municipal councillors and get their perspective on the drastic change you have done.

I heard the member for Barrie–Innisfil mention that there has been some consultation with AMO. When I communicate with AMO, I’m not hearing that there has been a ton of consultation on this; they were very surprised about Bill 23. My guess is that they’re very surprised about Bill 39. The letter that they wrote to us about Bill 23 used language that I have never seen a very moderate institution like AMO—I’ve never seen them use this language before. They use the word “radical” because they’re so concerned about what this government is doing with land use planning in southern Ontario, in rapid-fire succession, without consultation, without considering the consequences on municipal budgets, without considering the consequences on democracy, without considering the consequences on meeting our climate change goals.

Interjection: It’s messed up.

What I find so frustrating—I want to go back to the City of Toronto Act and the decision to pass what I would call an undemocratic strong-mayors bill on steroids—is that this government, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t even outlined the provincial priorities that will allow the mayor to pass a bylaw through on eight city council votes. The mayor has this power to use minority rule to get a bylaw passed, and they can only do it on provincial priorities that are identified by this provincial government. But this government, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t yet identified what those provincial priorities are. I guess it will be in regulation. You will sit down; you will decide what they are. But we don’t even know what those provincial priorities are. We can guess. I’m sure it will be broad-sweeping to give the mayor a huge amount of latitude on housing, transit, development, development charges. I’m sure it will be sweeping. But I believe those kinds of decisions should be made also by the people of Toronto and the city councillors we elected to represent us.

I was in committee—Bill 23—last night, and then immediately after I went to a residents’ association AGM with my colleague MPP Wong-Tam. What struck us is how all these decisions that city councillors make on behalf of the residents of the city of Toronto are now going to be made by MPPs elsewhere—MPPs who represent other regions of the province: rural regions, Ottawa, Barrie. Now the provincial government gets to decide how much parkland we have in downtown Toronto, where 80% of people live in an apartment in my riding. Now this government gets to decide development fee charges, gets to drastically cut them, which determines the quality of the transit service that a Torontonian has when they get up in the morning and go to work. Honestly, it is disturbing.

What I also find very difficult to fathom with Bill 39 and Bill 23 is this idea that we’re doing this in order to solve our housing affordability crisis and our housing supply crisis. They are two different things. This government loves to talk about the housing supply shortage that we have. It is very real. It was real even before the federal government upped our immigration targets, which is absolutely necessary. But there’s also a housing affordability crisis, which this government—I can’t even hear—sometimes you say the word “attainable.” But the idea of talking about affordability—this government has a real difficulty in actually saying the word. That’s what I find so hard to fathom.

And what I see Bill 39—and Bill 23—do is that I see it doubling down on suburban sprawl, which is incredibly unsustainable. It will build the kinds of homes that are, on average, about 3,000 square-foot, cost easily over $1 million—which makes them unaffordable for the vast majority of people—and they lock us into unsustainable, soul-destroying commutes and unsustainable transportation patterns.

They also cost municipalities an obscene amount of money to service. When you compare it to increasing the amount of housing that we need in existing neighbourhoods, in the neighbourhoods people want to live in, it’s much cheaper for municipalities to service those areas. It also builds the kind of sustainable, greener, more livable regions and cities that we need in order to move through this climate crisis and adapt to it and respond to it. But instead, this government is doubling down on suburban sprawl. Schedule 2, in particular—and also schedule 3—makes it easier for them to do it. I have so many concerns about that.

I recall Peggy Brekveld from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. She came into committee to express her Concern about the consequences of suburban sprawl and the consequences that this government is moving forward on to take land away from farmland and pave over it. She mentioned that there are 320 acres a day of farmland that’s currently lost in Ontario each day.

We are very lucky. We have some of the best growing area, some of the best growing land in the world. We are one of those unique areas that can produce enough food to sustain Ontario, and then we can export it. But instead, we’re looking at paving over this, and that’s exactly what Bill 39 and Bill 23 are looking at doing, and I think that’s a shame.

If this government was truly interested in tackling the housing affordability crisis, I would recommend that this government actually look at the Housing Affordability Task Force recommendations that you asked a task force to develop. One of the key recommendations they made is that land is not the reason why we have a housing supply shortage. They were very clear about it. They were also very clear—they never mentioned the idea of getting rid of conservation authorities, which is a huge problem, because you are. And they never talked about paving over the greenbelt, which is exactly what, in schedule 2 in Bill 39, they’re going to do.

I find that deeply concerning, especially when I read reports like what’s here—this is a report from the CBC, which did a deep dive into who actually owns the land in the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve area, the DeGasperis family: how many acres they own, what they bought it for; very concerning. And then I hear reports that the nine top developers who stand to benefit the most from opening up the greenbelt gave over $500,000 to the PC Party. That really smells very fishy. It smells very dodgy. I commend the reporters that are looking into this, and I hope the Auditor General looks into this, because it just doesn’t add up. It really doesn’t add up.

I hope some of your own members are looking into this too, because I’m sure you’re hearing about it. I read the news; I see the protests. Hundreds of people are going to your offices. That’s very surprising; I don’t often see that. They’re concerned about the greenbelt. They want to protect it too. They thought this government was going to protect it, because you said you were going to do it during the last election. And now, all of a sudden, you’re introducing bills like Bill 39 and you’re doing the exact opposite thing. That’s very concerning.

