This is the first time, actually, I’ve risen to speak in this Parliament. I want to thank the people of Peterborough–Kawartha for giving me the honour, again, to be their voice, as I have been for the last four years.

One of the challenges that Ontario faces is a growing population over the next 10 years. We’re expected to add more than 2.5 million people, and we have seen over the last two decades really, a lack of housing that has been built and challenges in doing it. There have been a number of changes that have been made by different governments throughout the years to try to address this. And every time a change is made, it seems that someone finds a way to weaponize one of those changes to make it possible to delay.

I’m going to talk specifically about some of the challenges in Peterborough. I’m very close to what happens in Peterborough, coming from the riding there. I don’t necessarily experience the challenges that you see in Toronto or that you see in Ottawa, and the strong-mayors legislation is specifically for these two cities to make some adjustments. But I think that if you take a look at, historically, what my community has been, my community has always been seen as a microcosm of everything that’s happening in Canada.

For more than 40 years, we were a test market for everything. When a company wanted a new product, when they were going to introduce something new, they would introduce it in Peterborough as one of the test markets, because we had that mix of individuals. We had blue-collar workers. We had manufacturing. We had knowledge base. We have a college, a university. We have a great, diverse population. We have a strong arts community—

We’re also the centre of the lacrosse universe in Peterborough as well. And, as everyone knows, I refer to it as God’s country, so how could it be bad? But I digress.

Whenever something was being introduced, it was being introduced in Peterborough, and they took a look at what our market would do and how successful something would be. I think if you take a look at what has happened in Peterborough over the last number of years, it represents what has happened all across Ontario.

In June 2018, when I was first elected, the average home price was $314,000. Last month, it was $760,000. We have a shortage of housing. In 2019, in the city of Peterborough, only five single-family home building permits were issued. The population in Peterborough proper, the city itself, has grown by almost 4,500 people in four years, yet we’ve had just a shade over 1,200 new residences added, whether that be a house, condo, apartment—only 1,200. Our vacancy rate is 1%. Rental rates have increased significantly because we don’t have the inventory. Housing prices have increased significantly because we don’t have the inventory.

Kate Kidd, the former president of the Peterborough–Kawartha area realtors—her term just ended in July—said to me about a year ago that we need an inventory of 1,400 to 1,500 houses for sale at any given time to make sure that we have enough inventory. We had less than 100 this past January. In February, we were averaging about 127 listings. Right now if you go to realtor.ca, there’s a little over 400. We’re still significantly lower than what we should have to have the proper inventory.

There are lot of pressures that have been put on my community, in particular. Yes, I am talking about Peterborough, but Peterborough is that microcosm of everything else that’s going on in Ontario. When the 407 opened all the way to Highway 115, a great addition to the transportation network, what it meant was—those individuals who were being priced out in the GTA, who could not find a home in the GTA—it was easy for them to commute from Peterborough, and we’ve had a number of people come in. There was a time when it made perfect sense to do that.

My colleague from Oakville, who was my seatmate early on in the last session, had talked about home prices in Oakville. Actually, prior to being elected, the house beside me sold to somebody from Oakville. At the time, they had sold a two-bedroom home with a 30-foot lot in Oakville for $1.2 million. They moved to Peterborough. At the time—this is prior to 2018—they bought a five-bedroom home with two bathrooms on a 65-by-130-foot lot that backed on to environmentally protected green space. I’m painting a beautiful picture of it. Who wouldn’t want to live with wildlife right behind your home in the city? They paid $418,000 for it.

So we saw an influx, when the 407 opened, of individuals who were able to sell their property in the GTA for a very large sum—and it’s gone up in the GTA—and move to Peterborough for a significantly lower price and have more home, a better lot and a higher quality of life. That raised the price in Peterborough to what it is today, $760,000 for the average home in Peterborough, whereas just over four years ago it was just a shade over $300,000—$314,000. That’s a massive jump.

Why am I focusing on that? Peterborough city council has made a number of what I would say are poor decisions around housing. I’ll go back to 2019: five single-family residential home permits issued—five, that’s it. More than 4,000 people moved into the community, 1,200 homes, apartments or condos is all that we’ve added, and the previous council used some of the tools to delay, to not make decisions.

