Thank you to the member for Ottawa Centre. He took his reading glasses out at the beginning and then didn’t read a single word. I always find that interesting.

Early on, the member talked about the mayor from Ottawa not being aware of this bill and finding out in the media. He also talked about the upcoming elections.

We just went through an election, so congratulations to all colleagues who have joined us here.

All of us have knocked on many doors. I didn’t hear a single word about this. It wasn’t even on the radar.

You talked about your friend Candyrose.

I just wonder, as municipal councillors and mayors are out knocking on doors, or as we politicians are out knocking on doors, what are things that we have actually heard about that we really should be here in the summertime debating and speaking about instead of this bill, which nobody called for?

Build more houses.

Thank you to the member for your comments. I’ve sat in this House for the previous four years and had the privilege of sitting with the honourable member across the way, and I’ve found that there are times where there is a very reasonable approach being taken.

As I’m looking and listening and thinking about the crisis that we’re in and hearing about all these potential options that you’ve suggested, I’m curious about how any of those are actually going to solve the crisis we currently find ourselves in—a crisis which requires us to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If you look at the CMHC reports, we’re looking at another three million homes by 2030, just to reach affordability—and I know how important it is to this member to find affordability.

My question is, why will you not support this measure as a means of achieving those goals?

We have time for a short question and short response.

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Further debate?

Thursday.

I asked this question yesterday, and I wanted to hear a perspective from the member for Ottawa Centre.

There is a group of individuals we’re not talking about—that is not being raised on the floor: our public servants. Public servants go to work with the hearts and minds of their communities, going in each and every day, making the best decisions for their community. This bill will politicize their actions. It will politicize public servants.

I’ve yet to hear from this government about the engagement that they’ve done with public servants.

To the member for Ottawa Centre, do you think it would have been very key to talk to our public servants?

Madam Speaker, it’s great to see you in the chair this morning.

I’m honoured to rise to speak on Bill 3 today.

Regardless of what you think about whether we should concentrate more power in a mayor’s office or not, this bill will not solve the housing crisis. I share the concerns of people from across the political spectrum about the disturbing trend we’ve seen of concentrating power in the Prime Minister’s office, in Premiers’ offices across the country—and now, this government is suggesting, in the mayor’s office. I believe democracy is weakened when you concentrate power in a single office, and I contend that concentrating power in the mayor’s office will not solve the housing crisis. But don’t take my word for it. Take the government’s own housing task force’s word for it. I did not agree with everything this task force put forward, but they put forward 55 recommendations to help solve the housing crisis, and not one of those recommendations was to concentrate power in the mayor’s office.

As a matter of fact, the most important solution the government’s own hand-picked task force put forward was to end exclusionary zoning, and the province has the power to do that. So if the Premier and the minister wanted to act urgently to address the housing crisis and increase supply and get rid of red tape, they would get rid of exclusionary zoning and bring in across the province as-of-right zoning to build duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. That is the fastest way to increase supply without paving over the farmland that feeds us and the wetlands that protect us.

The province also has the power to reform the Ontario Land Tribunal, which has become a huge hindrance and a huge cost to municipalities and to citizens due to the appeals process that is happening on a number of developments.

The government could, in the trend that started in the 1990s when the province got out of investing in deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing, reverse that trend and invest in housing that’s affordable for people.

They could address the rampant speculation that’s happening in the housing market by bringing in a speculation tax, something Bill Davis did back in the 1980s.

They could bring in inclusionary zoning rules.

They could bring in a province-wide, yes-in-my-backyard campaign.

The province has multiple tools to address this challenge, the housing affordability crisis, and yet the government has refused to implement those tools.

Respectfully, to the member across the aisle, it’s because nothing in this bill is actually going to deliver the solutions we need to increase housing supply. As a matter of fact, you could even have a strong mayor who would oppose housing development and support NIMBYism.

I want to quote from the government’s own hand-picked housing task force—and again, I did not agree with all 55 recommendations: “We heard from planners, municipal councillors, and developers that ‘as of right’ zoning—the ability to bypass long, drawn-out consultations and zoning bylaw amendments—is the most effective tool in the provincial tool kit. We agree.” That’s what their task force said.

I don’t understand why the government isn’t implementing the provincial tools they have that were recommended by their own task force.

