Thank you to the member opposite for his contribution to the debate.

We understand that something like two million to six million people will be coming to Ontario over the next little while. The reality is, one third of Ontario’s growth over that decade is expected to come to Toronto and Ottawa. We’re really counting on the mayors to cut through red tape and to get housing built faster so that more families can realize the dream of attainable home ownership.

The Liberals and the NDP had 15 years to plan for growth and build the housing that we require—unfortunately, with the support of the NDP, they stood idly by, allowing the problem to get out of hand.

Now our government is working diligently with our large municipal partners to try to make this housing get built as quickly as possible.

Does the opposition not recognize that the province has a role to play in ensuring that we plan for growth?

Thank you to the member from Guelph. I think he got through about eight of the 55 recommendations—including the fact that the NDP, when they were in government, started building really affordable housing, and the importance of it. I know that he was limited on time in his debate.

Are there any other recommendations that you would like to share?

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.

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.

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—

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.

Our government was re-elected with a strong mandate to help more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs and their budget.

During the election, when I was knocking on doors, many of my residents were saying that their sons, their daughters, who are still living at home in their thirties, need to buy a home. They feel that it is out of reach for them.

When we look at the majority that our government received from the voters, not only in my riding but across this province, the people did vote for our plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years.

My question is, how will these changes in the strong-mayors act build off the previous success that our government has had in addressing the housing supply crisis?

Many young people in my riding are asking themselves if they will ever be able to afford a home. The high cost of housing is too far out of reach for what they can afford.

For decades, the housing supply has not kept up with the ever-increasing demand. Even for fast-growing major urban centres like Toronto, there appear to be very limited options available.

Under the leadership of this government, housing starts have started to increase, but they’re still not where they need to be.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: What is our government doing to help increase housing supply across the province?

The people of my riding are worried that housing prices will rise and affordability will worsen without an increase in housing supply to match this demand.

With threats of economic slowdown and rising interest rates, home prices have started to cool off. This could make it even more challenging for builders to bring new housing supply options online.

Speaker, what additional measures is the government taking to ensure that we build on our progress and bring more housing options online for the people of my riding and for all Ontarians?

I want to thank the member for Eglinton–Lawrence for that fantastic question.

I’m proud of what our government has been able to accomplish over the last four years, under the leadership of Premier Ford. Together, we’ve introduced the province’s first-ever housing supply action plan, which really laid the foundation for the high housing starts we’re seeing over the past year.

As the member knows, last year, we had the highest number of housing starts—over 100,000—that we’ve seen in over 30 years. But we recognize and I think we can all agree that that’s not enough in terms of meeting our goal that we promised Ontarians during the election that just passed—that we would build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years.

Together, with our all-hands-on-deck approach, we want to ensure that home ownership is in reach of more Ontarians.

As I said, this past election, we committed to introducing a housing supply action plan every year during our mandate. We’ve been clear that these plans will be based on the province’s Housing Affordability Task Force, which made recommendations around increasing density and bringing more missing middle housing online.

We also know that the availability of labour and skilled trades is critical to increasing housing supply. That’s why our Minister of Labour is investing in skilled trades and is out there every single day encouraging more Ontarians to consider being involved in the building trades.

We’re also having an ongoing conversation with the federal government. We need them to work with us to deal with this ongoing labour shortage.

Our government—and I want to stress this—is committed to our plan to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. We’re going to get it done.

I thank the honourable member for the question.

Speaker, 34 out of 35—that’s where Canada ranks when it comes to getting approvals to build more homes. The opposition might be okay with that. They were okay with it for 15 years. They let the people of this province down—we’re not. We campaigned on building 1.5 million homes so that we don’t let down the people of this province. They have continuously said no to housing. They have supported them.

We have said to every single Ontarian that we will do whatever it takes—we will use every tool and work with our municipal partners and our federal partners to make sure that we do not carry on the tradition of the previous government to let Ontarians down. We will build 1.5 million homes. We will work with every partner to make sure that happens, with or without their support.

Supplementary?

Supplementary question?

The Associate Minister of Housing.

My question is to Minister Clark.

I would first like to correct the record from yesterday. The claim that my amendments to Bill 3 were five hours late is completely false. The minister, as a seasoned veteran at Queen’s Park, should know that there is no hard deadline at committee. Please correct accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, on to my question: For a bill entitled Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, I find it unusual that the text of the bill fails to mention housing even once. The aforementioned proposed amendments I provided that focused on housing were deemed out of scope and principle at committee, yet the government continues to insist this bill is going to aid our housing crisis.

Can the minister please provide a concrete example of how this bill will be putting shovels in the ground and be specific about what types of housing will be built as a result?

