No, I don’t believe this.

I 100% agree. Farming stuff is important. I couldn’t see the change to the Milk Act.

But I just want to emphasize that with omnibus bills—omnibus sounds ominous, and sometimes they are—but basically this is a catch-all bill to changes that don’t warrant their own change to legislation. I would say that the agricultural parts of this bill should have warranted their own legislation, because it might not be a change that impacts farmers every day, but it’s a major change.

I’m not criticizing the change. When we talk to agriculture organizations, they are more concerned about what’s coming after with the regulations. They’re more concerned about that. But that change is big enough. When you’re repealing three acts and replacing it with one, that’s a fairly big change. That’s just not tinkering around the edges. I’m going to talk about that in a minute.

As I was leafing through here, one schedule—schedule 15, I believe—the Highway Traffic Act is going to make it illegal to overtake a snowplow unless there is an open lane. I’m very in favour of this. I have met with the contractors in my area. I think we all have in northern Ontario. Let me make it clear: The official opposition has not agreed for a long time with the way the contracts were put out, but we have no qualms with the contractors who are doing the work. They bid on contracts that the government puts out. Don’t fault them for that. They do the best they can with what they have.

But operating snow cleaning equipment, or any type of highway maintenance equipment, is an incredibly dangerous job. If you want to see how dangerous, you drive in my part of the world. I have seen people pass snowplows in ways that you would think, “What are you thinking? What are you thinking?” Tragically, it’s not irregular for people who are driving snow-cleaning equipment to be seriously hurt or, even more tragically, to lose their lives, so anything that the government can do to make that job safer, we are in favour of. This is a small step. There’s always more to do; it’s a small step, but it is a step in the right direction.

Again, there are all kinds of things that I would like to see the government do to make our highways safer. As I said this morning—because I’m talking, I can’t check my social media, but Highway 11 was closed again this morning. Was it weather-related? Definitely, but Highway 11 has been closed multiple, multiple times.

I’m not putting anyone at fault for making the decision to close the highway, but I don’t think we can repeat this enough: When you’re on Highway 11 in the winter and you pass that sign in North Bay, and the sign says the highway is closed, if you’re somewhere there, you’re on your own. We’ve said it enough times; the government knows that the highway is going to be closed on a regular basis. There are no detours there, either, so for big sections of the Trans-Canada, you’re stuck there. And there’s no official plan, if they’re stuck there for a long time, on how to make sure these people are safe. There’s nothing like that. That would be a worthy strategy. There are local volunteer groups who want to do this, who are doing this on their own, with no real help from the government.

And there are first responders. Don’t get me wrong: First responders do everything they can to help people. But this isn’t a once-in-100-years emergency; this has happened, I believe—don’t quote me, but the last time I spoke about this, it was 12 times, and just by my memory, Highway 11 has been closed at least twice since. Highway 11 is the Trans-Canada Highway.

A big part of this bill is schedule 33, Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act. Now, that’s not my critic portfolio, and I don’t claim to have any knowledge of this, but when I hear this, when I read this, I’m sure our critics are going to look very, very closely at what changes are being made here, because they were given a reminder this morning when the government voted against a very simple bill to promote more access to public transit for people who have disabilities. It was very obvious. Again, that’s something that we will be looking at.

The Science North Act, the Royal Ontario Museum Act, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission Act, the Substitute Decisions Act, the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, the Trustee Act: There are changes being made to each of these and many others.

Again, change isn’t bad, regardless of political stripe, as long as it’s made for the right reasons. A lot of the changes here are being made for—because of COVID, our society changed a lot. We had to do a lot more remote meetings. There are a lot of changes in a lot of acts here to allow more remote work. We support that in principle. But as I was reading through—and I’m going to be upfront: I haven’t read the whole bill. I’ve read the explanatory notes and I’ve read the agricultural part. I haven’t read the whole bill.

But when I read that there are many changes being made because of COVID and because our society has changed because of COVID, it got me to thinking that there are other parts of our society that, to me, have radically changed because of COVID too, that have gotten markedly worse. They weren’t good before but they are markedly worse. Homelessness has gotten worse. Affordability has gotten worse. Access to health care has gotten worse. Yet, with those issues the government seems to be going back to pre-COVID “Everything is fine, nothing to see here.”