One that I want to highlight a bit more—and I put forward a number of solutions. I can tell you, sometimes the government says, “The opposition only opposes.” Well, I gave you a whole list of solutions. And I would encourage you to look at your own housing task force. But one that I think is really important is that—in the 1990s, both the federal and provincial governments got out of housing. They stopped investing in housing. Most of the deeply affordable housing built in this country was built in the 1970s and 1980s.

I would encourage both the federal and provincial governments to get back to investing in deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing so that we build housing that low-income people can actually afford to live in.

I’ll say to my friend from Carleton, I’m not only relying on the current mayor. I think it’s significant because that’s the current office-holder. There is not one enthusiastic supporter of this bill running for the office of mayor in our city right now—some have said they might want to use it. Wouldn’t that give the member pause to think this isn’t going to work?

What would a strong mayor actually do? If I was the mayor of the city of Ottawa right now and I looked at how I’m spending money—and we’re spending $25 million on police-related calls for homelessness, and $17 million on affordable housing. What would a strong mayor do?

We would build more housing through non-market housing—repurposing federal office buildings that are currently vacant because people aren’t working in them, and creating housing out of them.

That’s the kind of mayor we need. That’s the kind of leadership we need.

Folks in Ottawa are ready to work with you.

One needs to have mapped out the next steps of how we make affordable housing happen in Ottawa, how we help small businesses, how we help people who are suffering in the mental health crisis, how we fix our hospitals and schools.

One needs a plan, and hope is not a plan. Railroading is not a plan.

Point of order.

Lack of supply.

I appreciate the member opposite—and, yes, we are virtually neighbours.

I’m going to take some time to give an example in Kitchener—not your Kitchener riding, but another Kitchener riding.

I want to begin by saying that there is nothing in this bill that says more housing will be built. That is why using planning tools like as-of-right zoning is so important. An example of that is a home I toured in Kitchener. Because they have brought in as-of-right zoning, somebody took a single-family bungalow, built two apartments out of it and a tiny home. Now there is housing for three families on the same footprint.

Those are the kinds of solutions—

I love hearing from the member for Guelph. We just about share a riding boundary—we’re separated by the Speaker, actually, for about a kilometre or two in between our ridings. I know he knows a lot about what happens in Waterloo region. He’s very in tune with what’s happening in southwestern Ontario.

We constantly see development stagnated in Waterloo region. We have developments that are 10 or 12 years on the books, and they’re often being blocked by certain members of our either local or regional councils. It is unfortunate, because these are not just monstrous single-family homes or estate lots; these are affordable houses as well.

This bill gives a mayor tools to be able to move those developments forward. Why won’t he support that?

The member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

It is a pleasure to join the debate here on Bill 3.

It’s always interesting listening to my friend from Ottawa Centre. I always find him interesting to listen to, but I don’t think we would make good roommates. There could be some discussions that would never end. However, I appreciate the fact that he holds a different viewpoint than myself from time to time. I do believe at some point there’s going to actually be an issue that we absolutely agree on; we just haven’t found it yet—well, maybe there is one, about how beautiful the Ottawa valley is. I think we’ll all agree on that one.

Speaker, I want to tell you—not tell you; you know—that from day one our government has been seized on the importance and our absolute commitment to build more housing here in the province of Ontario. I don’t think there’s anybody here who wouldn’t have heard in their campaign about the reality of the lack of housing here in Ontario and the lack of housing with the population that we have and the population that we expect to have—1.5 million homes over 10 years to service basically six million increased population. Put those numbers into perspective, and you have to ask yourself how we are going to get this done if we don’t have a number of tools in the tool box.

The opposition goes on and on and on because they haven’t got a lot to criticize the bill on, so they talk about what is not in the bill. I’ve been here long enough to know that when you bring in a piece of legislation that is not specific, they’ll go apoplectic and talk about the omnibus bill, and why you’re trying to sneak something in on this bill that some people might like, but you want the poison pill that exists on this side of the bill—so they preach incessantly against bills that cover too many topics and cover too many issues. But now, on this one, they want to talk about all the things that are not in the bill. They’re right; the bill doesn’t talk about the bold climate change action we’re doing with regard to EV vehicles in the province of Ontario, critical minerals, electric arc furnaces in our steel mills, which are going to take the equivalent of 600,000 cars off the road. Of course, that’s not in the bill. This bill is one of the tools that we’ve instituted and brought forward, as government, to follow through on that commitment to build, build, build here in Ontario.

