No, just a quick question, Speaker.

Next question.

Further debate?

I’d like to thank the member for his question. I agree with the member. At the end of the day, I find it very confusing that the NDP and even the Liberals find that building homes is a partisan issue. To me, building homes shouldn’t be partisan. Every Ontarian deserves to be able to afford a home and to buy a home or to afford to rent a house. Basic economics says that there’s a supply and demand issue. If there’s huge demand with not enough supply, prices go up. It’s economics 101, and I’m glad that we’re teaching that in our curriculum now because I think financial literacy is very, very important as well.

So to answer your question, the reason that we are doing this is because Ontarians deserve to have homes. We need to get through the red tape, we need to get through the administrative delays, and we need to make sure that we can get homes built quicker.

I hope that the members of the opposition support this bill and support Ontarians so that Ontarians can actually buy—

Mr. Speaker, as outlined in our government’s More Homes for Everyone plan, we’re establishing a Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team to provide advice on market housing initiatives. At the beginning of this year, our government did extensive consultations with municipalities, with experts, with stakeholders and with people across Ontario. The Premier and Minister Clark hosted the first-ever provincial municipal housing summit. The government also held a rural housing round table with smaller rural and northern municipalities. We held public consultations which received thousands of submissions from people across the province.

To answer the member’s question, we have already done the work to make sure the voices of everyone across Ontario are being heard, and that is why we’ve brought this legislation forward. It is based upon the input we have received from the people of Ontario.

I would hope that the opposition supports the voices of the people of Ontario.

That’s an excellent question.

I’d like to think that imitation is the best form of flattery. When I first read that the official opposition was also promising 1.5 million homes, after we had already announced it, it came as a bit of a surprise to me. I had to go back and read it, and I thought, “Oh, I guess they like our idea. I guess they like our plan.” And yet here they are today, opposing it. Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t make any sense to me, because at the end of the day Ontarians face the rising cost of living and a shortage of homes. We committed to helping more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs and budgets.

This problem didn’t happen overnight. This problem happened because of 15 years of neglect from the Liberal government, supported by the NDP. They ignored this problem. The people of Ontario elected us to fix this problem, and that’s what we’re doing. We’re looking at the system. We’re figuring out what works, what doesn’t, and we’re moving forward because, ultimately, we are here to support the people of Ontario.

I’m a little bit confused by this. The opposition, in their election platform, said that they wanted to build 1.5 million houses—as well as what we have said, that we want to build 1.5 million houses over the next 10 years.

In your speech, you said that we had a record number of housing starts, around 100,000 last year, and that was a record from 1987 or 1991—I can’t recall which it was. There was also a record number of apartment starts from either 1987 or 1991.

Over the next 10 years, how do we get to 1.5 million if what we have always been doing is not going to get enough for us? Should we be doing something different, and does this bill allow Ontario to do something differently than we have been doing that obviously hasn’t been working?

The birth of my sons, Aleksandar and Ilija, has been my life’s greatest joy, but it has been my life’s greatest honour to represent the people of Humber River–Black Creek. I thank the voters of my community and all those who supported me to make my re-election possible.

Speaker, the more things change, the more things sometimes stay the same. Once again, it’s just after an election. We’re debating a bill that was not discussed in the PC platform and again, contrary to the title, that has nothing to do with the title. What does this bill have to do with building more homes? It is not clear whatsoever from the actual bill itself. But what it does is strengthen mayors and give them the ability, almost unilaterally, to do whatever they want so long as it is the bidding of this provincial government, a government obsessed with control.

So today I am joined by some esteemed gentlemen from the ATU, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113. We’re joined by the president, Marvin Alfred, and board members Aleem Tharani, Matthew Chau and Brian Connolly. They know a thing or two about transit, and they’re concerned, just like we are all concerned, that one of the addictions of this government is an obsession with privatization. And so if you are giving municipalities—their mayors—all sorts of power to do whatever it is within your bidding, privatization is always that.

As such, ATU 113 has provided me a submission that it is my honour to read today, that addresses this legislation and their concerns. It reads as follows:

“The Premier is proposing to give the mayors of Ottawa and Toronto extraordinary new powers. It’s not exactly clear what problem he believes is being solved by this. We have followed city of Toronto politics for many years and we do not remember Mayor Tory ever losing a single significant vote. And here we are, in the middle of a municipal election campaign, proposing to make fundamental changes to the structure of the local government.

