º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

Now Premier Doug Ford’s government, with backing from some developers, may be ready to turf those municipal green standards as part of its stated effort to fast-track home construction. 

A spokesperson for Ontario’s housing minister says changes under Bill 17, introduced this month, would “clarify” that municipalities don’t have the authority to “require their own unique standards that supersedes the Ontario building code.” 

“This will help standardize construction requirements and provide consistency, setting the same set of rules for everyone in Ontario, leading to faster approvals and reduced costs,” wrote Alexandra Sanita, press secretary for Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack. 

Climate advocate Keith Brooks says the move appears to target municipal green standards. It could saddle home and building owners with higher heating and cooling costs, expand Ontario’s reliance on natural gas and put cities at greater flood risk, he said. 

“It’s not only that they’re abdicating their responsibility to address climate change, but they are stopping other levels of government from doing what they can to fight climate change as well,” said Brooks, a programs director with Environmental Defence, an environmental advocacy group. 

Buildings account for more than half of Toronto’s greenhouse-gas output, in large part from natural gas heating. The 15-year-old green standard has been touted by the city as a way to make it more resilient to climate change and cut back on emissions. 

The standard requires developers, for example, to ensure their new builds can retain a certain amount of stormwater to prevent flooding during extreme rainfall and have enough tree canopy to help stave off extreme heat. It also requires buildings to meet annual emissions targets, pushing developers to consider low-carbon heating options such as heat pumps over natural gas.

New residential parking units must also be fitted for electric-vehicle charging under the standard, a requirement Ford’s government scrapped from the provincial building code shortly after it came to power. 

Yet, the municipal standards have drawn the ire of some developer industry associations who suggest it’s adding to costs during a housing crisis. The Residential Construction Council of Ontario sued º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøover the standards last year in a case still before the courts.

The group’s president welcomed the bill as signalling the end of municipal green standards in Ontario. 

“To my mind, that’s the intent of it,” said Richard Lyall, president of RESCON. 

He said the standards were a “knee-jerk reaction to climate activism” and muddied the approvals process for developers who build across municipalities with different standards. 

“This really doesn’t make any sense, and the cost is exorbitant, and the market is already unable to bear those costs,” Lyall said. 

“There’s a duplication, too. If one level of government is responsible for the building code and things green, then do you really need other levels of government jumping in and saying, well, we’re going to do this, too?”

But advocates argue cities must be provided leeway to require design standards beyond the minimum requirements set out in the provincial building code. 

Ontario’s auditor general found in 2020 that the provincial government had turned down proposed changes to the building code that could have improved energy efficiency by 20 per cent. 

Bryan Purcell, who helped design Toronto’s green standard, also says the pace of the city’s housing construction suggests the standard has not hampered it. More broadly, there’s nothing to suggest cities in Ontario with a green standard are slower to develop than those without, he said. 

The broad wording of the bill has left municipalities scrambling to figure out its possible impacts, Purcell said. 

“That’s one of the reasons cities are really scratching their heads,” said Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund, a non-profit climate agency whose board of directors is appointed by º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøcity councillors.

“Does it suddenly mean bylaws around construction noise, vibration, dust control, are suddenly in question?”

In Toronto, Mayor Olivia Chow directed staff to study the bill and report back to a meeting of the executive committee next month.

“We are currently evaluating the proposed changes to building standards, including impacts to the º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøGreen Standard, and are seeking further details from the province on these changes,” she said in a statement. 

More than a dozen other Ontario municipalities have used º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøas a model to come up with their own green standards. While Toronto, Halton Hills and Whitby are among those with mandatory standards, most are voluntary.

Whitby Mayor Elizabeth Roy said homes built to the city’s green standard helped to drive down heating and hydro costs for homeowners without slowing down development approvals. 

“We declared a climate emergency. And if we can do better, let’s move to do better,” she said. 

A spokesperson for Halton Hills said the town’s preliminary review suggests elements of its green standard would be impacted by the bill. 

Without a policy to drive developers to low-carbon heating options, natural gas providers could end up benefiting from the bill, climate advocates say. Because gas connections costs are covered by ratepayers over decades and not up front, developers have an incentive to choose gas over heat pumps, even if it can end up costing homeowners more in the long run and emit more carbon. 

Vancouver and Montreal are among the North American cities moving to ban gas for heating and water in new builds.

It would not be the first time the Ford government has intervened to the benefit of natural gas providers in Ontario. 

Last year, the government overruled Ontario’s energy regulator on a decision that would have prevented Enbridge from passing off the cost of connecting new homes to ratepayers. The Ontario Energy Board had ruled developers must shoulder the costs instead.

Enbridge’s long-term plan had failed to consider the risks of the transition away from fossil fuels, the ruling said. The transition could cause Enbridge to eventually hike rates for its remaining customers, which in turn could cause more people to leave, setting off a self-reinforcing series of escalating price hikes or “utility death spiral,” the ruling said. 

The government said it needed to be overturned because it would drive up housing costs. 

But Purcell said the government’s decision reflects a “misunderstanding of how to ensure energy affordability.”

“It’s about five times more expensive to retrofit these homes and buildings later to get them off of fossil fuels or minimize their fossil-fuel use than it is to design them that way from the get-go,” he said.

“We want efficient buildings. We want clean energy. We want healthy buildings. And all these things go together, especially when you build them in from an early design stage.”

Purcell hasn’t ruled out the possibility the government could change course. 

It happened in 2023 when Ontario walked back parts of a previous housing bill that critics said could undermine municipal green standards. In a letter to municipalities at the time, the former housing minister said it was not the government’s intention and it “recognized the important work being done by municipalities through green standards to encourage green-friendly development and is committed to supporting these efforts.” 

Steve Clark resigned later that year due to controversy over the government’s now-reversed decision to open up parts of the protected Greenbelt for development. 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 21, 2025.