Monday, May 4, 2026

The committee met at 0900 in committee room 2.

Official source

Consideration of the following bill:

Official source

Bill 98, An Act to enact the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 98, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 sur l’harmonisation des tarifs et l’intégration des transports en commun et modifiant diverses lois.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy to order. We are meeting today to begin public hearings on Bill 98, An Act to enact the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts. The Clerk of the Committee has distributed today’s meeting documents virtually via SharePoint. To ensure that everyone who speaks is heard and understood, it is important that all participants speak slowly and clearly. Please wait until I recognize you before starting to speak. As always, all comments should go through the Chair. Are there any questions before we begin?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

The opening statements today are from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Welcome, Minister. You will have 20 minutes to make an opening statement followed by 39 minutes of questions from the members of the committee. This time for questions will be divided into two rounds of six and a half minutes for the government members, two rounds of six and a half minutes for the official opposition members and two rounds of six and a half minutes for the third party. Any questions? Seeing none, Minister, you may begin.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. I hope everyone had a good constituency week—home, where the action really is. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act. I want to begin by positioning this legislation within the broader framework our government is undertaking to address one of the most pressing challenges facing Ontario today: building more homes faster and at a lower cost—or, simply put, facilitating affordability—and building more critical transit infrastructure and supports to help residents get from home to work. Can you hear me or not?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

We’re going to get it turned up. Just keep going. Thanks.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