So we’re going to have to make sure in this bill that this is not a case of this. Because it seems to be here, in this omnibus bill, that they are acknowledging that the world has changed with COVID, but it seems in some other parts of their strategy—I don’t know if that’s the right word—that they don’t want to admit that that has happened. Changes have been made for uninsured people. There are uninsured people under our OHIP plan. The government says they’re going back to the way things were before COVID, but you know what? Things aren’t the way they were before COVID.

I’ve got a half-hour and I’m going to concentrate, hopefully, on agriculture. Although the minister mentioned the Milk Act, I still haven’t seen it, but I take people at their word that it’s in there, and I’m going to talk about the Milk Act for a little while—just about milk.

When I was a dairy farmer what frustrated me most about dairy regulation, because nobody likes—let’s make it clear: Very few people like regulation. Even committed NDP people don’t really like regulation, no. And dairy is very regulated. What I got most frustrated at is that the dairy sector doesn’t do a very good job—and if anybody ever clips this they might get angry at me—of actually telling people how those regulations work. Not on a quota system; I’m not talking about a quota system—there was a lot of bad PR about the quota system a little while ago and I could talk about that—but about safety.

When I was a dairy farmer the regulations changed and every dairy farm had to have a time/temperature recorder. I had it, and we all hated it, but in the end it’s a great thing. But we never advertised it, so I’m going to advertise it my little way, the time/temperature recorder—and stores and processing plants have them too.

The temperature of the milk is monitored as soon as it comes in the bulk tank. The temperature of the wash water, when you wash your equipment, is monitored—everything. And if all those specs didn’t meet the standard when the milk truck driver came to pick up your milk, there would be a light flashing, and he could use his reader and see exactly what went wrong. If one rinse cycle was a little bit too cool, okay, but if the milk had not—the milk is always supposed be at 2 or 3 degrees Celsius. If the milk had hit too hot—he wouldn’t pick it up. It’s incredible. It’s stressful to keep that always running perfectly, but it was an example of really good regulation. It was a big step forward. We never really advertised that. That frustrated me. We went to all that extra work—not extra work; we did that already. There’s no one in agriculture—I don’t think it’s just agriculture. Anyone who produces something, even people who produce legislation—the vast majority of people don’t want to produce bad things. Specifically, farmers do not want to produce a bad product. It’s in their DNA. They produce food. They want good food to leave their farms. So it wasn’t that it was extra work, but it was another eye watching, and no one really likes that either.

I haven’t been a dairy farmer for a decade, and since I’ve left, they have made many other changes. It’s much more regulated now on the health of the animals. And if there’s one thing that I think the dairy industry should do more of—and other industries, as well—they should tell people about the good things that they are doing. Sometimes it costs more money to do it right.

Let’s make this clear: One of the things with road maintenance in the province—sometimes it costs more money to do it right, and sometimes it’s worth that extra money.

Anyway, the part in schedule 30—it’s the biggest schedule that has been changed in Bill 91. It’s going to repeal the Farm Products Payments Act, the Grains Act and the Livestock and Livestock Products Act and replace those acts with the Protecting Farmers from Non-Payment Act. Basically—and I might get some of the details wrong here because I have, fortunately, been a farmer my whole life and have never had to deal with these acts, because the only time these ones really kick in is if something goes really wrong.

When you’re a farmer and you grow grain—you grow wheat, barley, soybeans, corn. Some farmers have on-farm storage—not all. When you’re doing your harvest in the fall, if you have an elevator that’s handy and efficient, you can store your grain in a commercial elevator. You can get them to dry your grain, as well. But that grain is no longer in your possession. So you get a ticket that you have so many tons of corn, so many of such a quality, but you don’t get your own corn back. All you’ve got is that ticket. So it’s very important that the elevator is licensed and that it stays solvent, so that when you decide to sell that grain or when you need that grain back to feed your livestock—but more likely, to sell it—that grain is actually there. So the Grains Act is very important to make sure that where you’re storing and who you’re selling to is solvent, because all of a sudden you could do everything right and if the grain company isn’t solvent, that ticket is worthless, and that’s where the Grains Act kicks in.

