I move that the following changes be made to the membership of the following committees:

On the Standing Committee on Social Policy, Mr. Riddell replaces Ms. Ghamari; and

On the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, Ms. Ghamari replaces Mr. Riddell and Ms. Dixon replaces Mr. Ke.

I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and move its adoption.

I’d like to thank the hard-working member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for the important question. Making Ontario accessible is an ongoing journey. Thanks to the leadership of the Minister of Finance, we are proposing over $6 million over the next three years to support students with disabilities. This marvellous investment will provide for skills development and education opportunities.

Together with the Ministry of Labour, our government is also promoting employment programs for people with disabilities. We are working for you to build a better Ontario together.

This represents several petitions signed by schools in Toronto–St. Paul’s in ward 8, schools including Deer Park—I saw Oriole Park, I saw Glenview—a lot of them. It is titled: “Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Elementary Teachers of Toronto to Stop the Cuts and Invest in the Schools our Students Deserve.

“Whereas the Ford government cut funding to our schools by $800 per student during the pandemic period, and plans to cut an additional $6 billion to our schools over the next six years;

“Whereas these massive cuts have resulted in larger class sizes, reduced special education and mental health supports and resources for our students, and neglected and unsafe buildings;

“Whereas the Financial Accountability Office reported a $2.1-billion surplus in 2021-22, and surpluses growing to $8.5 billion in 2027-28, demonstrating there is more than enough money to fund a robust public education system;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“—immediately reverse the cuts to our schools;

“—fix the inadequate education funding formula;

“—provide schools the funding to ensure the supports necessary to address the impacts of the pandemic on our students;

“—make the needed investments to provide smaller class sizes, increased levels of staffing to support our students’ special education, mental health, English language learner and wraparound supports needs, and safe and healthy buildings and classrooms.”

Interjections.

I’m reading this petition on behalf of the MPP for Hamilton Mountain, MPP Taylor. It’s entitled “Vulnerable Persons Alert.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there is a gap in our current emergency alert system that needs to be addressed;

“Whereas a vulnerable persons alert would help ensure the safety of our loved ones in a situation where time is critical;

“Whereas several municipal councils, including, Brighton, Midland, Bonfield township, Cobourg and Mississauga and several others, have passed resolutions calling for a new emergency alert to protect our loved ones;

“Whereas over 90,000 people have signed an online petition calling for a ‘Draven Alert’ and over 6,000 people have signed an online petition calling for ‘Love’s Law’, for vulnerable people who go missing;

“Whereas this new alert would be an additional tool in the tool box for police forces to use to locate missing, vulnerable people locally and regionally;

“Whereas this bill is a common-sense proposal and non-partisan in nature, to help missing vulnerable persons find their way safely home;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Support and pass Bill 74, Missing Persons Amendment Act, 2023.”

I wholly support this petition and will add my name to those of the Hamiltonians that signed this and give it to Jonas to take to the table. Thank you, page Jonas.

I want to thank Sally Palmer for sending me these petitions, which read:

“To Raise Social Assistance Rates

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and soon $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens well below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to live in this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned ... petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I couldn’t agree more. I will affix my signature to it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there is a gap in our current emergency alert system that needs to be addressed;

“Whereas a vulnerable persons alert would help ensure the safety of our loved ones in a situation where time is critical;

“Whereas several municipal councils, including, Brighton, Midland, Bonfield township, Cobourg and Mississauga and several others have passed resolutions calling for a new emergency alert to protect our loved ones;

“Whereas over 90,000 people have signed an online petition calling for a ‘Draven Alert’ and over 6,000 people have signed an online petition calling for ‘Love’s Law’, for vulnerable” persons “who go missing;

“Whereas this new alert would be an additional tool in the tool box for police forces to use to locate missing vulnerable” people “locally and regionally;

“Whereas this bill is a common-sense proposal and non-partisan in nature, to help missing vulnerable persons find their way safely home;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support and pass Bill 74, Missing Persons Amendment Act, 2023.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

I’m going to take the high road here. I want to thank the member from Scarborough–Guildwood for serving and running—

Applause.

Interjections.

Just a message to the member from Scarborough–Guildwood: You did not start it, you did not finish it; we started it and we’re finishing the line.