The reality before us is very straightforward: It takes too long and it costs too much to build houses in Ontario and to get infrastructure in the ground. The consequences of that are not abstract. They are being felt right across the province every day: young people trying to move closer or move faster to where they work, families trying to put down roots, seniors looking to downsize and stay connected to their communities and employers trying to attract talent in growing regions. This is not a challenge isolated to one part of the province; it is to all—it’s being felt in large, urban centres, in mid-sized cities and rural communities in the fast-growing regions across Ontario. And it’s shaped by pressures that extend beyond our province, including global economic conditions, supply chain constraints and rising input costs. This is impacting our ability to build homes, build transit infrastructure and build Ontario in general. But while these pressures are real, they are not an excuse for inaction; they are the reason to act with greater urgency. That is exactly what our government has been doing. Over the past years, we have taken a series of steps to address the structural barriers that have slowed housing construction and driven up costs. We have reformed planning frameworks. We have invested in infrastructure. We have created more tools that support municipalities in getting more homes built and faster. We are providing municipalities with historic funding to expand and grow services and housing alike. We are cutting red tape by streamlining the approval process and driving costs down across the board. Importantly, we are now seeing those changes beginning to take hold. We are seeing projects move forward that had been stalled. We are seeing increased alignment between planning and infrastructure. We are seeing a system that, while still facing challenges, is becoming more focused on outcomes. We also recognize that more needs to be done because the process of building a home is not just a single step; it’s a process of many steps that tie into each other like chain links—linked together for strength and purpose, from land use planning to multiple approvals, to servicing, to construction. And when any part of the chain is weakened, the entire system is compromised or affected. The entire chain is weaker. And once this multiple-process approval is complete, once you move into your new home, we must have the critical infrastructure in place to service the community’s needs now and in the future. Bill 98 is about building a stronger, more efficient chain that will keep Ontario advancing forward. It reflects a clear understanding that housing supply depends on more than just planning decisions. It depends on infrastructure, it depends on coordination and it depends on a regulatory system that protects people while enabling progress. This legislation takes a practical, targeted approach to removing friction from the system, while maintaining the high standards Ontarians expect. The core problem we’re addressing is simple to describe, even if it is complex to solve: It takes too long and it costs too much to build homes in Ontario. So the question becomes: Where are the delays? Where are the duplications? And where are the unnecessary costs embedded in the system? Bill 98 responds directly to those questions. One of the key areas addressed in this legislation is water and waste water infrastructure. This is foundational. If servicing is not available, housing cannot proceed. It does not matter how well a project is designed or how strong the demand is, without water and waste water capacity, development stalls. At the same time, we must be absolutely clear: Protecting public ownership of our water systems is and always has been the utmost priority of this government. Let us be also clear: Anyone who alleges otherwise does not fully understand the facts before them in this bill, or simply chooses not to. In an unrelated committee last week, a stakeholder who will speak to you today made these claims. I suspect they will make them again today. They are incorrect. They’re not grounded in the text of this legislation, they’re not supported by the measures being proposed and they are not a reflection of the reality of Ontario’s regulatory framework—full stop. In fact, the legislation does the exact opposite. It reinforces that any systems falling within this framework are subject to the same stringent public health and safety guidelines and standards that apply today. Schedule 9 of this act makes it clear. I will read it to you now: “(2) The shares of a water and wastewater public corporation shall not be issued to any person other than a municipality, the province of Ontario, the government of Canada or an agent of any of them ... “(3) The shareholders of a water and wastewater public corporation shall not sell or transfer the shares of the corporation, except to a municipality, the province of Ontario, the government of Canada or an agent of any of them.” In simple, unambiguous terms, water is public. It always will be, and this is enshrining that in legislation here today. That is not changing. That is fact, it’s not make-believe. There is no change to ownership requirements for municipal drinking water systems. There is no weakening of regulatory oversight. There is no removal of accountability mechanisms. What there is is absolute clarity, as clear as the water you are drinking here today—clarity that ensures new models operate within the same rules, clarity that provides confidence to municipalities and clarity that protects the integrity of Ontario’s drinking water system. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent the bill, and I would go further: It is not just a misunderstanding, it is a narrative that ignores the actual provisions of the legislation in front of us now. This is not constructive criticism—let’s keep this to the point—it does not help address the real challenges we’re facing today by saying otherwise. If you sense I’m a little passionate about that, there you go. Another important component of the bill addresses communal water systems and waste water systems, particularly in areas where traditional municipal servicing is not yet in place. In many parts of Ontario, the barrier to new housing is not a lack of demand, it is a lack of servicing. Communal systems can play a role in bridging that gap, allowing development to proceed while longer-term infrastructure is planned and delivered. That is a practical change, it is a targeted change and it is exactly the kind of reform needed if we are serious about reducing delays. The bill also includes measures that support transportation infrastructure, recognizing that housing and mobility are deeply interconnected. Communities cannot function effectively if people and goods cannot move efficiently. This includes steps to streamline processes for transit projects, improve coordination across municipal boundaries and standardize road construction practices. Today, there are thousands of different municipal standards in use. That fragmentation creates inefficiencies, increases costs and slows down project delivery. By moving toward greater standardization, we can reduce complexity, improve procurement and accelerate timelines. These are not abstract improvements. They translate directly into lower costs and faster delivery—just what the doctor ordered. Similarly, making better use of existing infrastructure, such as optimizing high-occupancy vehicle lanes during off-peak hours, helps reduce congestion and improve the efficiency of our transportation network. Taken together, these measures reflect a broader principle: that infrastructure, planning and approvals must work together and not in silos, because when they are disconnected, delays multiply, costs rise and, ultimately, it is Ontarians who pay the price. I will now turn my attention to another issue of concern: site plan processes and design standards. Here, again, it is important to be precise. The measures in this bill provide flexibility. They allow municipalities and proponents to take a more streamlined approach in certain circumstances, but they do not eliminate standards. They do not impose changes unilaterally, and, critically, they are voluntary in nature. Municipalities retain the ability to determine how they apply these tools. Enhanced design standards can be pursued where appropriate. What this bill does is provide options—options to reduce unnecessary complexity where it is not adding value, because not every requirement improves outcomes. Some add time. Some add cost. When those costs are accumulated, they make housing less attainable. They also make housing more unaffordable. The goal here is a balanced approach: maintaining quality, maintaining safety, maintaining good planning, while also ensuring that the process is efficient, predictable and consistent right across the province. That is what builders need. That is what municipalities need. And, ultimately, that is what homebuyers need now and in the future. I would also like to look broadly and see how this bill fits into the greater whole. Bill 98 is one piece of a larger effort to address Ontario’s housing challenge. It works alongside other measures our government has taken, including actions to reduce development charges and to lower the tax burden on new home buyers through the HST relief. Those measures matter, because the cost of building is directly linked to the cost of buying. When we reduce costs in the system—whether through streamlined approvals, more efficient infrastructure delivery or targeted financial relief—we create the conditions for more homes to be built and for those homes to be more attainable—to be more affordable. That is the objective: to support builders in getting projects off the ground, to support municipalities in delivering the infrastructure needed for growth and to support Ontarians in finding a home they can afford in a community they want to live in. The bill will help us move in that direction. It will help reduce delays, it will help lower costs and it will help ensure that the systems underpinning housing development are working as they should with better affordability. I continue to hit on the word “affordability.” We’re not perfect yet, but we are better. More clearly, more efficiently, we will continue to get better because, at the end of the day, this is about outcomes. It’s about results—results that count. It’s about moving from approvals to construction, from construction to completed homes. That is the work before us today Chair, before I conclude, I want to highlight a few additional elements of this legislation that speak directly to how we are driving greater efficiency, transparency and accountability across the home-building system. One of the most important reforms in this bill is the move toward simplified and standardized official plans. Today, official plans vary widely across municipalities. They can be lengthy, highly technical and inconsistent in structure. For builders, for municipalities and even for the public, that creates uncertainty. It slows down approvals; it increases the risk of error or delay and, ultimately, it adds costs. Again, creating affordability is the goal here. By introducing a standardized framework with common land use designations, consistent formats and clearer mapping, we are making these plans easier to navigate and faster to implement. That means less time spent interpreting rules and more time focused on getting projects moving and off the ground. It is a foundational change that will make the entire planning system more predictable and more efficient. We have also been taking a serious look at the building code. Over time, it has grown significantly in size and complexity, more than quadrupling since it’s introduction.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Thank you very much, Minister, for your comments. We’re going to now go to questions from the government for the first round. MPP Saunderson, please go ahead.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Thank you, Minister, for your comments. I’m more of a Star Trek fan, so, “Live Long and Prosper.” In my riding of Simcoe–Grey, since coming into office in 2022 and prior to that, when I was in the municipal world, infrastructure has been a huge barrier for us to address the housing crisis and get housing in the ground. While there’s demand and the builders are ready to go, in many cases the fact of the lack of linear infrastructure in the ground for water and waste water has been a huge issue. This government has been quite aggressive, through our HEWS funding and our health and safety funding, in giving municipalities a leg up. But even then, I think when you look at the overall picture—I think you’ve told us many times in the House that the infrastructure deficit across the province is in excess of $200 billion. So even with these amounts that we’re handing out, totalling, I think, coming up to $4 billion, it’s really a drop in the bucket. There’s been a lot of discussion about changing the service delivery and looking at municipal service corporations for water and waste water, and doing that not just on a municipal-by-municipal basis but doing it on a regional basis. I’m wondering if you can talk to us about how you see the mechanics of that helping us to address this massive deficit across the province to ensure that municipalities not just in the GTA but in the Niagara region, Simcoe county, in southwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario have access to the infrastructure that they need and they can do that in an efficient way, taking it off the municipal books.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Thank you for the question. I know you’re a great proponent for publicly owned municipal service corps. Having not been in the municipal world, with your experience, when I got into this job the one thing I learned pretty quickly was so much of what we have to do as MPPs representing our particular communities—especially rural communities, with many different towns and villages and settlements in that region—is to help them manage water and waste water. Upon assuming this role, I learned pretty quickly, as you said, that the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association estimates $200 billion to $250 billion is needed in the next 10 to 15 years to replace aging infrastructure—and it’s important to mention that—and new infrastructure. Development charges predominantly go towards new infrastructure, to build new homes. And if you don’t build a home, because we’ve been sluggish the last couple of years, you’re not collecting DCs. But they’re also punitive, as you know. But what do the municipalities do? As we’ve said all along, we’re investing up to $4 billion in housing-enabling water programs. We just announced an $8.8-billion joint federal-provincial deal to reduce DCs across the province over 10 years and we’re putting the details of that together, so that adds up to $12.8 billion. As you say, I maybe wouldn’t say it’s a drop in the bucket—it’s a lot of money—but it’s not enough. So where does the money come from? It can’t come from the municipalities. They can’t tax people enough. I think we’ve seen all our financial situations in the province. We’re spending over $100 billion in health care today on a total treasury of about $240 billion to $250 billion. And the federal government, I don’t think, has the capacity either. So we need to look at innovative approaches. And municipal service corps are not that innovative. They’ve been used before, but I don’t think to the scale of need we require to look at them in the future. So the mechanics of it aren’t settled yet. We’ve put together what I would call a group of experts that have done this before, especially in the electricity power arena. It’s probably not going to be much different than that, but I don’t want to come to any conclusions before they make their submissions. What I would see is, hopefully, we would use our scale in this province, across this province, with 444 municipalities. The need is insatiable. The borrowing capacity is great. So I think we can lever that scale to get favourable terms, amortized over decades—and I mean not 10 years; I mean 60, 70, 80 years, as long as we feel these systems can work. I used the example in Woodstock, Ontario, just beside my riding. They certainly recently dug up some waste water piping; they figured out it was made of wood, so that shows you how far back those waste water systems go. I think, again, the devil is in the detail, as always. We’re going to make sure—I’d like to move faster than we are, and my team behind me here will know my impatience, but I want to get it right as well.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

