Part 6: Bill 60 is a handout to developers and corporations

Development Charge Reductions

Schedule 3 amends the Development Charges Act, 1997 to create a separate "land acquisition class" for development charges, with special rules limiting municipalities' ability to recover land costs from developers.

Development charges recover costs of infrastructure needed to serve new development—roads, water, sewers, parks, libraries, recreation centers. The principle is "growth pays for growth" rather than existing taxpayers subsidizing development that benefits developers.​

By creating separate classes for land acquisition costs and limiting recovery timeframes, Schedule 3 reduces developers' contributions to infrastructure costs. This shifts infrastructure funding burden to property taxpayers through higher property taxes—subsidizing developer profits with public money.​

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has consistently advocated that development charges should fully recover growth-related infrastructure costs. When development charges don't cover costs, municipalities face impossible choices: raise property taxes, defer infrastructure investment, or reduce service levels. All three harm existing residents to benefit developers.

Development generates profits for developers and real estate investors. Development also requires infrastructure to serve new residents. Basic fairness requires that growth pay for growth—those profiting from development should fund infrastructure it necessitates. When development charges don't fully recover costs, existing residents subsidize development industry profits through their property taxes.​

Ontario faces massive infrastructure deficits. Municipalities struggle to maintain existing infrastructure while accommodating growth. Reducing development charges while infrastructure needs grow makes the problem worse. This is corporate welfare—using public policy to shift costs from profitable corporations to ordinary taxpayers.​

Disrupting Green Building Standards 

Schedule 10 amends the Planning Act to prohibit municipalities from imposing green building standards that exceed requirements in the Ontario Building Code. Municipalities cannot require energy efficiency, renewable energy, climate-resilient design, or sustainable building practices beyond provincial code minimums.

Climate emergency requires urgent action on building emissions. Buildings account for substantial GHG emissions through heating, cooling, and electricity use. Many municipalities have declared climate emergencies and adopted green building standards requiring energy efficiency, renewable energy integration, low-carbon materials, and climate-resilient design.​

Schedule 10 prohibits these local climate actions, locking in carbon-intensive building practices for 50+ years (typical building lifespan). Municipalities with net-zero targets cannot require net-zero buildings. Cities pursuing deep emissions reductions cannot mandate the building standards necessary to achieve them.

Prohibiting municipal green building standards serves one constituency: developers who want to avoid costs of energy efficiency and sustainable design. But these "costs" represent investments that reduce operating expenses, increase building value, and avoid catastrophic climate impacts. Preventing municipalities from requiring sustainable building locks in climate-harmful practices for generations.​

Buildings constructed today will stand for 50-100 years. If we build carbon-intensive buildings now because developers don't want to pay for sustainability, we guarantee decades of emissions incompatible with climate stabilization. This provision sacrifices planetary survival for short-term developer profits—a morally indefensible trade-off.​

Everybody Hates Metrolinx except for Bill 60

Schedule 1 amends the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 to grant Metrolinx unilateral authority to determine need for municipal infrastructure access including sewage works, bridges, tunnels, life safety systems, water works, and fire hydrants. Notice periods are reduced from 30 to 15 days.

Municipalities lose control over their own infrastructure. If Metrolinx determines that transit construction requires altering sewage systems, relocating water mains, occupying bridges, or accessing life safety systems, municipalities must comply regardless of impacts on residents who depend on those systems.​​

The 15-day notice period is insufficient for municipalities to plan alternative service provision, notify affected residents, or coordinate emergency responses. Sewage disruptions, water service interruptions, bridge closures, or life safety system alterations directly affect residents' health, safety, and quality of life—but residents have no voice in Metrolinx's unilateral determinations.

Cities are already beholden to Metrolinx with projects costing billions more in tax dollars and years to complete, this is not the time to be handing them more power.