The Premier, right upfront—“We’re going to build Ontario.” You heard that every single day during the campaign. So when they say that we didn’t campaign on this—it is 28 days, and 24 hours in a day, and presumably there has to be some time for sleeping and driving and moving. You can’t try—

You can’t cover every single thought that comes into your head, but what you do is put on the table the big picture of where you see Ontario.

Ontario’s housing situation—let’s face it—is problematic, and it’s because of NIMBYism and people like the folks in the NDP, who have stood against every single initiative that we’ve put forward, such as the More Homes, More Choice Act and the More Homes for Everyone Act. They say we need to build housing, but when some group or some special interest they want to represent says, “We don’t want that housing there,” well, then they’re coming to the Legislature telling us what a terrible idea it is to approve that. “It’s a terrible idea to build that. You can’t do that there, and you can’t do it now.”

The NDP is like a braid in the hair—they’re twisting themselves and twisting themselves—or a pretzel, but only a half-baked pretzel, because they’re not really sure where they are on the issue of housing.

They say, “Build, build, build. We need affordable housing.”

Do you know what drives up the price of anything?

They talk about how nobody can afford a home, and they’re not entirely wrong. It’s pretty scary.

We have four children. One of our daughters just bought a home—they live up in the Northwest Territories. They paid—I have to be careful here—way more than 10 times what my wife and I paid for our first home. In fact, the last truck I bought cost me twice as much as our first home—maybe not quite, but close. So we know that those prices are terribly high, and that’s in the Northwest Territories. Just think about what they are here in Ontario.

So the average person is struggling to be able to afford to buy a home or build a home.

But if there’s more supply of built homes, then there’s more supply of homes.

The NDP keeps talking about what’s not in the bill. We put together the entire suite of bills, the entire package of bills aimed at increasing housing supply, and that’s what you’ve got to look at. And we’re not done, because we are absolutely committed to taking the necessary steps to increase the housing supply. If we increase the housing supply, it’s going to mean more homes for you, and more homes for you, and more homes for you, and more homes for everyone. Well, look at that. My goodness gracious, it’s right in one of our bills—More Homes for Everyone Act. So, yes, there are homes that gazillionaires are going to be buying. We understand that. It won’t be me. But we’re going to make sure that there are homes for everyone, and that’s why we want to remove the barriers to building homes.

I know my friends in the opposition feel trapped, for example, about their opposition to the Bradford Bypass and the 413. They know the people need it. They know the people want it. But they feel their constituencies don’t want it, so they’re going to argue against it. They have to argue against some of things that we propose, because otherwise they’d be admitting they were wrong all along, which is not a bad thing; sometimes you just have to do it. And they’ve been wrong on housing, because they have tried to stand in the way of what we’ve been doing.

In Bill 3, essentially what we’re trying to do, as the minister said—and I have to shout out to my friend Minister Clark. Talk about somebody who is laser-focused on getting the job done—he has taken a great deal of criticism over four years because of that laser focus, but he has withstood the salvos of the opposition and those opponents out there because he understands what the problem is. The first thing you’ve got to do if you’re going to fix something is, you’ve got to know what the problem is. Well, Mr. Clark knows what the problem is, and he’s staying focused on it, because Ontario needs him to be focused. So when the opposition criticizes him, one of the tools—how many times, even characterizing him in ways that are not even kind, on the issue of MZOs, ministerial zoning orders. But he has made it clear that we have a goal: 1.5 million homes within 10 years.

We need our municipalities to be partners with us, and that’s where the strong-mayors act really comes in. Oh, yes, there are mayors and former mayors—let’s talk about the reality of politics, folks. Someone who is not going to be mayor after October but was never a mayor under the strong-mayors legislation—what do you think they’re going to say? “No, it’s a bad idea. I wasn’t a strong mayor. I don’t want him to be a strong mayor. No strong mayor for me.”

And then you get mayors in the past who actually wanted to be a strong mayor, like Mayor David Miller from Toronto.

Dalton McGuinty, I say to my friends in the Liberal Party, actually proposed bringing in strong-mayor legislation, because he believed that a city like Toronto—at that time it was the City of Toronto Act he wanted to make changes to—absolutely needed a strong mayor.

And to his credit, even though he is running for re-election, John Tory has been lukewarm, but he has at least said that this is not a bad idea; there is merit to the strong mayor.