While safety must always be at the forefront and paramount, there are provisions within the code today that are outdated, duplicative and unnecessarily costly. That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive section-by-section review for the first time in decades, supported by an expert advisory body. The goal is not to lower standards. It’s to modernize them. It’s to ensure they reflect how homes are actually built today and to remove requirements that create delay or drive up costs without improving outcomes. Another key area is land use efficiency. In many municipalities, minimum lot size requirements are larger than they need to be, limiting the type of housing that can be built and reducing overall supply. This bill creates the authority to establish more consistent province-wide standards, including exploring a smaller minimum lot size that would enable a broader range of more attainable housing options. We’re also taking steps to support specific segments of the housing market that are under pressure. For example, by proposing to exempt not-for-profit retirement homes from development charges, we are directly reducing the cost of building housing for seniors. This is an important component that not only supports aging in place, but also helps free up larger homes for families to improve movement across the entire housing continuum. Transparency is another critical piece of this work. Today many homebuyers are not aware of the full extent of costs embedded in the price of a new home, particularly development charges and other government fees. In some cases, those charges can reach significant levels, adding tens of thousands of dollars to the purchase price. That is why we are consulting on requiring these costs to be clearly disclosed in agreements of purchase and sale. This is about fairness. It’s about giving buyers a clear understanding of what they are paying for and it is about increasing accountability right across the system. Taken together, these measures reflect a consistent approach: Simplify where possible, standardize where necessary and ensure transparency throughout. That is the work in front of us today. Again, it takes too long and it costs too much to build housing in Ontario—and, I would add, infrastructure as well. Bill 98 is a meaningful step in lowering the time and costs to home building. It complements Bills 17 and 60 by ensuring housing affordability is first and foremost in its intended outcomes in the months and years ahead. Thank you and—I didn’t write this—“May the Fourth Be with You.”

