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.

The housing crisis is making life unaffordable in Ontario and driving young workers out of the province. This government claims to understand the issue, but their actions say otherwise. They commissioned an expert task force to address the problem, yet they’ve ignored the experts and one of their most important recommendations: to build density in our towns and cities, not to expand their boundaries outward. The province last week ordered cities to do just that and destroy neighbouring farmland.

This attack on farmers will reduce the supply of local food, raising food prices, and create more sprawl, which undermines our carbon reduction goals. Farmers are against this decision, cities and regions are against it and the government’s own experts are against it.

My question to the Premier: Who is telling the Premier that he should pave over our farmland, and are they the same people who will benefit from this decision?

The member for Haldimand–Norfolk introduced a bill to protect our farmland from development. It was supported by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and all MPPs except those on the government side. This government is being very clear: They want to pave over farmland.

Speaker, my question to the Premier: Can the Premier please explain how paving over their farmland helps farmers?

Interjections.

Thank you, Speaker, and through you to the member from University–Rosedale: I have a farming community in the north part of my riding, Myrtle Station, that some of you will know. I know the member from Oshawa is familiar with that area. I was up there this weekend talking to some of the farmers about what this particular legislation brings, particularly allowing them to sever a lot for their son or their daughter. There are many big farms up there that are looking forward to doing that. It also means that there will be more housing to accommodate the farm workers that they bring in in some of those areas as well.

Through you, Speaker, does the member from University–Rosedale oppose this aspect of the legislation? I’m not alone here on this side of the House with farming communities.

The proposed legislation continues to take a responsible, targeted approach to delivering our government’s plan, while laying a strong foundation to make life easier and more affordable for people across the province. I’d like to extend my thanks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Associate Minister of Housing, the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and, last but not least, his parliamentary assistant for all the work they’ve put into the development of our fourth housing supply action plan.

If passed, the proposed changes would further strengthen homebuyer protections, support tenants and streamline the rules around land use planning. These types of changes have been long anticipated and are now well informed by a layer of input from many sectors. Our government has made real progress in tackling Ontario’s housing supply crisis, with current housing starts remaining above historic averages, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing pointed out this morning in a response to an answer in question period.

Like the rest of North America, Ontario is experiencing challenging headwinds that are slowing down new home construction, including inflation, soaring interest rates and labour shortages. Now, despite these challenges, our government will continue to take action to ensure Ontario is ready to build more homes as market conditions improve. What’s clear is that our government is committed to helping new home buyers. We’re absolutely committed.

For instance, our plan includes initiatives to better protect homebuyers and their financial investments by expanding deposit insurance for first home savings accounts at credit unions and exploring a cooling-off or cancellation period on purchases of newly built freehold homes, as well as mandatory legal review of purchase agreements for all new home purchases.

To reduce the cost of building housing, we’re planning to freeze 74 provincial fees at current levels. This includes fees that directly or indirectly increase the cost of housing. We’re also proposing to speed up government approval processes by updating the provincial policy statement 2020 and integrating it with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, to create a single province-wide, housing-focused land use planning policy document. Within municipalities, this has been long awaited—long awaited. I’m part of an upper-tier government with the region of Durham, and it’s underpinned by eight municipalities, including the town of Whitby, and this particular integration, in many instances, has been long awaited.

The proposed new provincial planning statement streamlines planning policy to increase housing supply and approvals by simplifying existing policies, making them more flexible and making them more supportive in building new housing. Now, on this side of the House, we have other former municipal politicians who understand exactly what I’m saying when I speak about simplifying existing policies related to planning and development and making them more flexible. Indeed, the Speaker is a former municipal councillor and reeve and mayor and understands the breadth and scope of the changes I’m referring to in making it more supportive, at building new housing.

These new policies would increase housing supply by focusing development into urban areas through density targets for areas such as major transit station areas like GO Transit stations like I have in the town of Whitby. It’s in the south part of my riding. It borders on Victoria Street, which runs east and west through the town. This type of development has long been a part of the town’s current official plan. And as my friend from Oshawa will know, we have a lot of GO stations, moving from Whitby through to Oshawa and, yes, through to Bowmanville.

Interjection.

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?