My first amendment asked that the amount of new housing built within each city every year is proportionally sufficient to meet the goal of building 1.5 million new units of housing in Ontario by 2031. It also included the need for a progress report by the head of council to assess how well they have met that goal, including reasoning for why they have or have not met it and a plan for subsequent years. This amendment was deemed out of scope and principle.

Will the government be tracking and regularly reporting back about the building of new home units in these cities, in alignment with the 1.5 million homes? And if so, what system will you use?

I thank my colleague for the question.

Speaker, our government has provided more protection for tenants than any government in the past 70 years. The minister has alluded to the decision—the measures we put in throughout the pandemic, now, and even to protect tenants next year.

It’s important to talk about the fact that when we talk about housing and protection for tenants, supply is very important.

I’m really interested now to see that the opposition is finally talking about housing again.

We have continuously been there for tenants. When we were putting protections in Bill 184 through this ministry, we raised the fines to $50,000 for individuals who were breaking the law, $250,000 if it was a corporation—various measures to protect tenants.

What did the opposition do? They have continuously voted against every measure that protects tenants in this province. So while they vote against it, we will continue to be there for every single tenant in—

Thank you. The Associate Minister of Housing.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Also, pursuant to standing 36(a), the member for Beaches–East York has given notice of her dissatisfaction to the answer given to her question by the Associate Minister of Housing concerning Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. This matter will also be debated today, following private members’ private business.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1144 to 1149.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed from 1153 to 1500.

Madame Gélinas moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 19, An Act to amend the Auditor General Act / Projet de loi 19, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le vérificateur général.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

Thank you to the member. The reality is that the chief planner in the city planning department has repeatedly said that the city of Toronto is on track to meet our housing targets as prescribed by the provincial growth plan. Not only will we meet it, we will exceed it.

During my time at city council, we saw record development applications come in and record approvals. Are we on track? Absolutely. But is everybody else on track in every community where people want to live? That question has yet to be seen.

I have seen that there is an expansion of casinos. I have seen that there is, perhaps, the ability to take over city council. There is probably even some conversation, based on the bill, that perhaps you’d give up the powers from the elected mayor, that somehow you could usurp that and give it to a politically appointed mayor and the regional chairs. All of that is in the bill. What’s not in the bill is any language that speaks about housing.

What the developers are looking for, what they’re really, really looking for, is help to reduce the costs of borrowing. They’re looking for some stability in the supply chain, and they’re looking for help with the labour shortage.

Thank you. Sorry for the confusion there, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much for that really passionate and informative speech. Thank you so much to the member from Toronto Centre. It’s a real honour to serve in this House with you.

You’ve mentioned to me in conversation that in July alone, the city council of the city of Toronto passed approvals for 24,000 housing units. I want to make sure that that the number is correct. If the city is meeting all of its growth targets, if they are approving the housing that needs to be built, why is this government trying to undermine city council? Why do you believe?

By now it’s clear the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act is not a bill about housing; don’t let the title fool you. This bill is designed to give the provincial government more power in municipal affairs, not build more homes. As I came to find out through my readings of the bill, the text fails to mention housing even once. This is just unacceptable, Madam Speaker. Ontarians need affordable housing options now more than ever, and it seems that buying a home is simply becoming a pipe dream under this government’s power.

My first proposed amendment to the bill was a duty to ensure housing is built. It read: “The head of council has the duty of ensuring that the amount of new housing built within the city in each year is proportionately sufficient to meet the goal of building 1.5 million new units of housing in Ontario by 2031.” It went on to require the government to assess the number of new homes being built and provide a progress report to ensure transparency in order to reach measurable goals. As they say, that which gets measured gets done.

But my amendment was deemed out of scope. How will the government be held accountable without a system in place to track their lofty goal of building 1.5 million homes in 2031? With the way that this bill is written, the government has zero obligation to report back about how many homes are actually being built. That will let Ontarians down and continue to accelerate the housing crisis we are in. This bill will do nothing concrete to build 1.5 million homes by 2031.

I am also concerned about the types of housing we are talking about. Nowhere does this bill mention any details of this. Do we intend to build more co-op housing, affordable rental housing, laneway and garden suites, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, stacked townhomes, supportive housing, missing-middle options? Or are we just intending to build single-family detached homes, taking up a huge environmental footprint and housing one single family? We know full well—or we had better know—that the latter, single-family detached homes, will never, ever solve this housing crisis. So are we including a plethora of housing options anywhere and everywhere, and are we making them as of right?

What is this bill actually doing to address the serious problem of vacant homes? My second amendment to the bill would require the government to take inventory of vacant homes and have a duty to reduce this list by 50% every four years. This amendment was obviously deemed out of scope and principle again. We need creative solutions to this affordability crisis, and the government has a responsibility to look at all options, including how we can fill these vacant homes. There is a four-bedroom home in my neighbourhood that has been vacant for close to 30 years. We cannot have homes sit empty in a housing crisis. Why not utilize all the housing that we already have available?