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

One minute remaining.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

As we work together, Brian, you would note that we’ve opened a portal for municipalities to explore, to show their interest. Frankly, at AMO, at ROMA, wherever it may be, we’re getting insatiable interest in that. So while we have a Peel pilot project under way, my opinion today is that there’s no reason why there couldn’t be a Simcoe project; there couldn’t be a Niagara project; there couldn’t be numerous throughout the province, including communal water systems. I really think that it’s a tool. It’s innovative. I think we can create it the way we want it best. And again, I emphasize, they will be publicly owned. I don’t like the narrative that people are saying they won’t be, because I think I’ve said right from the beginning that it’s enshrined in this legislation that they will be publicly owned. Thank you for your question.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

You’ve got 10 seconds.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Thank you for that, Minister. I think you’ve been very clear as well that this will not change who owns these assets. It will be publicly owned by the municipalities, and also that there will be no changes in the standards and regulations that govern that.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

We will now go to the official opposition. MPP Burch.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Good morning, Minister. As you know, we supported this bill at second reading, and we did that because there are some good things in it: minimum lot sizes, communal water systems. There are things that we think could be positive. There are also some things we’re concerned about, but we’re happy that you’ve used the committee system; it hasn’t always happened with the government, but it’s the system that we have. And so, we hope that you are open to amendments as we hear from presenters today and hear people’s concerns. One of those concerns is something I’m glad you spent so much time talking about—the municipal service corporations and plans around that. We heard from CUPE last week, who I think you were referring to. We heard again from them today about their concerns. So there’s a lot to hash out here because that’s a union representing tens of thousands of workers in the province, and they’re concerned about these plans and concerned that—I believe they used the words “privatization by stealth.” I have some experience with this type of thing, with hydro, from serving a couple of terms on municipal council. I’m not sure how that translates into the water/waste water issue. But there are two issues for me. One is the public/private issue, and the other is making sure that if we do go down this road, it actually saves money and doesn’t cost money for ratepayers. I wanted to make sure I understood in terms of the costs, so I talked to a number of CAOs about the issue, and a lot of them told me that municipal service corporations could actually increase water rates. And as I’ve watched this issue come forward, I’ve noticed that a lot of it’s political. In Niagara, for example, a lot of mayors jumped on board because, quite frankly, they were scared about forced amalgamation. There was a rumour in Niagara about that. They wanted to make you happy, so they didn’t get forcibly amalgamated. And I know that for a fact because I talked to a lot of the mayors. They wrote a letter. And I know from going to our governance committees that have travelled around the province—and there is a lot of interest, but it seems to me a way that a lot of politicians are signalling to their voters that they want to save money, but they don’t really understand the system. So how will you make sure that if we do go down this road, the decisions are going to be evidence-based—not going to be political; but that if a municipal service corporation or a water/waste water public corporation goes into effect, it’s actually going to save money or it’s not going to increase water rates, because a lot of CAOs are telling me that that’s exactly what it would do, if it’s implemented in the wrong jurisdiction.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Great questions. First, I would say that politicians are not on the organizing or the review committee; people with expertise are. Down the road, I would think, I would hope, that in a governance model, politicians wouldn’t be the only ones sitting on these publicly owned service corps; that you’d have expertise. Again, I don’t think we need 444 of them across the province. I would hope that we could scale up and bring people together to make sure that we have proper scale. When it comes to costs, who should put the infrastructure in the ground? Use the numbers. We have an insatiable need of $200 billion to $250 billion. Where is it going to come from? Ultimately, the people pay for it, whether they pay for it through their taxes, municipally, provincially or federally. It’s got to come from somebody, or we take on insatiable amounts of public debt, running massive deficits. I don’t have the financial parameters understood yet because they’re not there. But in a power situation, when you turn on your lights, you pay for your electricity, and the same is true with drinking water today. We have to figure out the waste water component. Municipalities are going to have to pay for this debt over time, and it’s going to be amortized. It’s going to be competitive. But where is the money going to come from? If it doesn’t come from the municipalities, the province or the feds, where is it going to come from?