In my old neighbourhood, just around the corner from where my house was, a developer had a piece of property. Originally he wanted to have a single level of commercial and two storeys above that of residential. He was not able to find someone to move into the commercial property because there weren’t enough people in that general vicinity to make it worthwhile for commercial activity to happen. There weren’t enough people. It wasn’t convenient enough for a professional office like a dentist, a lawyer. There weren’t enough people in the area to put in a retail outlet, a convenience store or a small grocery store, just because of the nature of where it was. But it’s not far from Trent University. It’s a walkable distance to Trent University, and there’s actually a walking trail that goes right to Trent.

That was blocked by council because the developer wanted to change it to a six-storey apartment building, and council said no because of some pushback—not because it didn’t meet the requirements of the community, not because the transportation study wasn’t effective, not because there wasn’t the demand—they were afraid they were going to offend someone and they were going to lose votes. And when you have councils that are doing those types of things, then you’re not serving the needs of your community. That developer took the city to LPAT and won, because the city chose not to send someone to the LPAT hearing to oppose it.

On Sherbrooke Street, another development: 164 homes, 164 apartments to be put in. A few city councillors lobbied to say no to it because they had some pushback from some other individuals in the area. On Lansdowne Street, two developments: The developer originally wanted 14 storeys, came down to 10, and the city came back and said, “No, six is all you could do.” They couldn’t build them then and actually make it work. The city was taken to LPAT by the developer on all of those, and the developers have won. And in each case, the city chose not to have a delegation come because they knew they were going to lose. They were doing it for political reasons, not for the right reasons.

And that’s happening in a community like Peterborough. As I said earlier on in my speech, Peterborough is the microcosm for everything that happens across Ontario. If you want to see what’s going to happen in this province, look at Peterborough, because it will be emulated or replicated in other areas. The cost of housing has gone sky high and councils have continually made decisions to block development—not because it’s the right thing to do, but because they’re concerned about gaining votes or losing votes.

What we have to do is take a look at what is in the best interest of the entire community, what’s in the best interest of the city. We have 2.5 million people coming into Ontario over the next 10 years. We set a record last year in housing starts of just over 100,000—100,000 units built last year, the most that we’ve had in more than 30 years. That will not get us to 2.5 million over 10 years. It will not get us enough bedrooms for the people who are going to be coming into this province. It won’t. And it was a record year.

The problem is we have councils who are saying no to development. “No, we don’t want a house over there.” “No, we don’t want this.” “No, we don’t want that.” And what I find interesting about it and almost hypocritical—

Wayne Gretzky.

When you want to have a subdivision put in, you go through all of the appropriate processes on it. One of the things that happens, though, is there’s opportunities for individuals, for different groups, to object in different ways. We’re streamlining all of that. Instead of it being a waterfall approach where it was, you can object on this; and then once something comes in from that, you object under this; and then once that comes in, you can object under a third—if you think of it from a project management standpoint, it’s more of a scrum or an agile approach. So we’re looking at the critical path instead.

This is a way that we can make things better for people in Ontario. This is a way that we can streamline this. By empowering the mayors in the two cities that we have, they can look at what’s in the best interests of the entire community instead of just that small group.

If you don’t like the price of rent, the problem is that we don’t have enough rentals. If you don’t like the price of a home, the problem is that we don’t have enough homes. This is something that is going to speed that process up, which lowers the cost and makes it easier for people to have home ownership.

If we speed up development, if we make it easier to build a purpose-built apartment building, it lowers the cost of the build. It lowers the cost of the rent, which means that that individual who is looking for a place to rent can move into a place that is going to be at their price point and more suitable for them.

If we obstruct—which is what has happened over the last two decades—prices rise and people get priced out of a home. We want to reverse that trend.

Thank you to the member, the Conservative member, for talking about the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. The member spent all of their time talking about building homes, yet the bill does not include anything on housing. In a riding like mine, Toronto–St. Paul’s, where we have 60% or so renters, the government can talk about owning a $750,000 home, but many in St. Paul’s can’t afford that. Many can’t even afford their rent. So I’m wondering, if this bill is really about housing, why is there no mention of ending exclusionary zoning, why is there no mention of real rent control, why is there no mention of banning above-guideline rent increases? Furthermore, why don’t you talk about what the bill is really about, and that is creating strong mayors that this province and this Premier can control?

I listened intently to the member from Peterborough, who spoke completely about housing and the housing crisis that we’re all seeing. But the bill itself, the strong-mayors bill, talks nothing about housing. It’s in the title, but as we’ve seen in previous Conservative bills, titles don’t necessarily mean what is actually the purpose. What the bill actually does is empower the mayor with a whole bunch of powers that will probably create more chaos than we’re seeing currently.

