Thank you to my colleague from Thornhill. As we made very clear almost a year—Friday’s a year. In the election last year, we made a very clear commitment to build 1.5 million homes, and I’d also like to highlight the two other major parties in this place also committed to doing that.

We’re actually taking action on that, Speaker, which this housing supply action plan bill does in Bill 97 through our protections for tenants and homebuyers, but also, again, the proposed provincial planning statement and those aspects, even in the city of Thornhill, reducing duplication and ensuring that there’s one planning document. Right now, there are two, and that causes confusion and extra red tape for housing construction. So working with—whether that’s mixed use, whether that’s condos, whether that’s semi-detached housing, ensuring those houses get built in all communities across Ontario.

Thank you to my great colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga for his question. Yes, I’m happy to talk about Bill 97. Obviously, we have a lot of renters in our riding, so it’s protecting the renters there as well in rural Ontario but also, as I alluded to in my remarks—the proposed PPS—giving the flexibility. As the member from Kitchener–Conestoga knows, what works in downtown Toronto—no offence to my colleagues in downtown Toronto—will not work in Elmira or Milverton or Listowel, in our respective areas. Giving those municipalities the flexibility to decide settlement areas and settlement boundaries, again—and reducing duplication, Speaker, because what I hear and I’m sure all of my colleagues in government hear from our builders and others, even from municipalities, is the amount of duplication in the planning process and the site-control planning process, for example. We’re ensuring we reduce that so we get more homes built faster in all parts of Ontario.

Thank you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and our great associate minister, as well, for their remarks this morning. I’m pleased to speak on our government’s proposed Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act and its corresponding plan.

Specifically, Speaker, I’ll be speaking on our proposed changes regarding the future of land use planning in our province. They would support our government’s initiatives to produce a single land use planning document for the province. This would be a great improvement over the current situation we have with the provincial planning statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

This layer upon layer of planning rules is inefficient, Speaker. It causes great delays, which many government colleagues have heard through a variety of stakeholders: municipalities, builders and everyone else in Ontario. It’s not helping us get more homes, which Ontarians desperately need built. That is why our government launched consultations on April 6 seeking opinions, advice and ideas on how key elements of these two sets of planning rules should be combined into one overall land use planning document for all of Ontario.

I want to emphasize that we are paying close attention to the consultations that we are hearing and we appreciate the interest of the public so far. This is crucial to our government’s efforts to get the housing built that Ontarians desperately need. That’s why we’ve made great headway in tackling Ontario’s housing crisis. But, as the minister and associate minister have said, more needs to be done. A streamlined set of land use planning rules will go a long way in helping our partners in the municipal sector and the building industry to reach approval on new housing projects in a much more rapid manner.

What I also want to emphasize is that a single set of planning rules will benefit all of Ontario, not just the greater Golden Horseshoe. When proponents of a new housing project have one set of rules to follow, no matter where they are in Ontario, that translates into a simpler, quicker and less costly housing project. But right now, that is not the case. All of Ontario is subject to a set of planning rules detailed in the provincial policy statement, often referred to as the PPS. However, in the greater Golden Horseshoe, there is an additional set of rules contained in A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The greater Toronto area, which is just one area of the greater Golden Horseshoe, is expected to grow by 2.9 million people by 2046. And I want to say that again: We need more housing to accommodate the additional 2.9 million people in the next—Speaker, this is not just a housing issue; it’s an economic problem that can affect the entire country. The greater Golden Horseshoe generates more than 25% of Canada’s gross domestic product. It is literally the economic engine of Ontario and the country. But this economic engine needs workers who in turn have a place to live.

It is crucial that we get land use planning right so that new housing can be built quickly and without unnecessary costs and delays. Compound those demands with the current situation we have in planning rules on top of planning rules which builders must navigate on their own, and it’s easy to see how delays and costs end up adding up. A streamlined set of planning rules will help us meet all of those challenges more quickly with less cost. That’s why we plan to integrate the provincial policy statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe into a new province-wide streamlined and housing-focused land use planning policy instrument. This new simplified and streamlined planning policy document would be called the provincial planning statement—still PPS, Speaker. It would give direction to all of Ontario and give specific direction tailored to the needs of Ontario’s 29 fastest-growing communities.

Our proposed new provincial planning statement would be based on five pillars.