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

So you’re increasing the capacity to borrow money? Is that—

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

We have to do that.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Where’s the actual money? Changing the system is not going to do it, and—

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Well, I would hope our friends at CUPE—their pensions—I hope they would want to invest in this. I think there’s an insatiable amount of money out there—a lot of money out there—that’s looking for consistent, long-term returns. And, again, I’m not going to talk about what returns could be or could not be. That’s up to the experts.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Forty-five seconds left.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

But again, I want to emphasize: Where does the money come from? We can build the debt, and I think we can borrow effectively. Don’t create 444 different MSCs. Create a number—I’m not sure what the number—

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

So you will be looking for outside capital, outside of what’s collected in water rates?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Oh, to put the infrastructure in the ground? That’s where it’s going to come from. It has got to come from that.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

So who’s going to own it?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

The people and the municipalities—the municipalities will own it.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Why would anyone put money in, if they’re not going to have part ownership?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Do you own any stocks? You can invest in something without having ownership, and expect return without having ownership. It’s not a new concept—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Thank you very much. To the third party: MPP Shamji.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

To continue along that line of questioning: In fact, when you own a stock, you own a part of the company. So—

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

There’s other investments you can own, but you don’t own a stock. So there’s no question they will be publicly owned. If a pension plan buys into it, they will not own the public service corporation. It’s in the bill.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Sure, whether you own a stock or by owning a stock, owning the company or not—maybe they are different models. But, certainly, when you own a stock in a company, you have a say in how it’s operated. So is your intention for these people who will be investing in these municipal corporations—will they have a say in how it’s operated?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

I believe that we have to have the brightest and best people operating these municipal service corps—not unlike our power service corps—and not necessarily fully run by politicians’ public involvement. Public intent, for sure, but people with expertise—engineers, people with understanding in that business, like any other business would hire expertise to be on their board of directors.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Sure, but people who are contributing capital don’t necessarily need to be experts, or engineers or anything like that. They can simply be investors.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

They don’t necessarily have to sit on the board, either.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

But if you’re putting in millions or more, you’re going to want to have a say. Will people who contribute capital—if they’re not experts, or engineers or on the board—will they have a say in the way these corporations function?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Like any borrowing situation, they will have agreements with—and again, I don’t want to preclude what this is going to look like, how we’ve amassed the capital. There will obviously be borrower-lender agreements, on which terms will be there and that’s how they will be governed.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

I have no intention of fearmongering here. I genuinely want what’s best for municipalities, for our province. But I hope you can imagine, with this government’s track record, you can begin to understand how with this kind of ambiguity, we have a genuine reason to justifiably be somewhat skeptical about some of the claims that are being made here. I would never want to invest a substantial sum of money without a guarantee of a return—number one—and a guarantee that there is some way that I can right the direction of the ship if it’s not going in a way that will be productive, or profitable or guarantee the return on investment for myself. So how do you reconcile what would be a very reasonable concern of an investor contributing significant capital and what you are saying—and your government’s track record—that only and exclusively the municipal and public’s best interests will be observed?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Well, I don’t know how much clearer I can be because I don’t think there’s any ambiguity at all, respectfully, submitted. They’re going to be publicly owned. I do not have the mechanics of how every loan, every note, is going to be managed and borrowed and serviced, what the returns will be over what amortization period. But I do know that this is not brand new. Municipal service corporations are not a new phenomenon in North America or the world. We will learn from those examples that have gone before us, and I know that’s what the expert panel was doing. I have no hesitation at all to say that I expect lender returns. Why would you not invest properly and expect a return? But I think it’s going to have to be patient capital. It’s not something you’re going to get a big hit on over a year, or two, or five. And I think pension plans, in particular, will enjoy this model because they can look at long-term, sustainable coupon clips, if you want to call it that in financial terms, where they can clip a coupon—a fair return over time—knowing they’re secure, knowing they’re going to grow, knowing they’re good assets to invest in. They don’t have to be at the table every day, managing every nuance of how those service corporations are run.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

So that we’re all on the same page about this, I want to return to a section that you had quoted and quote it back to you. It was schedule 9, section 1, subsection 2(b). It says, “No shares of the corporation are held by a” corporation “other than a municipality, the province of Ontario, the government of Canada or an agent of any of them.” Could you define “agent,” please?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

I’m going to call on the expert here, Stephen Lockwood, who is our lawyer. He can give you the specifics in terms of the legalese required there.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Just state your name for the record, please.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Lockwood

Good morning. My name is Stephen Lockwood. I’m the director of legal services for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In that context, “agent of any of them” would mean a crown agency or a municipal agency. An example could be the Ontario Clean Water Agency, but it would be an entity that is part of the crown, like the Ontario Clean Water Agency, Infrastructure Ontario. It wouldn’t be a private entity designated as an agent; it would be that legal crown agency.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Exclusively?