The government claims this bill is meant to remove barriers in order to build more homes. Why not simply use the provincial powers we have to do this? Why do we need this strong-mayors bill? As a former Toronto city councillor, I know first-hand the effects that the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act will have on our municipal governments in Toronto and Ottawa, should the mayors choose to use the powers outlined in the text. Allowing a mayor to have the power to choose the chairs of all committees and boards is a slippery slope. These chairs should represent the needs of the city as a whole, not be appointed because they’re friends with the mayor—not to mention allowing them to veto bylaws when they so choose. This threatens municipal democracy. People vote for a city council to represent them and the needs of their riding. We need to keep this sanctity. We owe it to voters in these cities.

In Toronto, we have also seen the strong-powers idea isn’t needed to advance housing projects. Just this past June, the Toronto city council unanimously approved the result of the 2021 Open Door Affordable Rental Housing call for applications. A total of 17 affordable rental housing projects, representing approximately 920 affordable rental homes, were approved. Furthermore, in July of this year, Toronto city council approved more than 24,000 new homes, including 2,060 affordable and 2,413 purpose-built rental units, and 775 rental replacement units. Once again, this bill is not needed and is absolutely not about advancing housing projects.

When I was city councillor in Beaches–East York, I spearheaded laneway suites, a game-changing planning policy that allows people to age in place and adds to the Toronto rental stock. It was an effort to address the housing crisis. I worked tirelessly with fellow councillor Ana Bailão, city staff, local architect and planning experts, community groups, facilitators and Toronto residents. Evergreen Brick Works and Lanescape were instrumental in the creation of our plan.

Our public engagement was over the top. We reached out all across the city to engage with everyone, to hear their thoughts and to learn their ideas. We hosted walks and talks, both ward-specific community consultations and city-wide events, surveys, local canvasses—you name it, we did it. The highlight of our outreach was actually hearing from people who had never participated, ever, in a democratic forum and were now chomping at the bit to have their say in this outside-of-the-box housing idea.

By and large, residents were supportive of laneway suites, especially families eager to promote intergenerational living. City staff had many concerns and questions initially, but we looked at examples from other municipalities across Canada already successfully providing laneway housing options, and we found answers and solutions to their inquiries. We came up with a solid plan and reached out to all members of city council repeatedly to ensure they were in the loop and to garner support.

Thanks to our creative and collaborative approach, the city of Toronto’s first-ever laneway housing policy passed unanimously at city council, a rare feat indeed. Laneway suites were just phase one of the plan to offer more housing options in Toronto. Now the garden suites policy has just passed through city council too.

And I did all of this without a strong-mayors bill. It can be done, it has been done, and it can continue to be done. Housing can be built with current council configuration, and housing can be expedited with existing provincial policies. We simply have to utilize them.

Sure, this bill works for our current government, but what does the government expect to happen if a NIMBY mayor were to be elected, one who isn’t interested in advancing housing projects? Where do the shovels in the ground go then, Mr. Speaker—Madam Speaker; sorry. It’s so great to see a woman in that chair.

If this bill included my proposed amendments, we would have a way to hold any and every mayor accountable for building more homes.

The public too is confused by the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. I was in committee when the government brought many stakeholders down to Queen’s Park to discuss this bill. These stakeholders were from various building associations, municipal associations, planning associations and more. People took time out of their busy schedules to have their voices heard on a bill they thought was aimed at building homes. But why, Madam Speaker, did the government waste the time of stakeholders and government resources if housing is outside the scope of the bill?

We’re in a housing crisis in this province. There are simply not enough homes for those who need housing and want to live here, especially in the biggest and busiest cities, Toronto and Ottawa. The Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act fails to address the actual housing problem. This was made clear when my amendments were deemed out of scope and principle by the committee on heritage, infrastructure and cultural policy. They claimed housing was out of scope for this bill after using the time of stakeholder and government resources to create the illusion they want to build more homes. That is not their intention. This bill is meant for the provincial government to have a strong hold on municipal affairs, and it affects our democracy. I oppose this bill. I will be voting against it.

Madam Speaker, I urge the government to put forth a housing bill with real, tangible goals that will actually aid the housing crisis in this province and truly get shovels in the ground.

Thank you to the member from Beaches–East York. I was just going to ask her a similar question I’ve asked already: When you look at this bill, the title talks about housing; the bill does not. Who do you think will benefit from the passage of this bill, and who do you think could be hurt by the passage of the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act?

Thank you to my colleague for the question. Of course, if it wouldn’t be for the need of affordable housing in the province, we wouldn’t even be talking about the strong-mayor act. This is a tool that we need to get more houses built, and the municipalities are the ones that can help us do that. They’re the only other government that can help us actually get shovels in the ground and have some houses built faster in all the province of Ontario.