The member talked about his community. He talked about the land tribunal, how it went through the process and actually fixed the community’s needs in favour of the developers that he was talking about. Why does he not believe in the process that’s already in front of them, instead of giving mayors powers that are unnecessary?

Mr. Speaker, it’s truly an honour to rise for the first time in the Legislature to debate a bill here—and I just want to thank the people of Carleton and my constituents for voting for me to represent them once again—in the 43rd session.

I rise today in support of Bill 3, the government’s proposed Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. Our government trusts Ontarians to elect the right local leaders, and that’s why our government is introducing legislative changes that would, if passed, give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa new tools to advance provincial priorities. That includes building 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure to help build housing faster. Key municipal staff and departments help advance work on shared municipal-provincial priorities. The proposed changes would give the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa—which includes the riding of Carleton, which I represent—the flexibility to appoint their municipality’s chief administrative officer themselves, or delegate the decision, such as by asking their councils to make this decision. Mayors would also be able to hire certain department heads. This does not include the clerk, treasurer, integrity commissioner, chief of police, chief building official or the medical officer of health. The mayors would also be able to delegate this power, whether to the council or the CAO. When making any changes, the mayor and municipalities would be expected to follow existing collective agreements or contracts.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities and their councils are often supported by committees and local boards. If passed, these changes in Bill 3 would allow mayors to create new identified committees and appoint the chairs and vice-chairs of identified committees and local boards. These changes would also allow a mayor to change the makeup of a committee in order for it to best support a municipality.

Provincial priorities, such as building more housing, need to be achieved in partnership with municipalities. In my riding alone, there is a desperate need for more housing, and that is one of the top concerns that I have heard from constituents in the area. There are not enough homes being built fast enough. These proposed changes would empower mayors to direct items to council that could potentially advance a provincial priority. Our provincial priority, one that we campaigned upon and one that Ontarians entrusted us to accomplish, is to build more homes. This proposal would also empower a mayor to direct staff to develop proposals to be brought forward for council consideration.

Municipal budgets help define priorities for their communities when they deliver services and prioritize projects each year. If passed, this legislation would make a mayor responsible for proposing the municipal budget for council consideration. As part of the budget process, council would be able to make changes to the mayor’s proposed budget, which the mayor could then veto if necessary. Council could override a mayoral veto with a two-thirds majority vote. So there is still accountability within the entire process. The result at the end of the process would become the municipality’s budget for the year, with oversight and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I’m proud to support Bill 3 is that these proposed changes would give a mayor power to veto council’s passing of a bylaw if all or part of a bylaw could potentially interfere with a provincial priority. Those provincial priorities are set by the people of Ontario, the ones who voted us in with a historic super majority to get things done. They voted us in to build Ontario. That’s what we are going to do. We’re here to ensure that there is no abuse of power, and if passed, council could override a mayoral veto of bylaws related to provincial priorities with a two-thirds majority vote. The mayor would remain as a member of council for council decision-making with one vote.

There are times when a mayor’s seat may become vacant before a regular election. If passed, these changes would require a municipality to fill the mayor’s seat through a by-election. The existing rules for how by-elections are run would still apply. These new changes would mean a municipality is not required to fill the position if a mayor’s seat becomes vacant within 90 days before voting day in the year of a regular election. That’s going to save taxpayers a lot of money. If a mayor’s seat becomes vacant after March 31 in the year of a regular municipal election, the municipality would be required to appoint a mayor, who would not have these new powers. Therefore, this would not impact the flexibility that these municipalities currently have in deciding how to fill other vacant council seats—they would have the choice to appoint someone or have a by-election.

If Bill 3 is passed, the government plans on making accompanying regulations to set out our current provincial priorities. Priorities could include building up to 1.5 million new homes in 10 years to address the housing supply crisis, something that we campaigned upon, something that Ontarians expect us to do—and that’s one of the reasons we have a historic super majority here in the Legislature. It also includes the construction and maintenance of infrastructure such as transit and roads to support new and existing residential development.

The people of Ontario spoke in the last election, Mr. Speaker. They voted. They spoke their minds. That’s one of the reasons that there are so many members of government here today, that there are 10 of us on this side of the House, because there is not enough room for all of the government members on that side of the Legislature. That’s how successful Premier Ford was, and that’s the mandate the people of Ontario have given us.

Je veux parler en français un petit peu. Le gouvernement de l’Ontario propose des modifications législatives qui, si elles sont adoptées, donneront aux maires de Toronto et d’Ottawa de nouveaux outils pour faire avancer les priorités provinciales, y compris la construction de 1,5 million de domiciles sur les 10 prochaines années ainsi que la construction et l’entretien de l’infrastructure permettant de bâtir des habitations plus rapidement.