It’s the same with livestock. Talking to the agriculture organizations, putting three into one, as long as it’s done right, is not inherently bad, but livestock is the same thing. If you have a cow-calf operation—basically, before you see a steak, there’s three types of farms that have beef. Cow-calf is the farmer that has the mothers that have the babies and the babies stay with the mother for six months, seven months, till they’re 500 pounds, 600 pounds, maybe bigger if the farmer’s really good, if he has really good cattle, and then they go to a background operation which brings them up a little bigger, makes their frames a bit bigger, and the last step is the feedlot and the feedlot has different types of feed to put the flesh, the meat on them.

But at each of those steps, the cattle change hands; transactions change hands. Cattle trailers—we call them “pots.” If you ever see a cattle trailer, there can be a lot of money in that pot, and if someone in the chain isn’t solvent—again, you can do everything right, but if who you’re selling to isn’t solvent, you could lose your farm, and that’s why these acts are very important.

The farmer pays into them. There are boards to administer them, to make sure that if there’s a legitimate claim, there’s actually action taken. They have the power that, if someone buys the grain or the cattle or whatever—because under the new act, I believe the minister has the power to designate more products to be protected—they have the powers to put a lien on the property of the person who bought the cattle or bought the grain and didn’t pay. This act has significant power—the replacement act does and so did the former ones—and they need it. They need this power. So it’s very important that they’re there.

It does happen. I was just reading—this case that I’m just going to talk about won’t be covered by this act because it’s not happening in this province, but there is a case right now in Saskatchewan where—so crop prices were really high a few months ago because of what’s happening in Ukraine, and basically because of—I don’t know how you put it—COVID, Ukraine and world grain markets are a bit of a roller coaster, like the stock market. I don’t know how else to explain it. They peaked and they peaked, and farmers have to be very good marketers, and the smarter—not the smarter ones, but the ones who hit at the right time brought forward delivery contracts at the peak. So you can say, “Okay, I can forward-sell my grain to deliver a year from now at X,” and some people forward-sold their grain really high, really smart or really lucky. It’s a combination of both.

Interjection.

It’s important farming stuff.

For 48 hours.

Tell us about the stuff you don’t like.

Of course it is.

Yes. Amazing, eh, and I only have nine and a half fingers to count, too.

We’re not opposed to folding three into one, but we need to be assured that we don’t miss anything and that we ensure that people are protected, because you don’t want to be the farmer who finds out that, oh, while we were folding these three acts into one, we missed this. You don’t want to be that person. Maybe that’s never going to happen. Quite frankly, I haven’t had time to research it enough. Quite frankly, I’m probably not qualified to do the full research on these three acts. It’s going to take a lot of legal expertise to make sure this is all right. Hopefully the government has the horsepower and they have done this. Maybe this act, schedule 30, is perhaps an improvement over the three other acts. I hope so.

Interjections.

Speaker, I apologize; I should be talking to you. I should be, and then I wouldn’t be heckled by the government. But I don’t mind the government’s heckling.

Interjections.

If you really want to help farmers—and you talk a lot about farmers in this bill. I just finished talking about the risks in farming, how prices go up and prices go down, and sometimes the prices are below what the cost of production is. That’s very bad, because as the members well know, agriculture is one of the biggest job producers in this province, and the foundation of agriculture is the production that comes from the farm.

We disagree on one thing a lot lately: We think that we have to maximize our available farmland, the government doesn’t seem to want to talk about farmland, but regardless, the production is important. The fact that farmers need to be able to make a profit from that production to stay afloat and to keep producing—there’s nothing that a farmer wants to do more than grow things, but they have to be able to make money doing it.

The one thing that this government could have done and has chosen not to do is lift the cap on the Risk Management Program. That’s actually what the commodity groups have been asking for and repeatedly asking for. I don’t know one commodity group who has actually specifically asked for schedule 30.

We do decimals.

Well off.

Duffins Creek.