Official source

Mr. Stephen Lockwood

Correct.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

One minute left, just to let you know.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Okay, very good. I’m going to just move on. The question I wanted to ask, Minister, is it seems in successive iterations of legislation, for some reason, the environment always seems to be the target. With Bill 17 last year going all the way back to 2019, there’s always been what seemed to be a watering down of environmental standards for the purported purpose of increasing the rate at which we’re building homes, yet the rate at which we’re building homes always goes down after these standards are watered down. Why are we doing the same today? Instead of legislating the fourplexes, finally approving the federal Housing Design Catalogue, why is it always environmental standards?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Twenty seconds.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

I don’t agree that we’re watering down these standards. We’re trying to make them more consistent, voluntary versus mandatory. We’ve had a housing crisis—still have one. We’re trying to lower the costs it takes. We want to bring consistency across the province. I’ll take an example of the building code. The green roof experts that build these things are going to be sitting at the table, going through section by section. We’re going to work with everybody to get it done.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Thank you very much. We have to go to the government side. MPP Racinsky.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you, Minister, for your remarks this morning and for your leadership in making sure that we get housing more affordable here in the province of Ontario. That’s important for everyone in the province of Ontario, but especially for young people like myself, people starting out in their lives and their careers. It’s really, really important, so thank you. You were very clear in your remarks, but it seems to be not clear enough, apparently, for the opposition, so I just wanted to go back to the discussion that we were having earlier. Can you please explain the difference between a lender and a shareholder? Because I think what you were describing is the lending as opposed to what is very clearly laid out in the bill, which is that a shareholder will only be the government or some sort of government.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

I’ll explain it—101—but we all know, you buy a house, you go to the bank, you borrow the money. They don’t own the house. They have security on your house, but they’re the lender of the money to you, so you make the mortgage payments to pay it back and you build equity. In good time, a young guy like you is probably going to have a very successful life in the housing industry. Versus a shareholder—when a bank lends you money, they don’t take shares on your house, and the same as with a bank—when I was in business, we borrowed money from institutions. They lent us money. They did not sit on our board. They did not have ownership in our company. They lent us money. They expected a return on that money, and, thankfully, we were always able to give it to them. It’s as simple as that.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

And then now I wanted to ask about development charges, which is an important part of this legislation. Just earlier this week, I had the privilege of announcing 32 bed allocations for a not-for-profit long-term-care home, the Bennett Centre, in Georgetown. Previously, we exempted not-for-profit long-term-care homes from development charges, and we’re proposing to expand that to retirement homes. Can you just explain more about why that’s important to help get housing for seniors in our communities?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

The DCs are a product of the last—what?—30-odd years, I think. Am I right there about the 30-some-odd years? Again, we come back to getting critical infrastructure in the ground. It used to be that the province or the federal government would give all the municipalities the money to put this infrastructure in the ground. We can’t afford that anymore. That’s why we’re looking at different forms to get that done, like MSCs. DCs have become punitive. Of the 444 municipalities, 219 are DC-levying municipalities—219. They represent 94% of Ontario’s population. Many municipalities—225—do not levy DCs. In the GTA, up to a third of the cost of a single-family home can be the cost of development charges, land transfer taxes, the HST, other government fees. It’s punitive, and that’s why we have a housing crisis. That’s why we have a problem. We’re trying to fix that. By delaying or deferring development charges until occupancy, by reducing them for long-term-care homes and now for publicly owned retirement homes, by coming out with the $8.8-billion program with the federal government to reduce DCs, we’re reducing the burden of that on new home buyers, new construction. That being said, I think our municipal partners were waiting for the details in terms of how that project will work. Again, hopefully we’ll have something at the end of May or early June at the latest. We’re working diligently on that. I think it’s going to be a game-changer, just like the HST was. DCs were needed. You can’t blame municipal partners for implementing them. They just became punitive, and increased and increased and became a way to, I think, unfairly burden new home buyers. Remember, the biggest part of our problem going forward is, yes, new growth. New growth requires infrastructure, but the replacement of aging infrastructure is massive in this province. In Toronto alone, there was a road at Jarvis and somewhere where it flooded. I was talking to Mayor Chow, and one of her city managers said, “Yes, that water main was put in in the late 1870s.” We’re dealing with this type of aging infrastructure. It needs to be changed. We need to find creative ways, innovative ways to pay for it, to get it put in the ground. I know in your community, they charge DCs, but they’re probably too high. We’re trying to ease that burden, working closely with our municipal partners to ensure that they get lowered, that affordability is back on the menu and that infrastructure gets put on the ground in a timely manner.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

MPP Sabawy, you have a minute and 30 seconds.