The first pillar is generating an appropriate housing supply. For this, our new PPS would give specific direction to 29 of Ontario’s largest and fastest-growing municipalities with regard to planning for major transit station areas and greenfield lands. This will help us ensure an adequate supply of housing. Simpler and more flexible policies would apply to all other municipalities to accommodate more local conditions but would still encourage growth, Speaker. For example, our proposed policies would promote more rural housing by allowing greater flexibility in smaller communities. Smaller and rural municipalities would also engage with the private sector to provide the infrastructure needed for new housing. As well, municipalities would be encouraged to establish density targets for undeveloped land.

The second pillar, Speaker, on which our new PPS is based is making land available for new homes. This is part of our plan to build homes for Ontarians in urban and suburban areas, as well as rural parts of the province, while still maintaining strong environmental protections across Ontario. We would require municipalities to have enough land with water and sewer access ready to meet their communities’ forecasted housing needs for three years into the future. We would also require municipalities to adhere to an at least 25-year planning horizon, and we would continue to encourage municipalities to build where it makes sense, such as locating office, institutional and residential development near transit, and mix retail and commercial areas with housing, schools and other community uses to create complete communities, Speaker. At the same time, we recognize that housing needs must be balanced against other necessities. That’s why we would require that large parcels of land be preserved for agriculture and heavy industry that are best separated from residential areas to lessen the effects of noise and odours that may result from their operations.

The third pillar, Speaker, is focused on the need for infrastructure to support residential development. This means, for example, that school boards and municipalities should work together—I know, Speaker, in your role, you are very well aware of that need—and be innovative in finding new ways to integrate schools into new developments.

Infrastructure corridors are an important consideration that must be protected for hydro, transit and transportation to build the housing we need for the future and the industries that we continue to attract to our province. However, we recognize the growth demands being placed on large and fast-growing municipalities, so our proposed PPS would give special direction to them to offer some flexibility.

The fourth pillar is balancing housing with the need to protect resources. For example, we would require municipalities to designate prime agricultural areas to support our province’s productive and valuable agri-food network. We would also maintain all greenbelt protections, including policies on environmental and agricultural lands. Water resources must be protected, so municipalities would be encouraged to adopt watershed planning approaches, rather than requiring watershed plans. Similarly, aggregate resources must be protected to ensure we have the supplies we need to continue to build Ontario. If we’re to make it easier and less costly to build housing, we must protect these aggregate resources, such as the sand and gravel that goes into making cement. We must also allow access to these deposits in more cost-efficient locations and streamline the approval process needed to extract these deposits.

Lastly, but certainly not least, our proposed PPS would encourage municipalities to focus on improving air quality and consider the impacts of climate change.

I now want to speak about the legislative measures in our bill that will support our aim to create housing-focused, land use planning systems. Our proposal is to enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to require landlords to enter into agreements for projects assigned to the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator. I know we hear this a lot from the opposition members on requiring landlords to enter these agreements for these projects, and so we are putting that in this bill right now. Our goal is to help ensure that commitments made by property owners are fulfilled, and they honour those commitments. A good example is in cases where a ministerial zoning order may be contemplated.

We’re also proposing two changes to the City of Toronto Act and the Planning Act regarding site plan control. The first change would delay the date on which municipalities must begin to refund at least a portion of zoning bylaw and site plan application fees if they don’t make a decision within a specific period of time. This process was set to begin on January 1 this year, as set out in the More Homes for Everyone housing supply action plan. However, we propose to move that date to July 1 of this year to better align with municipal processes and it’s also, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing mentioned, something we heard from our municipal colleagues at AMO and ROMA around these changes in Bill 23, and so we continue to listen to our municipal partners and work with them in adjusting these timelines to ensure, really, Speaker, that we get more housing built quicker.

Our second proposed change would enable municipalities to use site plan control for residential developments of 10 units or less in specific circumstances. More Homes Built Faster, our housing supply action plan released last fall includes changes to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act to limit municipalities’ ability to use site plan control for residential developments with 10 units or less. We now propose further changes to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act that would give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the authority to make regulations to permit municipalities to use site plan control for residential developments of 10 or fewer units on a single lot in specific circumstances. If our bill is passed—and the minister did make regulations—those regulations would outline specific conditions where site plan control could be used for residential development of 10 units or less. These conditions are proposed to be circumstances where the site is near a shoreline or near a railway.

