I definitely agree with this principle. But the thing is, there was a time when the government was working hand in hand with the mayor of Mississauga at the time, and now, the times they are a-changin’, right? They have changed their tune on it.

I know that there have been many criticisms that were levelled against the Liberal leader at the time, mostly by others and certainly by this government now, and I know that more could have been done in Mississauga in terms of housing starts—that, definitely, I agree with.

Thank you very much to the member opposite for the presentation.

I have a question. It’s a bit of a hypothetical, because he wasn’t here during the previous government. But if he had been here during the previous government, and the previous government had introduced legislation that said, “We will give super powers to mayors so long as they follow our agenda,” do you believe that you and your colleagues would have supported that under the previous government?

Interestingly enough, we went to a place where I wanted to ask the question—when power gets expanded in one area, it always comes at the expense of something else. In this case, it comes at the expense of councillors. People go to the polls to vote for mayors, generally, for a vision overall, but, ultimately, for councillors to make local decisions.

Can you expand again a little bit, briefly, on why it’s important that councillors have a say, are respected and have power to be able to make decisions?

The balance of this debate, I think, has really shown us that:

(1) Once again, this government is debating legislation that they did not discuss during the campaign, no matter how substantive or how much of an impact it could have on municipalities.

(2) This is legislation that was not made in consultation with or even asked for by those it affects.

(3) It has nothing to do within—its title doesn’t reflect the bill because, as the wonderful member stated, it really just is about giving power that’s not even asked for to mayors who already have the power to win every single vote which they ever do.

(4) What they’re doing at the city of Toronto is, they’re approving thousands of units of developments that are at or above all the targets that are listed, but they claim that’s going to enable more of it to be built as long as the mayor does what the Premier says.

Again, knowing that this is a government that’s about power and control, knowing that they want to put power in the hands of fewer people, why do they want to give more power to mayors? Is it just so that they’ll do the bidding of this Premier?

I want to thank the member for her submission today. I want to draw a parallel to what this bill would be like if this was the province. I would like all people to consider this fact: The Premier of Ontario, arguably the most powerful person in Ontario, has one vote in this chamber—a single vote, no veto power—and yet despite this, through appointments and through the power that he has over his own government, he’s able to win every single vote in this chamber. He doesn’t require these other additions to his power; he’s able to do it in all the same ways that mayors do it to win all their votes in their own municipalities. Now, super powers are being given to mayors only if they fall in line with what the Premier of this province wants, who already gets everything he wants.

Do you see any concerns, given the priorities this government has shown to give these powers to mayors who are not even asking for it?

I want to congratulate the member on her re-election and for her submission and speech today.

She said, for instance, the mayor of Toronto has 500,000 votes. But councillors receive cumulatively, across the city, the same number of votes, essentially, as the mayor does. People vote for councillors and expect them to have the paramountcy on local issues, the understanding of local issues. When you’re in a city of millions, you don’t expect a response from a mayor when something goes wrong.

So what is it about this government? Why do they want to weaken local councillors in their ability to make decisions when the mayors of municipalities already have overwhelming powers to be able to get their agendas across?

[Inaudible] a single vote that the mayor of Toronto has not won, not a single vote. Mayors I have read out from the city of Toronto, who represent half of the last 50 years, have spoken against it, and here you are citing the board of trade. The mayor already has the control to be able to do what it needs to do. The city of Toronto has 43% of all cranes in North America and approves, year after year, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of new housing units that they carefully consider with all parameters.

We have already demonstrated that this, other than the title, has nothing to do with housing. It is about giving more power to already powerful mayors. I have noted in the speeches made by government members that they tend not to group the words “affordable” and “housing” together. What they have said a lot of is “market housing,” and we are facing an affordable housing situation. Governments have the ability to create non-profit housing, co-operative housing—there are many solutions to this, like implementing rent control. They are not interested in any of those. Not at all. Not one.

What I’m going to say—and I’m going to say it again: This is a government obsessed with control, not just of its own members, not just of everything that happens here, obviously, in the province of Ontario or here in this House; this is a government of control that extends all the way down to municipalities. They are tabling legislation where—we already have mayors who have power through appointments and other ways. We have a mayor in the city of Toronto who has not lost a single important vote. These mayors have not asked for this legislation whatsoever.

We’ve reviewed the legislation, and it shows nothing to do with building new homes. I’ve shown that the city of Toronto builds thousands of new homes. We have 43% of all the cranes in North America here.

What exactly is this legislation about if it is not rewarding mayors who listen to your bidding?

There is no interest by this government to give any sort of power to those who dissent from them. They’re not interested in consultation. They’re interested in affirmation of everything they do. That is the interest of this government. We saw it for the last four years, and at some point it has got to stop.

Last session, we saw member after member leave this government. We had probably one of the largest groups of independents because they could not take the amount of control imposed even internally on them. And they’re now trying to control all the municipalities in Ontario. It has to stop.

The mayor of Toronto has lots of power and has won every single vote. That’s just simply the facts. Don’t take it from me; take it from the many mayors I read in my submission today.

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.