The member opposite is clearly out of touch, because for the last number of weeks we’ve been making historic announcements. We’re investing over $2 billion in Ontario’s agri-food industry, from the laneway through to processing.

Farmers are buoyed; they’re energized. They know they have a government in Premier Ford and all of us in caucus who actually understand the business of producing food. For instance, we have introduced a soil health study that RBC noted as a hidden gem in the budget. It’s $9.5 million that is going to look at the health of soil.

I was just at the Earlton Farm Show this past weekend, and people are applauding the fact that we actually get it and are demonstrating that we are moving on priorities that truly matter to farmers, who are working so hard to produce good-quality food in Ontario.

Well, it’s pretty rich coming from the Liberals, who basically did nothing on housing for 15 years, to now try to be the champion for farmers. For almost every budget that I sat in opposition on, the word “agriculture” never appeared in a Liberal budget—never.

So now we have a policy that actually recognizes that a farm can now have the opportunity to sever a lot for a son or a daughter—a farm that, if they decided that they wanted to provide quality housing for workers on the site, they could sever a lot.

Now we know again where the Liberals are at, just like where they were at for 15 years when they were in government: They stand against agriculture, they stand against farmers and they stand against housing in rural areas. That’s the Liberal Party.

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?