I’m going to conclude by talking a little bit about what I want this government to do to address the housing affordability crisis that they talk so much about. If this government was truly interested in helping people find a home that was affordable—that they could afford to buy, that they could afford to rent—then they would have a comprehensive housing program. They would develop a comprehensive housing program that dealt with numerous things. Yes, we need to build more homes, but we shouldn’t be building homes on farmland and greenbelt. These should be homes that the member for Barrie–Innisfil mentioned: those missing-middle homes, those townhomes, those duplexes, those triplexes in existing neighbourhoods. Bill 23 goes some way in that direction, and there could be more that could be done. We should be increasing density near transit stations. There are measures in Bill 23 that do that; I support them. But that’s the kind of sustainable housing and sustainable planning patterns that we should be moving forward on.

It is also absolutely critical that this government acknowledge that we are not going to be able to build the homes that meet the needs of Ontarians if we don’t acknowledge that it will require government investment as well. There are low-income, moderate-income, middle-income people who are not going to be served by the private housing market. Many of them are not, because they just don’t earn enough money, which means that we need government investment in programs to ensure we build the housing that is actually for Ontarians; not just for investors, but for Ontarians, so they’re paying off their own mortgage and not someone else’s. That’s what we need.

I see models that we can replicate here. I see what BC is doing, where they’re moving forward with much greater government investment in public housing. I look at what the city of Toronto is doing with their Housing Now program: They have a plan to build 10,000 homes. They broke ground this week. They’re building that on public land near transit stations—a third private market rentals, a third condos and a third affordable—to tackle the housing crisis. It’s so sensible.

What’s amazing is that the Ontario government could do this, too. We have over 6,000 properties that have been identified as being suitable for land—public land. Why don’t we use that land? We could double down on that and build the kind of housing that we need. But I don’t see this government doing that, and they should. They’re selling off public land. They’re giving it to developers. There’s no affordable housing requirements in any of the developments that you’re approving. The Mimico station: no affordable housing requirements. The foundry: no affordable housing requirements. That’s a shame, because that land should be used for affordable housing as well.

What we are also calling for is an acknowledgement that renters need protection too. What this government is choosing to do is eliminate rent controls and renter protections so that renters have to work even harder just to keep a roof over their head and have to make tough choices around whether they can pay for food, whether they can pay for transit in order to cover rent—the escalating rent. This government is reducing the controls that they have, the renter protections that they have, which I really do find a shame, because we should be going in the other direction and strengthening renter protections so people who rent can pay affordable rent, so they have money left over at the end of the month that they can save up for a down payment and buy their own home. That’s what many people want to do. But if they’re paying $3,000 a month for rent, they’re never going to do that. This government—I hope you acknowledge that, because you talk a lot about attainability. Nothing is attainable if you’re spending $3,000 a month on rent—nothing. You’re just running to stand still. That’s it.

Then what I find so concerning about Bill 39 and Bill 23 is that there is just nothing to deal with people and help people who are just struggling to get by: people who are sleeping on couches, people who are living in encampments. Encampments are once again returning to my riding, to Toronto Centre, to Spadina–Fort York, to many urban centres. They’ve got nowhere to go. The housing market is—there’s just no place for them. They’re sleeping on the streets. There’s nothing in here to address that. Instead, what I see in the fall economic statement is cuts—cuts to supportive housing programs that municipalities use. And then I see, in Bill 23, cuts to the amount of development fees that go to supportive housing programs. There’s nothing.

I really urge you to rethink this. We can have homes that meet the needs of Ontarians and respect democracy at the same time. We can have homes that meet the needs of Ontarians and protect the greenbelt, protect the environment and have a healthy, thriving farming sector. You’re heading in the opposite direction. I urge you to rethink it. There are better ways to go.

Democracy is important. Humanity struggled for hundreds and hundreds of years to secure democracy. People went to war to uphold democracy. People have lost their lives to secure the right to vote.

Bill 39 is an affront to representative democracy. It is not democratic to have eight out of 25 councillors decide matters that affect 2.9 million people. It is not democratic to have the Premier do away with an election and hand-pick regional chairs.

This has nothing to do with solving the housing affordability crisis, and this has everything to do with taking power away from citizens and concentrating power in the hands of the Premier and the mayor of Toronto.

True leadership means governing for everyone, not just the few. True leadership means listening and collaborating with all Ontarians, not just the ones that donated to your election campaign.

This government has political power—it’s true—but Ontarians have people power. We have people power. And people power always wins, provided that we exercise it. Thank you to the many of you who have written letters, made phone calls, attended protests, joined advocacy groups, spoke out in the media, are going to court and who are persuading and encouraging your friends and neighbours to speak up and get active.

In the face of a government that does not respect democratic norms, our involvement has never been more important.

I’d like to introduce Barbara Hall, the former mayor of Toronto, to Queen’s Park today.

Thank you for your presentation and concern about the Strong Mayors, More Homes Act. I also share the concerns that were raised—that this bill won’t necessarily build more homes, and it certainly passes the buck.

What are some measures that you think the provincial government, the Ontario government, should do to increase housing supply for Ontarians who intend to live in a home that is built?

Thank you, Speaker, and congratulations for your appointment as one of the Speakers in this House.

Thank you to the member for Mississauga–Malton for your presentation. I sat in committee and heard speakers come in and speak to this bill. I want to raise the commentary raised by Susan Wiggins. She’s the executive director of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Her organization represents planners who work in a non-partisan capacity in municipalities all across Ontario, and she had some concerns. She said there is a benefit between having a separation between the mayor and the head of a planning department, and that “OPPI is concerned that allowing a mayor to hire and fire the head of a planning department may actually be to the detriment of building more housing in the province. It may create more political pressure on the mayor from factions who may not support intensification where policies direct it.”

What’s your response to the OPPI association’s concerns that this could hurt supply?