CAFES has submitted comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on proposed Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 (ERO 026-0300). The submission raises serious concerns about four sets of provisions that would remove municipal tools for protecting the health, affordability, and climate resilience of Ontario communities.
Bill 98 would strip municipalities of their authority to set green building standards, prohibit local EV-ready construction requirements, allow municipalities to remove climate planning from their Official Plans, and create a framework for provincial takeover of local transit governance by regulation.
CAFES’ submission addresses each of these in turn (see details below). Other Ontario-based environmental organizations (TAF, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence, Canada Green Building Council) similarly protested the harms that this legislation enables.
Ironically, the May 14 2026 deadline for submission of public comments to the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) was precisely the day that the bill passed third reading and vote in the Ontario legislature. This means that it was structurally impossible for the Ministry to review, analyze, and integrate our public feedback submitted that day. CAFES members that contributed to our submission can console ourselves that the future is long, and that it is still a useful exercise to point out the policy mistakes, consequences and contradictions in this omnibus legislation.
Green building standards
The submission notes striking parallels between Bill 98 and legislation passed in U.S. states that preempted local building decarbonization policy, which peer-reviewed research in the journal Nature has linked to natural gas industry lobbying. There is no robust, quantitative evidence that removing municipal green building standards accelerates housing construction. According to the Canadian Home Builders Association, net-zero energy homes are now cost-neutral at the point of construction in many cases — meaning the quality-versus-speed trade-off that Bill 98 is premised on is a false one.
Buildings built to higher standards are healthier, generate lower utility bills, and are more resilient during power outages. A building constructed today will likely still be standing in 2100. Every new home built only to a code minimum is a future retrofit obligation and a future contribution to the emissions gap Ontario is already failing to close.
EV-ready construction
The provincial government previously removed EV-charging readiness from the Building Code. Some municipalities stepped in to fill that gap. Bill 98 would prevent them from continuing to do so. This matters particularly for residents of apartments and condos: for many, the main barrier to owning an electric vehicle is access to convenient charging where they park. Installing that infrastructure at the time of construction is far less expensive than retrofitting it later. EV ownership saves typical drivers upwards of $20,000 over ten years in fuel and maintenance; denying multifamily residents access to home charging means denying them access to those savings.
The submission also cites University of Toronto research showing that gasoline-powered traffic emissions travel more than 280 metres from major highways, exposing many residents to pollutants linked to cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illness, including roughly one new childhood asthma case for every 1,000 new gas-powered vehicles sold.
Climate planning in Official Plans
Bill 98 repeals the requirement for Official Plans to include goals, objectives, and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ontario is already missing its 2030 climate targets — the province’s own Auditor General confirmed this in October 2025, finding the gap was wider than the government had publicly acknowledged. Removing the obligation for municipalities to plan for climate in their Official Plans makes a bad situation worse, eliminating one of the few levers available to close the emissions gap that exists at the provincial level.
Transit governance
Bill 98 creates a framework through which the province can, by regulation, establish fare structures, prescribe geographic zones, and apportion fare revenue for municipal transit systems. Although Ottawa is not automatically captured by the legislation as introduced, the Act expressly allows additional areas to be added by regulation — meaning provincial control over OC Transpo could be extended without returning to the legislature. CAFES’ submission argues that transit is a core municipal service that shapes access to employment, education, health care, and civic life, and that decisions about routes, fares, and service design should remain accountable to locally elected representatives. At minimum, any regulation that would bring Ottawa transit under provincial control should be subject to public notice, a formal consultation period, and a genuine opportunity for the City and residents to be heard.
CAFES’ call to the Legislative Assembly
The submission concludes that the provisions of Bill 98 do not represent balanced trade-offs in the public interest. The costs will fall on families who move into homes built to a lesser standard, on renters and condo owners denied access to clean transportation, and on communities that will face worsening climate impacts. CAFES urges members of all parties to support amendments that address these concerns.
You can download the full submission, including a detailed appendix, below.
You can also find articles and submissions on Bill 98 written by other organizations: