Last week, we took a look at Bill 5 (Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act), a piece of proposed legislation which has been broadly condemned by all manner of groups, including the legal community, which suggests it is an attack on “the rule of law.”

Following on from Bill 5, on May 12, Rob Flack, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, trotted Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, out on the floor of the legislature while proclaiming it will speed up the construction of new homes while helping to lower the cost of those homes.

Contrary to Bill 5, this one is not all bad. 

For example, standardizing the calculation of development charges (the fees municipalities charge developers, which are typically used to pay for the new infrastructure required to service the developments) across all Ontario’s municipalities is something that should have been done long ago.

Indeed, it is this lack of standardization which has allowed some municipalities to wildly increase their development charges.

According to an April 10, 2024 article published by Open Council (“Development charges in Ontario and growth pays for growth”), “Over a 20 year period between 2004 and 2024, an analysis of 27 municipalities in Ontario found that all of them increased their development charges for single detached units more than the rate of inflation in Canada (54 per cent) and increased the non-residential building construction price index (144 per cent).” In some cases, increases in excess of 800 per cent.

Now, as an aside, according to the Association of Municipalities Ontario in 2019, development charges represented in the cost of a new home actually represented five to seven per cent of that cost.

However, when all government charges — including 13 per cent HST — are totalled, the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis in its 2023 report, “An Uncomfortable Contradiction: Taxation of Ontario Housing,” calculated total charges at 31 per cent of a home’s purchase price with the feds being the largest beneficiary at a 39 per cent share of the revenues generated by the charges.

Realistically, while the calculation of municipal development charges should be standardized, they form a relatively small portion of the total government charges and are, in many cases, insufficient to cover municipal growth-related costs.

However, many of the proposed provisions in this bill present serious concerns.

Which brings us to a problematic provision (for municipalities) in Bill 17, which changes the timing of development fee payment from the date that the permit, or permits, are issued to the date on which the new building is occupied, and gives builders the option to pay the lowest development charge available at the time of payment.

This decision will not only force municipalities to pay for new infrastructure in advance of receiving funds, but also expose the lowest level of government to absorbing any financial shortfall if development fees may be reduced during the time between permitting and occupancy.

Amongst other things, the legislation also gives the Ford government the ability to pare down the list of requirements for a development application, establish which studies would be required and force municipalities to accept studies, certified by a qualified professional, presented by the developer as fulfilling the requirements notwithstanding any municipal concerns with its contents or lack thereof.

Furthermore, the Ford government is currently contemplating excluding the requirements for studies such as sun/shadow, wind, urban design, lighting and so on, which is absolutely retrogressive. 

These are all provisions that directly reduce the oversight and authority of municipalities (and the input of citizens) in local development.

Of course, that centralization of power into the hands of the provincial government, both elected and bureaucratic, has been a consistent theme since Ford was first elected as premier.

Even more objectionable is that the proposed legislation expands the authority to issue ministerial zoning orders and their conditions, which allow the province to override local zoning laws to allow development, to the discretion and opinion of the Minister of Infrastructure.

This is making ministerial zoning orders, a highly controversial tool which tramples on the authority of municipalities and provincial policy/plans alike (see “Arch-i-text: The good, the bad and the ugly of development,” Nov. 8, 2023) used by the Ford government over 107 times during its first five years in office (compared to 15 times in the 16 years of the previous administration), lean even more into favouritism of select developers.

Oh, and affordable housing? This bill says no more than five per cent can be required — Toronto currently requires 22 per cent.

Thus, on the remote chance this legislation does speed up home construction (both the More Homes Built Faster Act and Bill 109 failed to do so), the vast majority of those homes will not be “affordable” (even within Ford’s constrained definition of that term).

And that’s not all this Bill has in store for the average Ontario community and its residents … if you’re up to reading governmentese, Bill 17 can be found on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario’s website.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.