Speaker, I know the minister has mentioned—we’ve heard a lot mentioned around our proposed provincial planning statement, and it’s great to hear that feedback and those important proposals we are making to get more housing built in Ontario in all communities: rural Ontario, suburban Ontario and downtown Toronto, and we’ll continue to work with our municipal colleagues and our industry and home-building colleagues and all stakeholders to get more housing built. Our policies and proposed legislation changes are necessary if Ontario is to solve its housing supply crisis and also meet future demand for even more housing.

Speaker, before I conclude, I want to again mention our government’s proposed consultation on our proposed planning statement. That consultation began on April 6 and has been extended—again, hearing from stakeholders across Ontario, extending that consultation period by another 60 days. August 4 now, I believe, is the deadline for submissions. I encourage anyone who is watching this morning and I encouraged all those who reached out to my office to submit feedback through the Environmental Registry of Ontario, and that feedback is very well regarded and read.

The plan, as I’ve outlined in my remarks, is—and of this legislation is to support our ambitious goal to build 1.5 million homes by 2031. I know our government has an all-of-government approach to get those homes built in Ontario—again, communities across Ontario. As I mentioned in my remarks, the economic value is also something that is overlooked sometimes.

Many, many employers in my riding of Perth–Wellington are looking for workers. They’ve been looking for workers since the pandemic has subsided, whether that’s in advanced manufacturing, in our growing agribusinesses, in home construction, in skilled trades, even in health care.

But the number one need is housing. The nurses and the doctors need a place to live, as well; the accountants need a place to live—and ensuring that we have the mixed range of housing in communities across Ontario to meet those growing needs.

The Minister of Economic Development and the Premier continue to attract many, many businesses to Ontario, and I know one of the second questions they most likely get in their deliberations is, “Where are we going to find the employees?” So our government is proposing ambitious proposals to meet that and build more homes to ensure that Ontario continues to grow and continues to be a great place to live, work and raise a family, to ensure that our economy continues to grow. As I mentioned in my remarks, it is the economic engine of Canada. And ensuring that the many, many new Canadians coming to our shores are welcomed and have a place to grow and have a place to—if they choose to own a place, to rent a place, but a place to call their own and to raise their family and to contribute, as so many before them have contributed to our society and our communities across Ontario.

In conclusion, again, I encourage everyone to submit a comment through the provincial planning statement, PPS, by August 4; we’ve extended it by 60 days based on the feedback we’ve heard from stakeholders across Ontario.

Our government continues to listen to Ontarians on a variety of issues, especially our ambitious goal to build 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

Now, Speaker, it’s my pleasure to turn it over to the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, or the minister of peanut butter sandwiches, as I like to call him.

Thank you to my colleague from Beaches–East York. I will put it on the record: my favourite Liberal in the House—no offence to the Speaker. Back row, we’ve got to stick together.

My question, though, to the member from Beaches–East York: She was talking about development on main streets. Obviously, coming from rural Ontario—and I won’t ask what happened in your hometown and why you didn’t want to go back. But in the provincial policy statement proposal, it includes “all types of residential intensification, including the conversion of existing commercial and institutional buildings for residential use.” So this is like commercial use and having apartments above stores on our main streets in rural Ontario. This is important densification, as the member alluded to. So will the member support our initiatives to have this gentle densification in rural Ontario and across Ontario?

Thank you to the member from London–Fanshawe for her comments on Bill 97 and for sharing her constituent’s letter with the House.

My question, Speaker, through you to the member opposite, is: Our government has already increased, as they’re aware, the fines for violations under the RTA. Now we’re increasing them more, to the highest level, actually, in all of Canada. So my question is, will they not support us in punishing the bad landlords that she is concerned about and ensuring that we are protecting tenants and continuing to do that? Would the member opposite be willing to, hopefully, support this bill?

Thank you to the minister for his remarks. I listened intently, and I was wondering if the minister could elaborate—he’s doing great work on behalf of our Premier and our government to bring businesses back to Ontario after the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, drove businesses out of Ontario.

In Bill 97 and our proposed changes to the planning policy document is: “protecting employment lands.” I know it’s very important to do that, so I was wondering if the minister can elaborate on why our government is focusing on doing this to ensure we attract businesses going forward.

