To my friend from Oshawa, thank you for those remarks. I wanted to follow up on something given the skepticism you expressed and others have expressed about Metrolinx’s capacity to build transit. It would seem this bill itself, as I mentioned earlier in debate, is a vote of non-confidence in Metrolinx if we’re asking municipalities to take on this risk burden.

I also note, from the Auditor General’s 2020 report on the Eglinton Crosstown, my friend, that Metrolinx was continuing to work with an agency, Crosslinx, despite the fact that Crosslinx has over 380 rejected designs. They were continuing to build in a capacity called “building at risk,” which meant they were building with designs that had not been properly approved by people required to scrutinize them.

So, my friend from Oshawa, what the heck is going on at Metrolinx?

I really do appreciate the comments by the member from Oshawa. I mean, we’re really at a tipping point here with Metrolinx. They’ve abandoned their original mandate. They are essentially leaderless. Phil Verster once told me in a briefing that, “Catherine, trains run on tracks.” I mean, that’s the level that we’re working with here. What do you think is moving forward for Metrolinx?

Fifteen years, you did that.

I’m just curious; the member opposite has sat in this House as government. And if he says it’s so easy to just go ahead and build these types of transit stations, why did they consistently let GO Transit, consistently let TTC crumble and put us into a position now where we’re trying to pick up the pieces?

Yes, and the tool benefits us and benefits the developers. But the poor person who’s buying the house or renting the house, well, they’re out of luck—and I will lose the front word on the beginning of that sentence.

That’s what this looks like to me. It sounds good. It sounds great—and I’m sure cities are excited about it, because they will get an uplift, because they will get more property taxes when, instead of being 10 storeys, it goes 30 storeys. They will be able to up their tax base over 10 or 15 years, we’ll give it—that’s not going to help the people who can’t pay their bills right now. I thought the most important thing before us was the people who can’t pay the bills and afford life right now. That’s why it makes this bill hard to support.

Schedule 1? Excellent, A+. Schedule 2? Not so good, D-.

My suggestion: Take out schedule 2. Pay for the infrastructure like we always have for GO, and it will make life affordable for everyday Ontarians who are connected by GO Transit.

GO Transit is provincial infrastructure. It should be paid for by the province, not by the guy renting the house or the woman buying a condo. That’s my point. I think that’s fair. I think you’re concerned about affordability too, and this part of the bill is going to make it—well, maybe not for your community, but for the communities around Toronto, it’s going to make it more expensive.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

It is now time for questions.

Seeing that it is close to 6 o’clock, and there being no private members’ public business, this House stands adjourned until 10:15 tomorrow, September 28, 2023.

The House adjourned at 1758.

Just to be very clear to the member opposite: DCs do exist and municipalities today continue to collect them to be able to build critical infrastructure in their municipalities. The member opposite, being in government for so long, I would assume recognizes the fact that development charges actually cannot pay for provincial infrastructure and that is not permitted.

And so, therefore, when we have so many municipalities in the greater Golden Horseshoe who are so extremely eager to provide more transit options for their constituents, are you saying that you are opposed to a new voluntary tool that they would have to pass through their council? And are you saying that you are against providing the supply of housing around transit stations?

It’s a tool, John.