“These kind of changes and issues should be debated in an election, and they weren’t. If stronger mayors are important for the province, the Premier should have raised the issue in the election. If stronger mayors are important for municipal governments, should they not also campaign on the issue? If there is some kind of impasse, some important issues that just can’t be addressed through the normal process, shouldn’t someone be able to tell us what they are?

“Items at council pass overwhelmingly through consent. Mayors already have a tight grip on city staff and unwavering support from their executives and council by controlling committee appointments. The more control a mayor gets, the more public engagement in local politics will decline. Election turnout will continue to drop as people feel cut off from their political leaders. Decisions will increasingly be made behind closed doors, with no transparency or public input.

“We knew the province would propose legislation to break the TTC apart. Mayor Tory and Toronto city council were petitioned to allow public input on the city’s position, just to hear from the public through normal channels. They were refused. We know the TTC is planning to break the transit system apart and contract it out piece by piece.” That’s what they believe.

“We have asked for the decisions and the supporting decisions to be made in public, with scrutiny and debate. Local leaders are refusing to allow public debate on these important issues. A stronger mayor will only make this worse. Regardless of who occupies the job, more decisions will be made in secret, well-connected friends and lobbyists will have more power, and public institutions will continue to decline.

“Four former Toronto mayors of every political stripe recently wrote a joint statement opposing these changes. They have nothing to gain from their position. They are writing because they know how much the city has to lose. They know how effective municipalities can be when they work together transparently and in good faith with other governments.

“In the past, the province and city, along with Metrolinx and the TTC, worked together to expand transit. The relief line subway and several light rail projects were agreed to through transparent dialogue and engagement. The mayor was elected on his SmartTrack proposal to have Toronto pay to add stops to GO lines. The province went along with it. Light rail lines were slowly being extended across the city and the relief line was ready to be built. This steady progress did not end because the public or council opposed the mayor’s will. It stopped when the Premier decided he did not have to listen to anyone.

“Now, the province does not present data or evidence to the public to support these decisions. Doug Ford”—sorry, the Premier—“made it illegal for the city of Toronto to do any studies on any transit projects in which the province declared an interest. In the next few years, city streets will be ripped up and binding contracts signed with private, for-profit builders before the public gets to see the real data and design decisions. We have seen in the ongoing disaster in Ottawa with privatized light rail line that, years later and over budget, still doesn’t work. This government is bringing this to Toronto and opening the door to even more on bus service. Riders will lose services, the public will lose billions of dollars, but well-connected corporate friends will even get richer.

“Worse, the TTC privatization doesn’t just help corporations make more money; it reduces wages and opportunities for workers. The TTC has always been a way for people, especially from equity-seeking groups, to gain access to entry-level jobs, get training and then advance. The current TTC leadership’s contracting-out plan will turn every TTC job into a dead-end, low-wage job.

“These undemocratic changes to municipal government mean privatization could be rammed through even if a majority of elected councillors oppose it. John Tory was mayor through all these changes. He has seen how carefully studied and negotiated transit plans have been radically transformed in secret by this Conservative government. He has seen Toronto lose the legal right to comment on its own transit plans. Toronto has already been weakened by key decisions being moved out of public debate and into secret backrooms. This proposal will only move more decisions into secret negotiations.”

This is what they have to say—it is an honour for me to read this—and they are concerned because building homes is not prescriptive in this legislation. What does this bill actually do? The mayor of Toronto appoints chairs. If you look, there is one mayor and 25 councillors who sit there. The mayor plus the executive committee is eight. He has control over a third of council, and he has not lost a single decisive vote. But that power is not enough—and I don’t believe it was asked for. What is going to be allowed is that mayors will be allowed to appoint the heads of every single division. Again, a government obsessed with control and power will want appointments like these, or hope that they get doled out to people who will do their exact bidding. That is what the result of this is. Rather than have councils come to a decision, they want to make all those votes that go to city councillors go to nothing. Does that make any sense? Is this democratic in any way, shape or form? Consider the pressure on the CAO of the city, consider the pressure on division heads—that their job is on the line if they don’t do what the mayor, whoever it is, says that they have to do. Budgets are already created by executive committees and mayors. Now, with this proposed veto power, which will ensure the mayor wins every vote—and they’re winning them already—any amendment made to a budget can be simply turned down. How is this democratic at all?

Since, again, this debate and this bill do not specifically address building more homes, other than the title—what it really addresses is empowering mayors to do the bidding of this government, and it is all about control and their priorities.

I want to talk a little bit about their priorities and the words they use.