Thank you to my colleague for her comments on Bill 97. Speaker, through our consultations on the newly proposed provincial planning document, the provincial planning statement, we’re proposing to allow more residential lot creation on farms, as the member opposite alluded to. This does not mean that we’ll have widespread loss of agricultural land. I hear this often from farmers in my communities. They’ve heard the news, as well, and they’re actually supportive of these changes because it means a farmer would be able to sever a lot for his son or daughter or someone else to come on board, to help take over the farm eventually. It also means that they could create more housing for any farm workers they employ.

Does the opposition oppose this, Speaker?

I really enjoyed my colleague from Kitchener South–Hespeler’s comments.

She alluded to some of it already in her remarks, but I was wondering if she could, through you, Speaker, talk about some of—being next door to Waterloo region, I’m well aware of the growth there and the official plan that came out, and we’re protecting the countryside line. I know the mayor of Kitchener has supported this move in maintaining our farmland but also still growing. I was wondering if my colleague could talk a little bit about how this bill and our proposed provincial planning statement help continue those houses all across Ontario while maintaining our agricultural farmland.

My question is to the member from Orléans.

He was referring to non-profit, and I know on this side of the House and in the middle over there we support our non-profit sector. Habitat for Humanity does great work in building affordable rentals and houses for people in need in Ontario. Obviously, in Bill 23, we removed development charges from non-profit housing, but unfortunately, the members opposite voted against that.

My hope is that they will choose to support this bill, which freezes 74 provincial fees related to building permits and other fees to get purpose-built rentals built.

Again, for the record, we are at the highest number of purpose-built rentals in the province of Ontario—the highest number, ever, building right now.

So will the member opposite support these cost-cutting measures in our bill?

Thank you to my Liberal colleagues for their comments.

My question is to the member from Orléans. It was very interesting listening to his comments.

I’d just like to highlight they had 15 years to address housing in this province and did nothing, Speaker.

We’re listening to municipalities. That’s why we’re tabling a fourth housing supply action bill, and we’re going to table more. We were very clear with the electors in Ontario during the election that we would table a housing supply action bill every year of our four-year mandate, if we got one. Guess what? We got one. So there will be more, because we’re listening to municipalities.

He was talking about non-profit housing and rentals. I was wondering if the member from Orléans would be willing to call his friend Justin Trudeau and tell him to take an ask that they remove HST from large purpose-built rentals, as this government under Premier Ford is asking the federal government to do.

My question to the member opposite is—I’ll quote from one of his colleagues, from Toronto Centre: “We are seeing many people struggling as they’re waiting for their hearing date, and of course, while they’re waiting, that means everything is in limbo.... It benefits no one when the tribunal system doesn’t work.” As my colleagues have alluded to earlier today, we invested an additional $6.5 million in the Landlord and Tenant Board to clear the backlog and provide timely service, both for the landlords and the tenants.

So my question to the opposition is, will they not walk their talk and support this common-sense move?

Thank you to my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his remarks. As he is very well aware, Speaker, our government has proposed many pieces of legislation to protect tenants and increase fines for bad landlords.

My question is simple: Will the NDP choose, this time maybe, to vote with us and help us enhance those protections under the RTA?

I thank my honourable colleague from Whitby for his remarks.

Just reflecting on my remarks that I gave in this House a few minutes ago—I stated that Ontario would maintain all of the greenbelt protections, including the policies of our environmental and agricultural lands.

My question to the great colleague from Whitby is, how do you see this bill and our proposed changes with the provincial policy statement and A Place to Grow help construct a mix of housing in your riding, whether that’s single-detached, apartments, townhomes? How do you see this helping your constituents?

Thank you to my colleague across the way for her remarks. I appreciate listening to them. As she alluded to—she was commenting on some of the protections we’re providing tenants, and on renovictions, as they’re commonly known—we’ve taken some action already, Speaker. We increased fines for bad landlords and have taken action to prevent evictions.

I want to provide a quote, just for the record, of just one sentence: “We will stop unfair ‘renovictions’ and bad faith ‘landlord’s own use’ evictions.” Speaker, that quote is from the members opposite’s campaign platform from 2022. So my question is simple, to the member opposite: Will she support our government in strengthening the Residential Tenancies Act to prevent these renovictions and support tenants?

You’re bananas.