My friend from Niagara Falls is talking about the regional mayors over there. Of course, they’re running for re-election. They don’t want this to be an issue in the election, so they want to neutralize it. “Let’s just go back to what it was before, and we’ll run on whether or not the garbage is being picked up on time or something like that.” Great.

But let’s understand the reality of politics and how it gets played, not just in here, but everywhere. Particularly now, with the municipal election cycle in full swing, everybody is making sure that they do what they think is going to benefit them the most in the upcoming campaign.

Speaker, I really want to talk about what is in the bill. Of course, these folks on the other side are—quite frankly, I don’t know if I can say it, but they’re inventing voodoo circumstances or bogeymen or something that are in the bill or that the bill is going to lead to, which don’t exist. They’re creating this idea that the mayor is going to be some kind of a dictator, that council is going to be rendered irrelevant, but it’s not so. The mayor will be a strong mayor, and he or she will have limited new powers to get through the gridlock at city hall.

We’re building 413 and the Bradford Bypass, and I know, deep down, a lot of you support it; I really believe you do. We’re going to do that to tackle gridlock, which is taking days, weeks, months of people’s lives, if you travel long enough in those areas. We’re going to save you two hours—56 minutes twice a day. It’s almost two hours a day. I’d like to find somebody to tell me in this world we live in today—being polite, you say it moves too fast; being maybe less polite, you say it’s crazy. But who wouldn’t like to get two hours back to spend with their family or their loved ones, or just relaxing?

Does anybody here find it relaxing to be stuck in gridlock? Let me know.

I know that my friend from Ottawa Centre likes to read books. Maybe we could write one together on gridlock and my lost two hours today, and my lost two hours yesterday, and my lost two hours tomorrow. Some would just say I’m lost, but that’s another story entirely as well.

Who would not want to get that time back? I’d love to have it back.

We have gridlock at city hall. A strong mayor, supporting the housing priorities of this government, will be able to get through some of that gridlock that we’re experiencing at city hall which is preventing us from getting things done in a timely fashion.

The clock is ticking, folks. We don’t have the luxury of time. We don’t have the luxury of spinning our wheels and saying, “Well, we didn’t get anywhere today on that one, but maybe we’ll try again.”

As Premier Ford said in the campaign, we need to get it done, and we’re going to get it done. One of the tools in the tool box is the strong-mayors act.

What’s so problematic about the mayor being able to veto a bylaw by council? If it was only that, I might have concerns myself, but there’s a safeguard in there; there’s protection: If the other members of council don’t agree, they require only two thirds—not unanimous, two thirds. Two thirds of the members of council can reverse or nullify the veto of the mayor. I would put it to you that if something the mayor wants to do is so egregious, is so wrong—if I am a member of council, I would like to believe that I am convincing enough that I can get two thirds of my colleagues to say, as my mother-in-law would say, “Not so fast.” Then the mayor has the opportunity to revise his or her position, the bylaw itself might go through some iterations where some changes get made, but council would still function as the body it was designed to be. That is what gets you through gridlock.

What we’ve seen at city hall is a polarization, where the two sides are opposing one another. Essentially, there’s some equality there in the numbers, and then neither wants to give an inch, because if you start to go, then all of a sudden you think you’re going to lose the battle to those other folks.

This would actually encourage people to come up with a workable solution. This would actually encourage people, because they have a strong mayor, a person who was elected a leader, to give some direction and to focus on the goal of getting housing built in the respective cities, Ottawa or Toronto.

I think the clock is malfunctioning, Speaker.

I want to refer to a column that was written by Martin Regg Cohn. Martin Regg Cohn would be widely known as the loudest supporter of Premier Ford in the history of journalism—not. But what did Martin Regg Cohn write about the strong mayor? He wrote things like, “We need a strong mayor.”

Using the reference in the city of Toronto, Mayor Tory received over 500,000 votes directly from the people of Toronto. Councillors received somewhere between a high of maybe around 25,000 and, in some cases, only about 5,000 votes. So the people got to vote directly for their choice for mayor. It’s important to have that reflected in some of the powers—and I don’t have time. Maybe I can get another 20 minutes to go through some of the other things that are in the bill that are so important.

I really believe that the folks in the opposition might take a look at this and actually change their mind and realize that if they want more housing, if the NDP are actually being straight about their desire to get more housing built in the province of Ontario, they will support the suite of bills that we have before them. The strong-mayors act is one of them.