Perhaps four years ago—my uncle Ernie would know that. They haven’t asked for it within the last few years, but they have asked for risk management repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.

But, right now, the markets are so volatile that an increase in the Risk Management Program would be an incredible benefit not just to farmers but to the province.

I will quote someone who I have a lot of respect for. He was the former Minister of Agriculture.

The one thing with risk management is if you have a risk management program that isn’t capped, that isn’t prorated, you can go to the bank and say, “I have insured my crop—not just the insurance to grow the crop, but I have insured my crop that I will get a minimum of”—whatever the number is—“and that will cover the loan.” That’s the way it was done originally. When the agricultural groups and the government actually worked out the program, that’s how it worked.

It wasn’t the current government that capped it. It was the previous Liberal government. The previous Liberal government created it as well, and they capped it. So I’m not criticizing this government for capping it; it was the Liberals before. And just to be clear—

Interjection: 2011.

Interjections.

Interjection: The member should correct his record.

Interjections.

I do believe that the Conservative official opposition voted for the Liberal majority governments at least 50% of the time.

Interjections.

Interjections.

But getting back to the bill, Speaker—they’re trying to get me off topic, here. There are a lot of schedules in the bill. Again, we will go through them. We will look at each of them and vote on the bill depending on its strengths and weaknesses. That’s how the official opposition should look at every piece of legislation. That’s why often—and the government hasn’t done it as of late, but we’re worried they might do it again—sometimes they put a piece of legislation within a piece of legislation basically called a “poison pill.” And it’s not unique to this government, but this government’s got some great examples.

One of their broadband bills, which we fully supported, had a piece of legislation in the middle about an MZO for, I believe, a protected wetland in Ajax—was it Ajax?

Interjections.

I have 32 seconds left. I thank you very much, Speaker, for your indulgence, and I will wait for questions.

No, John. No.

Yes, they did.

My thanks to the member opposite, and I always appreciate hearing from the member, who obviously has a wide variety of experiences in different sectors. My family’s background is in dairy, and yours is as well.

I did want to let you know that we had the opportunity to do a bit more research into your questions around the Milk Act and specifically some of the portions around regulation 761, which has a number of the changes. It’s a regulatory change under that, and I’m happy to send over the information so that you have a little bit more on that.

Interjection.

But I wonder if the member opposite could speak a little bit about the changes for allowing virtual or hybrid meetings for condominium acts, because I understand there’s long distances that people in your riding would have to travel in order to be able to attend some meetings, and I’m wondering if opening up more virtual meetings would be a good thing for your constituents.

Order.

Interjections.

Which one?

Madam Speaker, I’m pleased to rise and speak on Bill 91, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act. If passed, this bill will pave the way for better services, help Ontario grow and save people time and money.

First of all, I would like to congratulate our Minister of Red Tape Reduction, the Honourable Parm Gill, and parliamentary assistant Sam Oosterhoff on their great work in compiling this legislation. I would also like to thank the hard-working staff at the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I’m sure you’ve heard through your consultations with stakeholders, just as I have heard when speaking to people in my riding of Carleton, how important it is to reduce red tape in order to build a stronger economy and improve services for Ontarians.

In 2017, under the previous Liberal government, Ontario had the highest costs of compliance in Canada, totalling $33,000 per business, $4,000 more than any other province. Thankfully, since 2018, our government has taken historic action to reduce red tape, leading to almost $700 million in annual savings for Ontario businesses. We are building stronger supply chains, helping businesses grow and saving people more time and money. When it comes to eliminating unnecessary red tape, only our government will get it done.

Madam Speaker, we’ve had a number of supportive people and industries reach out to tell us how much they appreciate what we are doing in this bill, Bill 91. For example, Michelle Noble, the executive director of the Ontario Environment Industry Association, has said that Ontario’s environment and clean tech industry welcomes the government’s ongoing efforts to reduce red tape and we look forward to continuing to work with the government to identify ways to reduce red tape in our sector.

This is why our government knows that reducing red tape is a key part of building a stronger economy and improving services for Ontarians. As such, we will continue to bring forward burden-reduction packages that will save businesses more than half a billion dollars each year in compliance costs.