Official source

Mr. Sheref Sabawy

Thank you. Minister, I’ll try to be fast. Minister, our government has been clear that we are going to protect and grow Ontario by building the homes, infrastructure, roads, highways and transit our growing province needs. At the same time, we know families across Ontario are facing real cost pressures. That’s why making life more affordable has to include making it faster and less expensive to build the homes people need. We know that too many projects are still facing delays. According to the president of the mayors’ association in an earlier hearing—he mentioned that the average for a developer to start the project until they start selling is 11 years, on average. This duplication of unnecessary costs before a shovel ever gets in the ground, every added month and every added cost eventually affects homebuyers, renters, workers and families. Minister, can you pinpoint how Bill 98 builds on our government’s broader plan to fight delays, lower costs and get homes and infrastructure built faster across the province?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Fifteen seconds.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

The legislated 60-day timeline has become the exception rather than the rule when it comes to development standards and site plan reform. As you say, it can take years. We’re going to change that in a meaningful way through this legislation. It takes too long, and it’s ridiculous how long it’s taking. That’s why consistency needs to be on the menu.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Thank you very much, Minister. Over to the official opposition. MPP Rakocevic, please.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I want to thank the minister and all who are present. My questions for my small block of time are with regard to transit. I understand that you’re the Minister of Housing and not transportation, so I assume you’ll be calling on some people behind you to answer some questions. I want to talk about the fare integration portions of this bill. This is a government that loves omnibus bills. We find bills that are primarily on housing, but then you’ll find other elements within it. It would be great if legislation was separated so that we could fulsomely look at them independently, but it is your choice to do it this way. Fare integration is something that we all support and appreciate, but only if it’s done right. And one of the only ways in which fare integration can work is if the funding is there. Because what happens is, if you have a rider taking transit into two different areas or two different regions or crossing a city boundary, what ends up happening is that with all regard to both municipalities, they each receive a fare. When you integrate it—which is good—what the individual pays is less. But then, where does the shortfall come from? If governments are moving forward with legislation on this, it is incumbent upon them to help with funding and, of course, to properly consult and give enough runway to understand what will happen to those regions. You don’t want to pit municipalities against each other when it comes to who’s going to pay. One of the big concerns is that when municipalities are facing budget shortfalls around transit, the level of quality of transit can reduce because they may have to take smaller routes and put them on the chopping block. All sorts of things can happen that could actually reduce the transit experience for many. My question is, with whom did you consult, and what funding are you coming to the table with that is stable for municipalities to ensure that this works as intended?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Thank you, and I’m going to call on Tamara and James to come up with the specifics on that, as we talked about. I think the overall intent is obviously to create flexibility, fairness in terms of costs and to keep people moving on a timely way. But when it comes to the specifics, I’ll turn it over to Tamara to answer your questions.

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

I’m Tamara Gilbert, the ADM of integrated planning and policy in the Ministry of Transportation. Thank you for your question. You’re absolutely right that consultation is key. You’ll note that this is enabling legislation in the sense that what you’ve described as a unified fare structure would come into place upon the passage of prescribed regulations. So you’re absolutely right that consultation is key; we have just begun that process. We’ve brought municipalities and municipal transit partners to the table, begun that engagement and begun to talk about the implications of different unified fare structures, including cost implications—

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

Sorry, just—I know there’s limited time, so I appreciate you saying that. But the legislation has been tabled now, and municipalities are seeing changes. And at this point, you’re consulting. Why not consult well in advance and be very transparent about it? Why wait until this is occurring? The question is, how long will this consultation period be? Because this could represent major, major changes to transit providers. If this legislation passes as it is, how can you expect them to make the necessary changes to make this work in the way in which you envision it?

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

Again, excellent question—there are no changes that take effect upon the passage of this legislation. Again, any changes take effect upon the integration of regulations and adoption of regulations. We have already started and we’re working very, very closely with municipalities and municipal transit agencies to understand what is a unified fare structure that drives the province’s interests and municipalities’ interests, and understanding the implications, including operational time that might be required to transition to new fare structures etc. That is all being discussed through those consultations and would be reflected in the regulations that eventually come into play.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

Are you aware that without proper funding, this might lead to privatization? And if so, what are your thoughts about privatization with regard to this? Is this something that you expect will happen? And what are your thoughts about privatization?

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

I appreciate the question. I’m here to address the legislation. Again, the legislation introduces the commitment to a unified fare structure through regulations. We are undertaking that consultation now with municipalities and municipal transit agencies that will define the ultimate fare structure and reflect those implications.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

And you are willing to come to the table if municipalities, during your consultation period, say, “Look, for us to maintain or even improve the level of standards that we have right now—in term of transit routes, access, all of it—you are willing to come to the table with additional funding, yes?” And how much? Have you, at this point, thought about it in terms of a number? How much funding would be required to make this work?

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

What I’ve said and am happy to build on is that we have already come to the table with municipalities, municipal transit agencies, and put very transparently on the table that we want to hear about all of that. That will reflect, again, what is ultimately implemented through the unified fare structure.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Sixty seconds.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

So what you’re saying is that, ultimately, you’re going to be waiting for regulations to implement anything. You’re setting up the rules for yourself, but if municipalities come and say, “Look, we can’t make this work without this level of funding,” and you are not willing or committed to be able to provide it, what do you do in that instance?