Well, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre. We’ll have to see about that meeting with my mother-in-law. I’ll say to that meeting, not so fast. Anyway, I always appreciate his questions. I understand his passion, and I respect him for that. But at the same time, he doesn’t understand how we’re actually going to get it done. We’re going to get more housing built—more affordable housing, more housing for everyone—by eliminating the unnecessary red tape, eliminating the obstacles, the barriers that keep us from doing things in a timely fashion.

We don’t have 30 years to build 1.5 million homes. It doesn’t matter whether they’re affordable or not. If we don’t get them built, they don’t exist. We have to get them built, and we’ve got to move some things out of the way to ensure that we don’t lose sight of that goal. We can’t get caught up on NIMBYism or BANANAism or whatever. We need to make sure we get the homes built, and we’re going to get it done.

Getting things built is the key. I didn’t reference it in my speech, but I know sometimes that my friends from the NDP—when you mention the word “developers,” I see smoke coming out of their ears because they get so upset with the word. They attach the word “developers” with some kind of evil. But it’s developers who are going to build those homes.

We have to work with developers. We have to work with builders. We have to work with planners. We have to work with municipalities. We have to work with the people. Everybody has a role to play in ensuring that when we hit the 10-year mark, we actually have 1.5 million—maybe even more. If we’re going to accommodate the growth in this province, if we’re going to be able to accommodate the needed people to keep this economy rolling along like it is, keeping us the engine of Canada, we’re going to need those houses built for those folks.

This bill, like every bill that this government brings forward—its genesis is based on where we know Ontario needs to be, where Ontario needs to go, and building more homes to accommodate the people, as I began to say in the last response, to be able to support the people who are going to provide the economic activity of the future, to fill the vacant jobs. We have about 400,000 jobs today already that aren’t being filled. We have to be able to fill them, and we have to be able to build those homes so the people will have them.

I am quite comfortable that our government did what it always—we know we did. Most of the homes that are going to be built are going to be in Ottawa and Toronto. We know that—the biggest number. We reached out to the people and said, “What can we do to help remove the gridlock in these two cities?” For a start—a strong mayor. A strong mayor will help us get those homes built. That’s what we need to do.

What a treat to hear my friend from up the Ottawa River this morning. It’s nice to be accused of being a half-baked pretzel.

What I’d inspire the member to think about is—we can all hold forth in this place as much as we want about housing, but you’re missing an adjective that I’d like the member to reflect upon. We need affordable housing. And how will we have affordable housing? That’s the question. I almost want to have the member’s mother-in-law come in here and say, “Not so fast. You’re proposing a piece of legislation you haven’t talked to the people in Ottawa about.” Member, not so fast. How are you going to build affordable housing, member? That’s the question.

I always like listening to my buddy over there. But I’ll correct him on one thing: I actually have a very good rapport with developers—and not all NDP don’t talk to developers.

You made a statement around your bill with mayors. We’ve got a problem in Niagara that—I don’t believe we have anybody who supports your bill. If it was a good bill and they’re out campaigning, I would think they’d be out there saying, “Hey, we need this bill done.” I’m not getting that. They’re not calling me.

But what I do know is, Niagara Falls, which you guys know—a lot of you guys visited my riding during the campaign, because it’s so lovely down there. Mayor Jim Diodati said no to the bill. The Welland mayor said no to the bill. You said, “Well, they’re running campaigns.” I have a mayor in St. Catharines—a very talented, very young mayor. I’m actually disappointed he’s not running again. He’s not running for the position, but he was very clear, on his way out—he’s saying he doesn’t support the bill.

The mayor from Ottawa doesn’t support the bill.

My question is pretty easy, I know, for you, but some of your members might not know the answer. Can you give me a list of all the mayors who were consulted on this bill before it was brought to this House?

The member for Ottawa Centre.

I heard the speech from the opposition.

One of the things about my community of Peterborough is that it has been a test community for all of Canada for a long time, more than 50 years. We’re a microcosm of what goes on. In our city, we had a number of developments that were put forward that were blocked by council because of NIMBYism. They went to LPAT and, lo and behold, the developers were given approval. They added three and a half years to it. I’m being told by developers that it takes 12 years to get something done. We know we’ve got 1.5 million people coming in in 10 years, so we cannot have status quo.

How is this bill going to speed up that process so that it doesn’t take us 12 years to start the construction on the 1.5 million houses we must have over the next 10 years?