When it comes to the environment, they will never use the words “crisis” and “environment” together. You won’t hear that. That’s why, under their last term, they weakened the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and authorities across this province, who protect our water supplies, endangered species and many different important things. They thought that this wasn’t necessary. Certainly, what’s happening to the climate is not a crisis for them.

Health care: When Queen’s Park resumed and we heard the minister speaking, the health care crisis was referred to as a “situation”—not a “crisis,” but a “situation.” They refuse every morning—as the NDP opposition tables bills for unanimous consent to call it a crisis and work on an emergency plan, they ignore it.

Housing: That’s a crisis—

I want to thank the member for Carleton for her speech today. I listened to hers and I listened to speeches earlier today as well, and I just find that the NDP over there are tripping over one another to try to condemn and demonize all developers—“The developers are all going to hell.” But the homes that we need in this province will not be built by the three little pigs. They’re going to have to be built by people who actually build homes. So we need to work together with our municipal councils, with our municipal partners, with developers and home builders all across the province. If an opposition continues to demonize the very people—they’re talking about how we need more rental properties. They have to be built, too. And they stand in the way every time we do something to try to increase the housing supply.

I ask the member for Carleton, how can we build 1.5 million homes in this province in the next 10 years if we don’t have the co-operation of the obstreperous opposition?

I apologize to the member, but I have to interrupt him.

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will, therefore, be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader or his designate directs the debate to continue.

The Associate Minister of Transportation.

We’ll return to the member for Humber River–Black Creek to continue his remarks.

We’d like the debate to continue, Speaker.

Questions?

[Inaudible] a single vote that the mayor of Toronto has not won, not a single vote. Mayors I have read out from the city of Toronto, who represent half of the last 50 years, have spoken against it, and here you are citing the board of trade. The mayor already has the control to be able to do what it needs to do. The city of Toronto has 43% of all cranes in North America and approves, year after year, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of new housing units that they carefully consider with all parameters.

We have already demonstrated that this, other than the title, has nothing to do with housing. It is about giving more power to already powerful mayors. I have noted in the speeches made by government members that they tend not to group the words “affordable” and “housing” together. What they have said a lot of is “market housing,” and we are facing an affordable housing situation. Governments have the ability to create non-profit housing, co-operative housing—there are many solutions to this, like implementing rent control. They are not interested in any of those. Not at all. Not one.

What I’m going to say—and I’m going to say it again: This is a government obsessed with control, not just of its own members, not just of everything that happens here, obviously, in the province of Ontario or here in this House; this is a government of control that extends all the way down to municipalities. They are tabling legislation where—we already have mayors who have power through appointments and other ways. We have a mayor in the city of Toronto who has not lost a single important vote. These mayors have not asked for this legislation whatsoever.

We’ve reviewed the legislation, and it shows nothing to do with building new homes. I’ve shown that the city of Toronto builds thousands of new homes. We have 43% of all the cranes in North America here.

What exactly is this legislation about if it is not rewarding mayors who listen to your bidding?

There is no interest by this government to give any sort of power to those who dissent from them. They’re not interested in consultation. They’re interested in affirmation of everything they do. That is the interest of this government. We saw it for the last four years, and at some point it has got to stop.

Last session, we saw member after member leave this government. We had probably one of the largest groups of independents because they could not take the amount of control imposed even internally on them. And they’re now trying to control all the municipalities in Ontario. It has to stop.

The mayor of Toronto has lots of power and has won every single vote. That’s just simply the facts. Don’t take it from me; take it from the many mayors I read in my submission today.

I want to thank the member for Humber River–Black Creek for his address to the assembly today.

I was intrigued by the letter of former mayors—none of them running for mayor today. All of them, with the exception of David Crombie, would have credentials that are anything but Progressive Conservative or Conservative—but David Crombie has certainly identified himself as otherwise recently. David Miller was one of the first proponents of a strong mayor, and now, of course, every one of them would be signing on most enthusiastically to anything that was opposing Premier Doug Ford. This is their mantra: “It’s Doug Ford, so we will oppose it.”

What Doug Ford stands for is building 1.5 million homes in the province of Ontario, and by having the strong mayors, that is going to accelerate and break down some of the barriers.

