Wow. That is really all I have to say on that.

Thank you so much for voting against bills that would reduce the cost of building things in Ontario.

We are cutting the development charges for not-for-profit housing. Is that not what your question was about? Then you asked, how are we doing that? We’re cutting the development charge in the GTA. In some portions of the GTA, it’s $167,000 for a development charge. Not-for-profits will not have to pay that. That is a significant reduction in the cost per unit—$167,000. What is that in terms of mortgage payments right now, with the interest rates that we have? That is hundreds of dollars per month—close to $500 per month—that is not going to have to be paid for not-for-profit housing builds. That helps.

There is more to the province of Ontario than the city of Toronto, and if you come to any riding outside of the 25 that are in Toronto, they would say that they should also get the same level of respect and that they should get the same benefits as what the Toronto members of the NDP are trying to advocate for Toronto.

In my riding, I know that people are happy about the idea of housing being built; I know that people are happy about the idea of jobs being brought back to the province.

I could go across any single riding of the PC government members, and they would all say the same thing: Ontario is on the right track, because we’re attracting businesses.

VW would not be here if it was not for the work of this government, the leadership of Premier Ford and the leadership of Vic Fedeli—sorry, the member from Nipissing, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade—

The member from University–Rosedale made comments in the speech about not needing extra lands that we could do infill on. In Peterborough, in 2019, five single-family home building permits were issued. Six multi-unit buildings were put forward, and the NIMBYism blocked it. In fact, they’ve gone to the LTB. Three of those have already been heard and have been found to be in favour of the developer. The city didn’t actually send anyone to defend their position.

The argument that’s being put forward by the NDP is that there is enough land already for infill, that we don’t have to have any other land. Yet the example in my community is that there has been no development done, and the population has grown by more than 4,000 in the last four years. We have not had enough housing for 1,000 of them to actually be put in.

Why does the member think that status quo will work, when it is demonstrated over the last two decades that we’re not able to develop enough housing for the people who are coming to Ontario? The 100,000 new starts last year are 50,000 short of what we actually need. Why does the member believe that we do not need more land, that infill will work?

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?

I withdraw.

What I find most interesting about it is, every single person who is standing up and saying, “We should not be building more houses, we should not be building more apartments, we should not be building more condos,” lives in a house, apartment or condo. Why do they not want others to have that?

We’ve got OREA who has come forward, and they’ve talked for a few years now about the dream of home ownership. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people who live in this province aspire to own their own home. I firmly believe that. And why would we not be doing things, then, that make it easier for those individuals to purchase their first home, to move from that two-bedroom home, when they have three, four or five children, to a home that suits them? Why are we not doing things so that those individuals, those seniors, who raised their family and they’re now ready to downsize, and they want to sell that four-bedroom or five-bedroom home and go to a two-bedroom condo some place, or move into a nice apartment building someplace, or move out of the city to some place like Peterborough—or God’s country—where you have an opportunity to have a beautiful one- or two-bedroom home by the lake, by the river or out in the county—why are we obstructing that?

The reality is we have a number of councils across all of Ontario that are saying things like, “It’s just this one. There’s a sentiment in the community, there’s a loud group right around this area, who don’t want it. I’m going to have to go with them because they vote for this ward.”

The entire city votes for the mayor, though. Giving the mayor in cities like Ottawa and Toronto, where we know more than a third of those 2.5 million people are going to be moving in in the next 10 years, the ability to advance homes, to advance home ownership, to make more affordable units to live in—giving them that ability is something that is good.

You want to make sure that there are checks and balances in place, though, so the mayor cannot just unilaterally do something, the mayor cannot just unilaterally declare that this is going to happen. There is that check and balance in place where council, with a two-thirds vote, would have the opportunity to veto the mayor’s veto on that. That check and balance is in place.

You can still advocate, as a councillor, for the community that you represent, that small group in the large city that you represent, but the rest of council and the mayor have the opportunity then to look at, what are the needs of the entire city?

There was an expression that was used when I was on the election trail the first time, in 2018. We’ve all heard of NIMBYism: “Not in my backyard.” There was another expression that was given to me and I absolutely love it because I think it’s so very true. It’s called the BANANA group: “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.” It seems to be that that’s what’s been happening.

What this legislation does is it gives a tool, then, for those large municipalities of Ottawa and Toronto to advance housing, to advance the provincial priority of making sure that people have an opportunity to buy a home, to rent a home, to rent an apartment, to move into a condo, to get appropriately sized living space.

When I go back to Peterborough again, and using that as the example—$314,000 to $760,000 over the course of four years because there wasn’t enough inventory. The council in Peterborough, many of them were elected on building upward, not building outward. They didn’t want to have urban sprawl. But when those projects came forward to build up, they said no to it because there was pushback on it. We see that in larger cities as well. We see that in Ottawa; we see that in Toronto.

If you don’t have the full suite, if you don’t build everything in each of the different categories that are needed, you put pressures on so many other things. Why would a developer who is going to take 12 years to develop a piece of property—why would they build something that they’re not going to get their money back on? We have to change those timelines.

Again, coming back to Peterborough, there’s a prime example. We had a subdivision that was being built. It took eight years to get the approvals to build that subdivision. They wanted to put in some townhouses in one section of the subdivision. It took an additional five years to get the approvals for that. And by the time they got those approvals, the added costs that were put on by carrying it for five more years before they could actually develop and sell increased the price. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if you can get to market in a shorter period of time, your carrying costs are lower. If we’re talking 12 years to get something shovel-ready, there are added costs that are put onto it.

The task force that Minister Clark commissioned to find out about affordable housing, one of the things that they had said was that those additional costs add 22% to the cost of housing. If your base price is $760,000, that’s $165,000 in wasted costs. You gained nothing for it, the builder gains nothing for it, the municipality gains nothing for it and the consumer gains nothing for it. Finding a way to eliminate those additional costs, those unnecessary costs, to stop the weaponization so that the BANANA group has the ability to delay, delay, delay, means it’s going to be better for the people of Ontario.

And I cannot emphasize this enough: 2.5 million people coming into Ontario over the next 10 years. We built 100,000. We had 100,000 new starts last year during COVID, which is fantastic. That will not get us to what we need over the next 10 years—and it was a banner year. It had been more than 30 years since we had done that.

We have to find ways to speed up development where people want to move. We want to make sure that it’s still safe. We want to make sure that every check and balance is put in place, but we have to find ways to accelerate it so that those who dream of home ownership have the opportunity for home ownership.