To begin my remarks on this important legislation, I would like to briefly summarize what this important bill will do for Ontario.

Bill 91 includes 42 new initiatives that will save businesses, not-for-profits and people more than $120 million in net annual regulatory compliance costs. Among other things, this legislation will accelerate timelines for municipal approvals to build broadband faster for 700,000 homes and businesses. It will also strengthen occupational health and safety in the mining sector by changing regulations to reflect modern technology and better protect workers. This legislation will enable the next phases of carbon storage innovation by piloting technology that has the potential to store 30 years’ worth of carbon emissions.

Madam Speaker, this legislation will also implement the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support, reducing frustration for more than 8,500 families involved in the province’s child and spousal support order system by enabling enforcement of support orders in 34 additional countries across four continents. Finally, this bill will improve safety on Ontario’s roads by updating the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit drivers from overtaking a working snowplow, unless a full lane is available. As you can see, Madam Speaker, this legislation is comprehensive and robust.

Now, I would like to talk about some of the specific instances of red tape that this legislation will reduce. More specifically, I would like to speak on what this will mean for my riding of Carleton and the great people of Carleton that I have been blessed to represent and serve in the Ontario Legislature since 2018.

Carleton is home to several farms, including Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm, Rideau Pines Farm, Foster Family Farm, Abby Hill Farms, Schouten Dairy Farms, Millers Farm and Market, the Log Cabin Orchard, Mike’s Garden Harvest and Carleton Mushroom, just to name a few, and also home to numerous farm families, some of whom have been here for generations, including the Velthuis, the Acres, the Pattersons, the Shouldices and so many more.

Carleton’s farmers are key producers of fruit, vegetables, honey, lamb, beef, chicken, eggs, dairy, maple syrup, honey cash crop and so much more. That’s why our government is making it easier for Carleton and Ontario farmers through this legislation.

Madam Speaker, we are introducing in schedule 30—and I want to talk about schedule 30. I’ve been reading about it since we introduced this legislation and I want to focus most of my time on schedule 30 of this bill, because it’s actually very, very important for my riding of Carleton. Schedule 30 introduces legislation called Protecting Farmers from Non-Payment Act (Regulating Agricultural Product Dealers and Storage Operators). The purpose of this bill is to provide efficient and effective business risk management tools to farmers to help address the business risks that slow payment and no payment may create, as well as the risks that arise when a storage operator fails to return a designated agricultural product to its owner upon demand. The proposed schedule seeks to protect the financial interests of farmers, like those in my riding of Carleton, so that they can confidently invest and grow their businesses in Ontario. The proposed bill would, if passed, combine the Farm Products Payments Act, the Grains Act and the Livestock and Livestock Products Act into one act, and it would also update the legislative framework governing the financial protection programs for Ontario’s agricultural sector.

The proposed changes to the legislative framework governing the financial protection programs fall within six general themes. It includes flexible administration of the act. The proposed changes would allow for greater flexibility in terms of how the act is administered. This could, for example, include allowing industry to administer all or part of an act via a delegated authority. It would allow for the expansion of financial protection models and greater flexibility for other industries. It would allow easy expansion of protection to other industries. It would allow greater flexibility in financial protection models for other industries. It would update board governance and powers. It would modernize the licensing process. It would enhance compliance tools. And most importantly, it would streamline the appeals process.

Enforcement of this proposed bill would be undertaken by provincial officers. Offences would be processed in accordance with the Provincial Offences Act and prosecuted by provincial prosecutors. If this proposed bill is passed, it would come into force and effect upon proclamation.

Madam Speaker, our government is also proposing amending regulation 761, milk and milk products, under the Milk Act—that’s so many “milks” in one sentence. Sorry, I’m going to repeat that. Our government is also proposing amending regulation 761, milk and milk products, under the Milk Act, which would reduce burden on the dairy processing industry while improving food safety. There is a thriving dairy industry in Carleton, so I’m very pleased that our bill introduces and includes this regulatory change.