I’ve got to tell you, the NDP love to take these positions—“There are other ways to build homes.” Every time there’s a protest against a development, if it’s against the developer, the local NDP member will be right there, along with those protesters against the development. They say they want to build things, too, but every time there is an opportunity to be against building, the NDP are there. That’s not how we’re going to get 1.5 million homes built—

The member from Humber River–Black Creek offered a quotation. I’d like to offer this chamber a quotation from the Toronto regional board of trade—the type of people who actually build houses, the type of people who actually build rentals. They say, “Toronto faces numerous city-wide challenges, from housing, land use, transit, transportation, budget, economic development and climate. Effective, timely solutions require a chief executive with clear authority to set an agenda, appoint senior city staff, and bring forward policy solutions to council with greater influence over outcomes....

“The board has advocated stronger powers for Toronto’s mayor for nearly two decades. Now is the time to act.”

That, Mr. Speaker, is what the Toronto regional board of trade says.

My question is as follows: While we are in a housing supply crisis, why does the member opposite oppose the Toronto regional board of trade and why does the member not believe that now is the time to act?

I want to thank the member from Humber River–Black Creek for his comments on this particular bill.

There has been a pattern that we’ve been seeing that has been rising from this government for the last—it’s continuing in this term, but it was evidently there in the last term, and that’s keeping the public out in the dark. The consultation we see where we have a lot of legislation that is going through committee is not going out to the public—we are not engaging with them. They are not being invited—sorry. They are being invited, but the windows are very limited; they’re very short. It’s very difficult for people to engage as far as this process.

This is one of the things I heard, while I was at AMO for the last three days, from some of the mayors: “Where does this come from? Why wasn’t there any engagement with us? What does it mean for me? What does it mean for the mayor of Sudbury or London or North Bay?” This is a piece of legislation that could potentially impact them.

In the member’s opinion, why wasn’t this broadly consulted with mayors across this province?

I thank the member opposite for his contributions to this debate, although I’m very disappointed by the drive-by smears that have been happening in the speech. I don’t usually expect that to hear that from this member, who is a member I respect greatly. Maybe it’s the influence of the election; I don’t know.

There are two main reasons why Tory gets his agenda through in Toronto city hall. It’s because his staff works very hard behind the scenes and, frankly, he doesn’t bring forward things he’s going to fail on because that wouldn’t be good for him as a mayor.

Municipalities are creatures of the province. We’re trying to make municipalities work better, not to control them. We’re offering the mayor new powers.

I would ask the member opposite if he doesn’t think it’s important that the person who runs and offers a vision for the city of Toronto be able to get his points across and be able to achieve the vision that he ran on, which I think in the last election some 500,000 people voted for, and not be opposed indefinitely by people who are trying to veto any progress that this city can make.

I would refer you to Chris Selley’s article where he asked the city’s progressive faction to put on their dry Pull-Ups and try to engage on the issue.

Well, I’m quite happy that you ended talking about housing. We all agree that it doesn’t matter where you live in Ontario; there are many, many people facing difficulty finding housing. One part of this would be to have more affordable housing projects going up throughout Ontario, including in my own riding.

Could you tell me, after having read Bill 3, Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, how many times do they talk about homes in the act? Do they specifically talk about affordable housing in the act, and how we will make sure that the people who actually need housing get housing through this act? I haven’t been able to find it, but you usually read those things better than I do.

Further debate?

It’s certainly my pleasure to rise on this beautiful summer day to speak on Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, as introduced by our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

As the Premier stated in his remarks this week at the AMO conference, Ontario unfortunately is in a housing crisis, full stop. I agree with the Premier, and the real answer to a housing crisis, to the problem we have, is really more supply. I think there’s a consensus on that. Ontario must build homes. We must build them faster than we have been building them. We need to do something different, and we need to keep the housing costs down when we’re doing the building so that people can afford those homes.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak plainly: Housing is an issue impacting all Ontarians, and the best way to solve it is to build. We will build Ontario, so all Ontarians have a place to call home. This was our commitment to the people of Ontario in the last election, and we’re going to get it done. With renewed vigour and an enhanced mandate, we’re using time in this chamber to put in place measures to fulfill our promise, and this government will ensure that housing gets built across the province of Ontario.

Attainable housing is important for everyone—seniors who are looking to downsize but cannot find a suitable home; a young Ontarian unable to step onto that first rung of the housing ladder; new immigrants looking for a place to start their life here; and families who cannot move up to a larger home to accommodate and raise their children. These are real people with real problems, housing problems, and they need real solutions. The homes they need will not all be the same, but we know they need more homes, and when the demand is so great, the solution has to include more supply.