L’Ontario avance vers ces objectifs en proposant des modifications de la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités, de la Loi de 2006 sur la cité de Toronto et d’autres lois pour appuyer ses partenaires municipaux, lesquels jouent un rôle crucial dans la détermination des politiques et des processus locaux qui influencent l’offre de logements.

Le personnel et les services municipaux clés contribuent à l’avancement des travaux liés aux priorités municipales-provinciales communes. Les modifications proposées donneraient aux maires de Toronto et d’Ottawa la possibilité de nommer eux-mêmes le directeur général de leur municipalité ou de déléguer la décision, par exemple en demandant à leur conseil de la prendre. Les maires pourraient aussi engager certains responsables de services, sauf ceux dont le poste est prévu par la loi, comme le secrétaire, le trésorier, le commissaire à l’intégrité, le chef de la police, le responsable du service du bâtiment, le médecin hygiéniste, etc. Ils pourraient également déléguer ce pouvoir, notamment au conseil ou au directeur général. Lorsqu’ils feraient des changements, les maires et les municipalités seraient tenus de respecter les conventions collectives et les contrats en vigueur.

Dans l’éventualité où les modifications sont adoptées, le gouvernement prévoit prendre des règlements connexes pour énoncer les priorités provinciales actuelles. Ces priorités pourraient comprendre la construction de 1,5 million de domiciles sur 10 ans pour atténuer la crise de l’offre de logements, ainsi que la construction et l’entretien de l’infrastructure, comme les transports en commun et les routes, qui soutient les aménagements résidentiels, nouveaux et existants.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, 35% of Ontario’s projected growth to 2031 is expected to happen in Toronto and Ottawa. I know that in the Ottawa region, the majority of that growth is going to happen in my riding of Carleton. Communities like Findlay Creek, Riverside South, Stittsville, Richmond, Manotick, North Gower, Kars, Osgoode, Greely are growing exponentially, and I look forward to seeing more homes being built in my riding of Carleton. That is why addressing housing supply issues in these communities such as mine and across Ontario is absolutely critical.

This government is committed to cutting any red tape that would stand in the way of anyone in Ontario wanting to fulfill their dream of building a home. These purposed measures are intended to support efficient, local decision-making to help cut through unnecessary red tape and speed up development timelines.

Mr. Speaker, we promised to get it done for the people. We promised to put shovels and boots in the ground. This government intends on keeping its commitment to the people.

I would like to thank the member for her comments.

The member talked a lot about housing in Ottawa, and we do, in fact, have a real crisis and a shortage of affordable housing in Ottawa. It’s something that we heard a lot about at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference in Ottawa this week. Another thing that we heard at AMO was mayors saying that they weren’t consulted on this legislation, that they don’t want this legislation and that they didn’t ask for this legislation. That includes Mayor Jim Watson of Ottawa, who said he learned about this legislation from the news and that this legislation is not required to actually address the affordable housing crisis.

Mayors made it clear that their priority is addressing the health care crisis and getting our ambulances back on the road, instead of being tied up at hospitals waiting to off-load patients.

So my question to the member is: Why is this bill this government’s priority when mayors are saying, “Please fix the health care system”?

[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.

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.

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 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—

Thank you, my colleague from Eglinton–Lawrence, for your presentation on giving more powers to the mayors.

Sometimes the mayor and council can’t even make a decision on a zoning application or building application, and sometimes they have to fight with the bureaucracy and red-tapeism at city hall. This legislation will give a little bit of power to the mayor to move a little bit more projects—small developments in terms of zoning applications, building permits, not only the official plan amendment. They had to go through too much red tape.

My question to the member: How would these proposed changes affect our housing supply? We talk about supply and demand based on the market economy. How will this proposed legislation at least help to increase the supply?

I have heard about empowered mayors, but I’ve also heard about disempowered councillors and disempowered communities who will be losing substantial access to their voice at council. There’s also nothing to say that any family will be able to afford any single one of these homes, because there is nothing in the bill that addresses this.

So how does the bill, or how does your government, intend to address accessibility and affordability?

I want to congratulate the member on her re-election and for her submission and speech today.

She said, for instance, the mayor of Toronto has 500,000 votes. But councillors receive cumulatively, across the city, the same number of votes, essentially, as the mayor does. People vote for councillors and expect them to have the paramountcy on local issues, the understanding of local issues. When you’re in a city of millions, you don’t expect a response from a mayor when something goes wrong.