Finally, our government is proposing updates to nutrient management tables 1 and 2, which will ensure proper sizing of barns and manure storage to reduce the risk of negative environmental impacts from undersized storages. The updated tables will also provide more accurate estimates of the nutrient content so the land application of manure and other nutrients can occur at optimum rates for both crop growth and to protect the environment. Madam Speaker, this legislation will get it done for farmers in my riding, and I am so excited for these important updates and changes to burdensome red tape.

As I have already alluded to, my riding of Carleton is predominantly rural, and much of the riding lacks reliable access to high-speed Internet. This legislation will make changes in the right direction to ensure that we will have reliable access to high-speed Internet throughout the riding. Ontario is proposing legislative amendments under the Building Broadband Faster Act, 2021, that would ensure Internet service providers can plan, design and build high-speed Internet projects as quickly as possible. This includes enabling more efficient collection of utility infrastructure data to optimize routing for projects, to plan networks and to prevent delays in the permitting process between municipalities and ISPs.

Our government is also updating the Building Broadband Faster Act, 2021 guideline to provide greater clarity and improved guidance to high-speed Internet stakeholders on processes and timelines. A major component of the update is a new process to help resolve disputes between parties and to work with sectors to ensure that they comply with the laws and regulations that are helping to build broadband across the province faster. The updated guideline will also provide more clarity on the Ministry of Transportation’s efforts to speed up their permit process for provincially funded broadband projects and will provide additional guidance on cost-sharing for using electric infrastructure to build these projects. Our government is committed to reliable high-speed Internet access for rural Ontario, and this legislation will help to bring just that.

Moreover, in my riding of Carleton, the predominant means of transportation is by automobile. There simply is no Ottawa public transportation that goes out that far to Carleton. Everyone has to rely on an automobile if they want to get somewhere, and that’s why this important legislation will help improve road safety in my riding of Carleton. Ontario is proposing to amend the Highway Traffic Act by adding clauses that will prohibit drivers from overtaking snowplows working in a staggered formation across highway lanes. The proposed amendments intend to reduce motor vehicle collisions with snowplows on higher-speed, multi-lane highways. This will make the public safer and reduce burden on emergency responders, health care services, the insurance sector and the legal system. Most of all, they will keep our roads safer in my riding of Carleton and across the province of Ontario.

Moreover, to improve safety for people needing a tow and those working in the towing industry, Ontario is taking steps to implement a certification program that will require tow operators, tow truck drivers and vehicle storage operators meet certain requirements to operate in Ontario.

Help is also on the way for commercial drivers in Carleton and across Ontario. Our government is proposing a change to legislation to ensure commercial vehicle operators who purchased equipment between 2020 and 2023 will not to have to undergo a costly retrofit. In emergency driving situations, mainly on icy or wet roads, truck drivers can lift a piece of equipment called a lift axel to make driving safer. Since 2018-19, the law required lift axels to work in a specific way that the Ontario-based company making lift axels for 70% of the market was simply not able to manufacture. The company told the government they were able to provide another solution that meets the needs of trucking companies and the intent of the law. This proposed change would provide more flexibility to companies that manufacture the equipment the steerable lift axel controls, while continuing to support road safety, and saving trucking businesses time and money.

In summary, our government is getting it done for road users across this province.

Now, as Premier Ford and our team have shown time and time again, our government is committed to the success of small business owners, because we know that they are the lifeblood of Ontario’s economy. Small businesses are all across my riding of Carleton, and they are opening up every day. Every day, I am seeing more and more businesses.

In fact, just the other day there was—I’m going to pull this up, because it’s on my Facebook. One thing my office does is we like to keep track of all the businesses and all the companies that are opening up across my riding of Carleton. My riding is very big, there are a lot of communities. My team and I work really hard to keep track of all of this. One thing that we do is, when we see a new business open up, we like to present them with a certificate just to let them know, “Welcome to the neighbourhood, welcome to the community.” Oftentimes when the businesses receive one of these certificates from me and my office, they will usually post about it on social media, and literally five hours ago a company called Bright Hearing and Tinnitus Centre, which just opened up in Richmond and serves folks in Richmond, Stittsville, Kanata and Ottawa West, posted a certificate that I had provided them on their social media account thanking me for welcoming them to the community. Bright Hearing and Tinnitus Centre is just one example of the numerous businesses and small businesses across the riding of Carleton that are opening up, and it’s our responsibility to support them, because they are the lifeblood of Ontario’s economy.