Bill 3 introduces concrete measures to address these problems. The government’s housing task force made five key suggestions, and this bill focuses on two of them. The task force recommended ending exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing, often adding significantly to its cost, and depoliticizing, as well, the housing approvals process. Simply put, there is too much politics in housing. I know it’s funny for a politician to say there’s too much politics, but there is too much politics in housing, and as a result of politics, entire projects are abandoned or diminished, as often happens. It certainly happens a lot in my city, the city of Toronto.

We cannot have desperately needed housing projects being stopped due to political considerations. The needs of a local candidate for city council or a local councillor should not be prioritized over the needs of the community they are meant to serve—the seniors, those young people, those new immigrants, those growing families I just mentioned. Simply put, when councillors prioritize saving parking lots over building homes, things need to change—and that is an example that happened in my riding recently.

Our housing crisis has real costs. In my home, in Toronto, the C.D. Howe Institute has calculated that delays for housing approvals add $168,000 to the cost of every single new detached home which is built—$168,000. It wasn’t that long ago—I’m not that old, I don’t think—when that amount could have paid for the cost of an entire home, and that’s just the cost of the delay. In Toronto, the median household income is about $85,000—or at least it was in 2020. So we can all do the math. The delay means that the average family will have to save all of their income for two full years to cover the cost of the delay. Well, that’s prohibitive and requires families to save for years and years on top of that to cover the cost of the actual home. This is ridiculous. These delays cost families significant, significant money, which adds unnecessary stress to their daily lives and prevents them from being able to do what they do, to live where they want to live, and to raise their families in the way that they would like.

When young Ontarians look at the price of homes, many give up on their dreams of home ownership. Some even look to move to jurisdictions where housing is more affordable, thereby depriving Ontario of their much-needed contributions to this economy. Remember, we have 375,000 jobs looking for people to fill them. So expediting and removing the political logjam adding so much to the price premiums on housing is a good first step in getting this housing crisis under control.

As I said, this is an issue that affects all Ontarians. It is also an issue that can be exacerbated at the local level. We were elected to solve this problem, and I am happy to speak in support of solutions to these important problems. Our government, of course, trusts Ontarians to elect the right local leaders. At the end of the day, it is a local issue as well as a provincial one. Unlike the suggestions from the members opposite, we do trust Ontarians to elect the right local leaders. The province sets the standards, but municipalities, especially in our largest cities, where most of the population is, have to act.

That’s why we’re setting the bar higher for mayors and making it easier to hold them accountable based on the decisions they make. After all, as the Premier has said, mayors are “accountable for everything. But they have the same single vote as a single councillor.” So how can they achieve their agenda? They’re one vote. They can try to be persuasive, but they don’t have a lot of power to make sure that they can achieve the agenda that they ran on, and that is an agenda that the people of Ontario—the people of Toronto, in this case—would like to hold them accountable for achieving.

If passed, Bill 3 would give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa the tools they need to move forward on provincial priorities. It would give the mayors the tools they need to take action on behalf of their constituents to achieve the agenda that they ran on. People expect their leaders to take this crisis seriously. However, our current system often stymies implementation of the solutions Ontarians expect.

Ontario residents, our constituents, expect their leadership to get things done. They expect mayors to get things done. However, on this issue, without any reforms, progress has been entirely too slow. This is why our government is empowering mayors so they can do what their and our constituents expect and work on building more attainable housing.

Another tool that Bill 3 offers is that it will also allow mayors to select municipal department heads and deliver budgets. These new powers would help our municipal partners deliver on priorities the province shares with them, such as housing. Strong-mayor systems will empower municipal leaders to work more effectively with the province to reduce timelines for development, standardize processes and address local barriers to increasing the housing supply. These new powers will be especially relevant as the province works with its municipal partners to expand the footprint of our transit-oriented communities so that more people can live, work and play near the convenience of public transit. This is critical to build the kind of sustainable communities that I think we all want. This is why Toronto and Ottawa must go first. Over a third of all of the anticipated growth will happen in Toronto and Ottawa. With Toronto and Ottawa leading the way in growth, Toronto and Ottawa also need to lead the way in housing development and process reform.

Furthermore, the leadership in these cities has already shown a commitment to building sustainable communities, building transit, building amenities and, importantly, building homes. The province needs empowered partners. As the Premier likes to say, this crisis requires an all-hands-on-deck approach. That’s why it’s so heartening to know that the leadership of Toronto and Ottawa is willing to work with the province and this government to get shovels in the ground and get people into homes.