It’s my honour, obviously, to share my time, as we’ve already heard from the great Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the associate minister in this place. It’s an honour to speak on our government’s proposed legislation that would support a much-needed fourth housing supply action plan. Our proposals are crucial to our government’s work to get housing built that Ontarians desperately need.

Speaker, my riding of Perth–Wellington is home to over 4,000 farm operations and many predominantly rural municipalities. These communities, like others across Ontario, are feeling pressure and demand for housing that is greater than the supply currently is. Whether it’s for farm workers, rental housing for young people and new immigrants, or the missing middle, there is a need for housing in every single community in my riding. That’s why I’m pleased to be part of a government that is acting so strongly to support more homes across all areas of Ontario and delivering on our commitment to see 1.5 million new homes built by 2031.

I’m also pleased to speak on behalf of a generation of Ontarians—my generation—which has faced historic difficulties when it comes to finding a home they can actually afford. I’m proud to be part of a government that understands the difficulties that my generation and future generations will face if we do not address this housing crisis.

We’re taking historic action to tackle the housing supply crisis and build the homes Ontarians need. Our housing supply action plans have made great progress, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing alluded to earlier, but more work needs to be done. This proposed legislation and corresponding changes to the provincial policy statement would see that more is done, not only in our urban centres, but also in our rural areas.

Ce projet de loi ferait avancer les choses tant dans nos centres urbains que dans nos régions rurales.

Speaker, our province is layered with planning rules and land use plans. All of Ontario is subject to a set of planning rules called the provincial policy statement, also often referred to as PPS. Where the PPS is the sole set of land use planning rules, it’s fairly clear what rules a developer or a builder must follow to get a proposed residential project approved. However, in the greater Golden Horseshoe, there is an additional set of planning rules called A Place to Grow. If we want to get the homes built that we desperately need now, let alone in the future for the sizable population growth we’re going to see, it is critical that builders and developers have a clear and streamlined set of rules to follow in this and all areas of our province.

Ontario is projected to grow by 5.6 million people by 2046, and the greater Toronto area alone is expected to be home to 2.9 million of those people. Not only that, but the greater Golden Horseshoe generates more than 25% of Canada’s gross domestic product. So I think all members of this House will agree that, as I said, it’s critical we get land use planning right in this region and across all regions of Ontario.

There are several challenges brought on by the magnitude of growth that is forecasted.

There will be increased demand for major infrastructure investments—this includes renewing aging infrastructure and addressing infrastructure deficits associated with growth.

There will be increased traffic congestion, with resulting delays in the movement of people and goods. Already we are seeing those delays in the greater Golden Horseshoe, and they are costing billions of dollars in lost GDP every year.

The impacts of globalization are transforming the regional economy at a rapid pace. This makes long-term planning or employment more uncertain.

Speaker, people over the age of 60 are expected to represent more than a quarter of the population by 2041, especially in communities such as mine in Perth–Wellington. That means we will need more age-friendly development that can address unique needs and circumstances. This includes a more appropriate range and mix of housing options, easier access to health care and other amenities, walkable built environments, and an age-friendly approach to community design to meet the needs of all people.

But all these planning rules on top of planning rules result in massive delays in getting land use approvals and enormous costs to the builders or developers and municipalities to get these approvals through. We need to streamline Ontario’s planning rules and encourage more housing.

That’s why, on April 6, our government launched its 60-day consultation on the Environmental Registry of Ontario, seeking input on the proposed combining of the PPS and A Place to Grow into a new province-wide land use planning policy instrument. We propose to integrate these two planning instruments into one streamlined housing-focused policy, which will be called the provincial planning statement. This would increase housing supply and speed up planning approvals by simplifying existing policy and refocusing on achieving housing outcomes. Our proposed provincial planning statement would do this by giving direction for all of Ontario, as well as direction tailored to the unique needs of large, fast-growing municipalities. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing already noted, all of Ontario—not just the GTA—should be a place to grow. In our new proposed planning statement, this direction is organized across five key pillars. Those pillars are: generating an appropriate housing supply; making land available for development; providing infrastructure to support development; balancing housing with resources; and, obviously, implementation.

For the first of those pillars, generating an appropriate housing supply, our proposed new land use document would give specific direction to Ontario’s largest and fastest-growing municipalities in planning for major transit station areas and other strategic growth areas and in greenfield lands to ensure an appropriate supply of housing. However, simpler and more flexible policies would be given to all other municipalities to reflect local conditions while encouraging growth. For those large and fast-growing municipalities—we’ve identified 29 in Ontario.

