I’ve got here the NDP plan—well, we’ll call it a plan—on what they would like to do to build more affordable and, I believe, non-market rental homes, to the tune of 250,000 homes in the province. Using some basic math, what it costs, roughly, to build a home right now is around $500,000. For 250,000 homes, we’re talking about—what is it? A billion and a quarter, something along those lines? I’m just wondering what taxes you would raise to be able to pay for those homes.

I hate having my back to you when I answer your question, but just for the sake of the microphone—listen, I think there has been a lot of misconception when it comes to parts of this bill and when we talk about development charges. All new builds are still subject to development charges, unless they are purpose-built rentals or they are not-for-profit. For anything else, it still applies. There is a bit of a sliding scale when it comes to some certain developments not being able to have 100% of development charges charged at the time, but they can charge up to 80%, and then there’s that 20% that gets made up after that. But just to be very clear again, purpose-built rental and not-for-profit housing are not subject to development charges. New greenfield, brownfield, infill, single-family homes that are being built out in the country, and townhomes still can be part of that development charge process.

This member spoke about the climate crisis, spoke against gridlock and carbon emissions, and talks about the fact that he wants to see more people get off the road, wants to be using transit. He mentioned two-way, all-day GO specifically. These investments will help two-way, all-day GO become a reality, and I hope he will support this budget, and I hope he will support the transit infrastructure within it.

Colleagues, I think it’s really important that we understand the context of this bill is another tool in the tool box for mayors, as of now in Toronto and Ottawa, to be able to use these tools should they be deemed necessary.

The opposition and the member from Davenport want to talk about building more homes, and that’s fine. But they have consistently voted against the measures that our government has introduced to do that.

So colleagues, let’s go back. The More Homes, More Choice Act: How did they vote? No. The More Homes for Everyone Act: How did they vote? No. And then now they’re saying, with the strong-mayors bill that we have before us, that they’re going to vote no again.

I would like to know from the member opposite why they consistently vote against bills that have actually been proven and shown to build more homes. We’ve had more purpose-built rental housing starts, we’ve had more housing starts, period, in 30 years. Why do the opposition and that member consistently vote no against—