So what is it about this government? Why do they want to weaken local councillors in their ability to make decisions when the mayors of municipalities already have overwhelming powers to be able to get their agendas across?

Thank you to my friend the member opposite from Humber River–Black Creek. It’s an important question.

I think you said yourself that what the mayor has is stature, as the mayor, to try to influence folks, but the mayor doesn’t have a lot of powers per se.

At least in your speech, you talked about his stature being influential etc. I think that isn’t sufficient, in a big city the size of Toronto and a big city the size of Ottawa, to realize the vision the mayor has run on and which people would like to hold them accountable for. The mayor has not got the tools to be able to achieve those results for the city.

I think that people running for council—yes, they are also democratically elected to represent their area, but the mayor is the one person on city council who has to look at what is good for the entire city. I think that part is so important that we need to give the mayor more tools to realize a broader vision and to make a better city.

I’m certainly looking forward to passing this legislation and having the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa be able to avail themselves of more powers to achieve their vision to make better cities here in Ontario.

Last week, the Toronto Star columnist Martin Regg Cohn wrote in support of Bill 3. He wrote that the Premier “got it right with” our stronger mayors plan:

“A weak mayor system keeps Toronto weak..... municipal amalgamation, paired with mayoral emasculation, equals political gridlock.

“By restoring balance to the equation, Ontario can help Toronto balance its budgets, sparing us the” usual fiscal crisis on council.

I want to give the member an opportunity to comment on the article that Martin Regg Cohn wrote.

I want to thank the member for her submission today. I want to draw a parallel to what this bill would be like if this was the province. I would like all people to consider this fact: The Premier of Ontario, arguably the most powerful person in Ontario, has one vote in this chamber—a single vote, no veto power—and yet despite this, through appointments and through the power that he has over his own government, he’s able to win every single vote in this chamber. He doesn’t require these other additions to his power; he’s able to do it in all the same ways that mayors do it to win all their votes in their own municipalities. Now, super powers are being given to mayors only if they fall in line with what the Premier of this province wants, who already gets everything he wants.

Do you see any concerns, given the priorities this government has shown to give these powers to mayors who are not even asking for it?

It should have been health care, and it should have been housing for real—real issues to fix housing, real issues to ensure that those same students I just talked about are not sleeping in closets with a single bed and less than $50 a week to eat. I’m sure none of your kids are doing that. Let’s make sure other kids in this province have the opportunity too.

Interjections.

His priorities are backwards. We should be talking about health care. We should be talking about real solutions to housing. We should be talking about affordability. There are so many things that we could be talking about instead of increasing the power of a couple of mayors, which aren’t even going to cover the whole entire province. How are they going to deal with regional chairs? How are they going to deal with those unelected folks who are appointed to these positions? I guess we’re going to have to wait until we see the regulations to actually understand fully the impact that this legislation is going to have on the people of this province.

So he’s looking for more power. This is all this is about. There is nothing in here that benefits the people of this province. The only thing this bill does is benefit the Premier.

The rental market is a big enough problem. We have people who are literally piling up into rooms to be able to have a roof over their heads. We have tents that are building up and building up and building up, because people do not have affordable housing. That could have been the first measure that came before this House—making sure that we were dealing with the renovictions, that we were dealing with rent stabilization, rent control. Instead, this government has removed any protections that there were in front, and then their first course of action is to provide the strong-mayors bill, which is nothing—I’m curious, actually. I would hope that maybe with the next question that comes forward, the member could take the time to tell me that their constituents specifically asked for this bill over health care and housing.

The balance of this debate, I think, has really shown us that:

(1) Once again, this government is debating legislation that they did not discuss during the campaign, no matter how substantive or how much of an impact it could have on municipalities.

(2) This is legislation that was not made in consultation with or even asked for by those it affects.

(3) It has nothing to do within—its title doesn’t reflect the bill because, as the wonderful member stated, it really just is about giving power that’s not even asked for to mayors who already have the power to win every single vote which they ever do.

(4) What they’re doing at the city of Toronto is, they’re approving thousands of units of developments that are at or above all the targets that are listed, but they claim that’s going to enable more of it to be built as long as the mayor does what the Premier says.

Again, knowing that this is a government that’s about power and control, knowing that they want to put power in the hands of fewer people, why do they want to give more power to mayors? Is it just so that they’ll do the bidding of this Premier?