Thank you to the member for the question. I will agree with the member that he is confused. That’s what I will agree to.

I realize that an hour is a long time to listen to a speech, but if he was listening at the part where I proposed solutions, I believe I rhymed off seven or eight things, which included inclusionary zoning, getting rid of exclusionary zoning, more social housing, more investment. There’s a long, long list of things, and we’ve talked about it ad nauseam in this place for years now.

I guess we’re confused as to why the government is not listening to us, because we propose real solutions. The folks we’ve spoken to at AMO and other cities have proposed solutions, but the government is just not coming forward with those.

The bill does nothing—it doesn’t even mention housing at all, much less affordable housing, and that’s one of the things that we’ve consistently brought up with the government. They talk about housing supply constantly, but the real problem is affordable housing for folks, especially now, when we see inflation up at 7%, 8%, and the government has actually lifted rent control, making life much more difficult for people.

The bill does nothing for housing in general and could make things even worse for people who are looking for affordable housing.

As a former councillor, I can tell you that the strongest councils are ones where the mayor and council work together, and they work to get to consensus. Where you can’t get to consensus, there is an element of democracy there that’s supported by professional staff who are hired in an independent, objective manner. That’s how good governance works—not by giving powers to one person to overturn the majority of people who were elected, and hiring their friends as CAOs and planners.

A lot of people fear that this legislation will actually make decisions less transparent and less democratic. As I just mentioned, a really good council is one where the mayor shows leadership, they communicate with their councillors, and they respect the will of the majority of their councillors and they bring them along.

I had a mayor who, if they had an idea, would call around to council between council meetings. That isn’t always the case. That process can actually help development decisions go through because, if you have a council that’s fractured, or you have a mayor who’s not respecting the will of a councillor who is representing their constituents, you don’t have that connection to the constituents and developers, and you’re not able to represent their concerns properly.

Thank you, Speaker, and congratulations for your appointment as one of the Speakers in this House.

Thank you to the member for Mississauga–Malton for your presentation. I sat in committee and heard speakers come in and speak to this bill. I want to raise the commentary raised by Susan Wiggins. She’s the executive director of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Her organization represents planners who work in a non-partisan capacity in municipalities all across Ontario, and she had some concerns. She said there is a benefit between having a separation between the mayor and the head of a planning department, and that “OPPI is concerned that allowing a mayor to hire and fire the head of a planning department may actually be to the detriment of building more housing in the province. It may create more political pressure on the mayor from factions who may not support intensification where policies direct it.”

What’s your response to the OPPI association’s concerns that this could hurt supply?