My question is for the Premier.

The financial cost of sprawl is huge. One study determined that it costs 2.5 times more to service sprawl than to service a new built home in existing developed areas. Another study showed that when you factor in both tax revenue and servicing costs, homes constructed in built-up areas pay for themselves, while sprawl represents an ongoing cost for property taxpayers.

Speaker, people are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis and a housing affordability crisis.

So why is the Premier pursuing a sprawl agenda, that paves over the greenbelt and makes housing and life less affordable for people and communities?

With all due respect, I wasn’t talking about development charges—although that’s a problem as well; I’m talking about the cost of sprawl.

There’s overwhelming evidence that the cost of sprawling out will hit people, municipalities and taxpayers’ pocketbooks hard. There’s overwhelming evidence from the government’s own housing task force that we do not need to open the greenbelt to address the housing crisis.

Speaker, there’s a whole generation of young people wondering if they will ever be able to afford a home.

The government’s sprawl agenda will result in more expensive homes, higher property taxes, and elevated climate-fuelled flood risk.

So will the government stand up for property tax payers and people struggling to find an affordable home by cancelling their expensive sprawl agenda and keeping their promise not to develop the greenbelt?