That’s why I’m pleased that our legislation will implement the Building Ontario Businesses Initiative. This is expected to reduce barriers and provide companies in Ontario with greater access to public procurement opportunities, helping them to sell more goods and services and create jobs in their local communities. The implementation of the initiative will help Ontario’s economic growth and build businesses and communities across the province while ensuring greater security of the province’s supply chain.

I also want to speak about the important changes that this legislation is going to be making to child support legislation in this province. Children deserve to be supported in the best way that their families can, and that is why our government is taking action to implement the 2007 Hague Convention. The 2007 Hague Convention is an international treaty that applies to obtaining, changing and enforcing spousal and child support orders when parents or spouses live in different countries.

As a former international trade lawyer, Madam Speaker, I can appreciate and understand how important this legislation really is, because one of the most frustrating things for parents or families is when they have a court order for something here in Ontario, but they’re not able to enforce it in another jurisdiction. This change will provide families relief. So I’m very, very pleased about this.

If this legislation is passed to implement the convention in the province of Ontario and the government of Canada ratifies the convention, then current procedures would be streamlined and more cost efficient. That’s important because, again as an international trade lawyer, one of the things that I worked on was international law, and while we are happy to implement the convention in this province, the convention will not be actual law until the government of Canada ratifies the convention and makes it law. So one thing that I think we need to do, not just as a government but as a province—and I’m asking all MPPs on all sides of the House here—is to put pressure on our federal government to make sure that they ratify this convention, that they ratify this and bring it into Canadian law so that Ontario families can rely on this convention to get the support they need.

Speaking of young people, we are also making important strides for the post-secondary education sector. These partners are crucial in ensuring that young people are trained for the jobs of the future. Career colleges play an important role in Ontario’s post-secondary landscape, providing learners with the knowledge and skills they need to get a job in today’s workplace. Moreover, our government is enhancing collection tools for training institutions under the Private Career Colleges Act.

Madam Speaker, I see that my time is running short. There really is so much that I want to speak about. Every single initiative in this piece of legislation—and here’s the bill. I don’t know if I’m allowed to use props or not, but I’m holding the bill in my hand.

Further questions?

First of all, thank you for the master class today, in an hour lead.

I just have to say that the government—it’s a remarkable achievement, because they put forward a bill that’s six times longer than the budget. It’s hard to see if people are being helped by this. In fact, I would also like to comment that we haven’t had appropriate time, as the loyal opposition, to go through this, so I’m glad you pointed that out. What I do have to say—when it comes to what’s important to people, I’m not sure this is it.

Hamilton has recently declared three separate states of emergency: for our homeless people, our mental health and opioid addiction.

Niagara region council declared a state of emergency, also, for homelessness, mental health and opioid addiction on February 23.

So my question to you is, given the urgent situation we’re seeing across all of our communities when it comes to homelessness, mental health and addiction, do you think the time we’re spending here could be better spent with a sense of urgency about what’s really affecting people’s lives right now?

I respectfully thank the member opposite for his contribution. I found it very entertaining, and I enjoyed it.

I was going to ask a question that relates to the Hague Convention. In my past life, I would commonly deal with family law files—and for reference, the ratification of the Hague Convention would be an important step forward for the Family Responsibility Office. The Hague Convention would enforce orders. It would allow people to transcend Ontario or Canada to meet those orders. We expect everybody to meet their court obligations for child and spousal support, but we’re focusing on making things easier for families because they can make ends meet. Empowering the province to implement the 2007 Hague Convention in Ontario would give the province reciprocity to collect support payments with 34 more jurisdictions.

So my question to the member opposite—because I think this is a learning experience for some. It would also reduce the pressure on Ontario courts, saving a lot of people time and money, and reduce stress, which is such an important issue when you’re dealing with family law. It would help those relying upon support, most importantly. Will the member help our government ensure that families get the spousal and child support they need by supporting this?