Our government is keeping costs down. It’s building 1.5 million homes over 10 years to help address the housing supply crisis. This crisis is locking generations of Ontario residents out of the housing market and locking others into housing that does not meet their current needs. Our government understands that we can only succeed in this by working with our partners. We know that empowered mayors will be better placed to collaborate with the province on housing and other initiatives that are critical to their communities. Our government trusts Ontarians to elect the right local leaders to prioritize their needs, like housing. As the population of Ontario grows, housing needs to keep up, and we need our municipal partners to help us make that happen. The government looks forward to working with our municipal partners as we tackle this crisis. People expect action on their priorities, and with this legislation, we are giving our municipal partners, the mayors, the opportunity to address the priorities.

The time for action on housing is now. It’s time to build Ontario, and the province and our municipal partners, Toronto and Ottawa, need to all work together to ensure housing is more attainable for all people.

Thank you to the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North for your question.

Obviously, our plan is to build more housing, as we’ve said—1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. Part of that will be rental housing. I think we’ve already made clear that some of our plans from earlier, our More Homes for Everyone Act and our housing supply action plan etc., have resulted in historic numbers of housing being built—the most in 30 years, both rental starts and housing starts. We believe that if we have more supply, the price of housing will come down and that there will be more available for more people. That’s why we’re looking at attainable housing. We think this is really important. It is the way that Japan, for example—Tokyo was able to address their expensive housing crisis and get prices to a more manageable level for their population.

And honestly, the other solutions that we’ve had in place over the last 30 years have not resulted in more housing for anyone, and it has become more expensive.

I do think that we have to look at history and what has happened. The policies that we’ve had over the last 30 years have resulted in housing prices going up and us not having a supply of available housing for anybody. We can see that this is what happens with those same policies in many other jurisdictions. In New York, for example, it’s the same result, but apparently—I have to agree with my friend—the opposition don’t seem to realize that. They don’t seem to like to look at the facts to find out. What I’m concerned about a lot is young people who just cannot find an affordable place to live, anywhere. We need to address this situation.

We’re giving the mayors tools. They don’t have to use them. They can choose not to use them. But they have tools. So it isn’t an assault on democracy. It’s an opportunity to make our municipal departments work better to build more housing, which people need.

As Ontarians face the rising cost of living and a shortage of homes, our government was re-elected with a strong mandate to help more Ontarians find a home that meets their needs and budget. That, of course, includes Indigenous Ontarians.

Our policies have delivered historic results in getting more housing built faster, and complement, really, our more than $4.3-billion investment over the past three years to grow and enhance community and supportive housing for vulnerable Ontarians and for Indigenous people. We’re working hard to make the housing available, in all the types of housing needed.

I was just speaking with the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services about the need for more supportive housing. It’s an important priority for a lot of people in our government.

We’re going to make sure that we build all kinds of housing for all the people who need it in Ontario.

The way that the bill helps improve supply is, it gives the mayor an opportunity to drive policy forward. Mayors—and I think Mayor Tory would agree—know that we need more housing in this city. But the mayor has one vote. He’s one vote amongst all of the city councillors, even though, if you think about it, about 500,000 people, as I indicated earlier, voted for the mayor, and only around 10,000 vote for most of the councillors—for some, as many as 30,000. We have 25 city councillors. So it’s very hard for the mayor to be able to get the agenda through. But I think it will help.

This is what I would like to say: The mayor takes the broader picture for the whole city. Who speaks for the city, when each individual councillor, of course, is speaking for their own area? I think it’s important to have that broader perspective for the city, to say, “These are the things that matter to our city. Let’s improve the city as a whole. Let’s look beyond our own little corner of the city and think broadly about what’s good for the city as a whole.”

I want to thank the member for Eglinton–Lawrence for her address today.

The opposition always talks about how we need to make it more affordable—that it’s too expensive, that people can’t afford it—yet they always support the things that lead to a $168,000 increase in the cost of building a home. It only stands to reason that some portion of that will fall to any rental property that is built in a building that is purposely built for rental—and particularly those at lower incomes. So they continue to do the things that actually add to the cost of building housing, whether it’s rental, whether it’s high-rise rental units or individual homes, and then they complain that people can’t afford to rent them.

I ask the member, when will the NDP and the Liberal opposition understand that all they continue to do is to add to the cost of a home? Be it free-standing, be it rental—it doesn’t matter what it is—them always standing in the way of trying to get the homes built only does one thing: It makes them more expensive—which is completely, again, what they claim to believe in.