Our proposed new planning policies would also enable more rural housing by allowing greater flexibility in smaller communities such as mine in Perth–Wellington. This could, for example, create more housing for on-farm workers or for farm operators’ children, if they choose to do so. It could also be done through engagement with the private sector in small and rural municipalities to provide infrastructure needed for new housing.

Our proposed policies would also require more housing near transit. This means Ontario’s 29 large and fastest-growing municipalities would need to plan for growth around transit in urban centres and other strategic growth areas such as downtowns, and for undeveloped land, as well. For transit-related growth in what are called the major transit station areas, we provide minimum density targets that municipalities have to meet in their land use planning. Those same municipalities would have the right to see maximums for density and height. As well, municipalities would be encouraged to meet provincial density targets for undeveloped land.

Our next pillar in our proposed provincial policy planning statement is more land for development. This is part of our plan to build all sorts of homes for Ontarians, in urban and suburban areas as well as rural parts our province, while still maintaining our strong environmental protections across Ontario.

Speaker, it’s essential that municipalities plan for future growth with regard to population and employment. Our proposal would therefore require municipalities to ensure that enough land with water and waste water pipe access is ready to meet their communities’ anticipated housing needs over the next three years. We would also require municipalities to adhere to a 25-year planning horizon.

Our government has said this time and time again, but it bears repeating: We will continue to encourage municipalities to build where it makes sense. That means major office and institutional developments should be near transit, and areas of retail and commercial activity that provide jobs should also permit and encourage housing, schools and other community uses to create a complete community. Municipalities would need to consider increasing density on employment lands as well as locations near transit corridors.

Of course, municipalities would need to balance housing needs against other necessities. That means large parcels of land must be preserved for agriculture and heavy industry that will require separation from residential areas and other sensitive uses. This would help mitigate the potential effects of their operation, such as noise and odours.

We also recognize that residential development cannot happen in a vacuum.

Being one of the former parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Education, I was very pleased to see that we’re encouraging school boards and municipalities to work together to encourage them to innovate and integrate schools into housing developments.

Infrastructure corridors must also be considered and protected. Communities need electricity; they need transit; they need transportation. And our government recognizes the growth demands being placed on large and fast-growing municipalities such as those in the greater Golden Horseshoe. So our proposed land use policies in our provincial planning statement would have special direction for them while giving them flexibility. However, all planning authorities would still be required to integrate storm, sewage and water into development planning so that they can minimize risks and accommodate growth.

Our province is blessed with many resources, and we need to protect them. That’s why our proposal would require municipalities to map and designate prime agricultural areas to support our province’s productive and valuable agri-food network.

I want to state that Ontario would maintain all greenbelt protections, including policies on environmental and agricultural lands.

Just as valuable, Ontario’s water resources need protection. Municipalities would be encouraged to adopt a watershed planning approach rather than requiring watershed plans.

Aggregates, too, are a resource that must be protected. To make it easier to build housing, we must allow access to aggregates—and that is sand and gravel used in making cement. If we’re to work to lower housing costs, we must allow access to these deposits in more cost-efficient locations, as well as streamline the approvals process needed to extract these necessary resources.

Speaker, our proposed policies would also encourage municipalities to focus on improving air quality and addressing the impacts of a changing climate.

Of course, we’re also proposing some further legislative measures to support our actions to streamline land use planning rules to build more housing.

Our proposed changes would allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to require landowners to enter into agreements for projects assigned to the Provincial Land and Development Facilitator. This would help ensure commitments made by property owners are fulfilled; for example, in a case where a ministerial zoning order may be contemplated.

Speaker, as you can see, our proposed policies for land use planning in Ontario are extensive. They are just what our province needs to address our housing supply crisis and meet future demand.

As I mentioned earlier, our 60-day public consultation on these proposed policies and our proposed provincial planning statement began on April 6. I encourage those who wish to comment to go to the Environmental Registry of Ontario.

As you’ve heard from my colleagues who spoke before me, our government is committed to our goal of helping build 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

Our Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants plan and its supporting proposed legislation is the package that Ontarians need now and for the projected demand in the future.

Now I’d like to turn it over to the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.