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

That is exactly the frame of the consultations that we’re having with municipalities. We are discussing funding in addition to all the important elements that go into a unified fare structure. That is what is intended to be addressed and discussed through the consultation.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Thank you very much. We’ll now move over to the third party. MPP Hazell.

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

Minister, thank you for your presentation. It’s always good to see you up close and personal. I think your staff had better keep sitting there and not go back to her seat. My questions are all going to be on schedule 4, Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026. Minister, this gives you very broad power over the municipal transit services to regulate fares with the stated goal of expanding the One Fare program. I get the strategy, I love fare transportation integration, and I understand that the One Fare program can make transit more affordable and easier to use, so that is common sense—that is really common sense. What I do not understand is how you came up with this integrated program. It’s not detailed in the bill, and I don’t think it’s going to be fair. I don’t think you’ve done your homework enough to come up with this legislation and put it into your Bill 98. I’ll give you an example. The Toronto Transit Commission accounted for more than 54.3% of all transit riders in Ontario, delivering over 321 million rides. Meanwhile, Durham Region Transit recorded just 7.4 million rides, Hamilton Street Railway served approximately 15.8 million riders, Halton region transportation reached 7.8 million rides and York region served 23 million riders, with Peel region recording over 90 million rides. This cannot be a seamless strategy for you. So, number one, how much time have you spent coming up with this strategy? And I want you to explain to me how you plan to compensate these transit agencies for revenue shortfalls because there will be a revenue shortfall. Where is this going to come from? Are transit agencies to cut services or increase ridership costs? If you can answer me those questions, I’ll greatly appreciate that.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

I’ll just maybe start quickly, if that’s all right, with a couple of things. We’re not privatizing transportation. That’s not the intent—never has been, never will be. It seems to be the common theme today. The part of the regulations that the ADM is talking about is important. You come up with a strategy, then you go out and you consult. You listen and you learn. Then, once you get your feedback, that’s when you act. So we’re not precluding anything about what these regulations are going to look like today. Again, we’re going to listen and learn. I’ll turn it over to tell exactly how we’re going to do it.

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

But can I add something else? I never mentioned the word “privatization.”

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

No, I just—sorry, I heard—

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

No, I didn’t mention the word “privatization.”

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

I know. Sorry.

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

What I want to understand is the scope of your strategy for lost revenue. How did you come up with this strategy when I just explained to you that all these transit agencies are different? We can’t bundle them together.

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

I think those are really important questions. On your first question on how much time or thinking went into the initial strategy, which, as the minister says, is reflected in the legislation to be fleshed out through the regulations, there’s significant time in understanding the success of the government’s One Fare program, and then, from the point of view of the transit user, where those best opportunities to improve the affordability and the experience of the transit user in the GTHA were. We know that over 30% of transit users currently cross boundaries on a daily basis, so what would be a meaningful improvement to the service experience for those transit users given the success of the One Fare program? The government received advice that were really three key areas where there could be continued progress: around the fare structure; around service on some priority routes; and around specialized transit. As the minister said, now the intention is to go away and with the really key partners who can help us understand how best to do that and the—

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

Can I just stop, in essence of time?

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

Of course.

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

Because for me, when you’re saying that you have to go back in for consultation, that is like working backwards. In this bill, what I do not see is clear funding and cost-sharing commitments—and you can correct me, maybe, if I didn’t see it in the bill, please—mandatory consultations and transparency, which I think should be first and at the top of the list so you can bring us with you. I want to support this because fare integration is important. In Scarborough, the minimum annual salary is below $50,000. Of course, why wouldn’t I support that? But then am I going to support it—and this experiment does not work, and then we do injustice to all the transit agencies?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

So if I could just jump in for a sec. Again, it’s not unlike the building code. You come up with an idea or official plans, “Here’s what we want to do,” and now we go back and we consult. We listen and we try to get it right. For a top-down approach—we’re not a top-down approach here; this is the bottom-up. We’re going out, we’re listening—

Official source

Mr. Sheref Sabawy

No mike.

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

—the results will speak for themselves when they come out. We’re confident that we’re going to get agreement. We’re confident that it’s going to improve fairness for the 30-plus-per cent of people who cross—

Official source

Ms. Tamara Gilbert

Cross boundaries?

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

Cross-boundary transportation—so, again—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Minister, there’s 50 seconds left. We’re just having some mike problems here.

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

Can I just ask one more question with my 50 seconds?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Yes, it’s okay. We’ve just paused for a sec, because we’re having mike difficulties, so just hold on.

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

Am I going to get back my minutes?

Official source

Interjections.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Laurie Scott)

Okay. We don’t need to repeat. We think Hansard got it because it’s very close to the mike that’s on. Are we okay to resume, everybody?

Official source

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Tanzima Khan)

If the ADM is responding, then we can resume. If the minister is responding, we might need to—

Official source

Hon. Rob Flack

I’ll turn it over to the boss.

Official source