You know, Speaker, one of my mentors says, “Always go higher.” So back to the Premier.

Premier, it is often the case that we disagree in the House, and in fact it’s actually part of the job here for all of us. But what we all agree on is that we must always do our part to provide the best service possible to the people that we represent. Whether it is building the subway to Scarborough—whoever started it, whoever’s finishing it—or improving hospitals and health care for the people in Scarborough, things that I have championed since I was elected, and our previous government did the same. However we get there, we agree that people who send us to these chairs, they want us to serve at our best.

Premier, with mutual respect and building consensus and working together, the city government, the provincial government and the federal government all want the same thing: a stronger city, province and country. My question is what can we all do together to ensure that we are all working together for a better future for the people of this province?

Stop the clock.

Restart the clock.

Supplementary question?

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

On April 3, 2023, Mr. Kerzner moved government order 35.

On April 3, 2023, MPP Wong-Tam moved an amendment to the motion.

On April 3, 2023, Mr. Calandra moved an amendment to the amendment to the motion.

On April 4, 2023, Ms. Skelly moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Ms. Skelly’s motion, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

With the passage of that motion, we now move to the vote on the main motion. Mr. Kerzner has moved government order 35, as follows:

That an address be presented to the Speakers of the federal Parliament in the following words:

“This House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.”

And that the said address be engrossed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour the motion will please “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1146 to 1147.

That an address be presented to the Speakers of the federal Parliament in the following words:

“This House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.”

And that the said address be engrossed.

All those in favour of Mr. Kerzner’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Motion agreed to.

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82, An Act respecting accessible public transit / Projet de loi 82, Loi concernant des transports en commun accessibles.

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1151.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Second reading negatived.

The House recessed from 1154 until 1300.

Report adopted.

On the Standing Committee on Social Policy, Mr. Riddell replaces Ms. Ghamari; and

On the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, Ms. Ghamari replaces Mr. Riddell and Ms. Dixon replaces Mr. Ke.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

The ayes are 88; the nays are 0.

Bill 60, An Act to amend and enact various Acts with respect to the health system / Projet de loi 60, Loi visant à modifier et à édicter diverses lois en ce qui concerne le système de santé.

« À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« Alors que les projets de loi 23 et 39 sont les plus récentes tentatives du gouvernement Ford de retirer des terres protégées de la ceinture de verdure, permettant ainsi aux promoteurs de détruire et d’asphalter plus de 7 000 acres de terres agricoles;

« Alors que l’espace vert et les terres agricoles sont ce sur quoi nous comptons pour produire nos aliments, soutenir les habitats naturels et prévenir les inondations;

« Alors que les mesures répétées de Ford pour paver les terres agricoles et détruire ou bulldozer des zones humides n’ont jamais été une question de créer plus de logements mais bien plutôt d’enrichir les riches;

« Alors que le groupe de travail sur l’abordabilité du logement du gouvernement a découvert qu’il existe de nombreux endroits pour construire des maisons sans détruire la ceinture de verdure;

« Alors que le gouvernement retire aux autorités chargées de la conservation le pouvoir de protéger l’environnement et d’atténuer des effets des futures catastrophes climatiques;

« Par conséquent, nous, les soussignés, demandons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario d’abroger immédiatement les projets de loi 23 et 39, d’arrêter tous les plans visant à retirer davantage les terres protégées de la ceinture de verdure et de protéger les terres agricoles existantes dans la province en adoptant la Loi sur la protection des terres agricoles du NPD. »

Ça me fait plaisir de signer cette pétition, et je vais la donner à Morgan pour qu’elle l’emmène à la table des greffiers.

It’s always an honour to be able to stand in the House and debate legislation put forward by the government, today Bill 91, An Act to enact two Acts, amend various Acts and revoke various regulations. That’s—

Interjections.

I have to start by saying, regretfully I won’t be sharing my time with anyone because the person I had lined up to share the time with for this hour lead is unfortunately under the weather. I will make him pay for it later.

Laughter.

But we need to take every piece of legislation and look at it on its merits and on its faults, if it has faults. And when the government continually says, “Well, you voted against this, and you voted against”—I’d just like to make it clear to those people listening and watching that if and when we vote against a budget because we disagree with the direction that the government is taking on certain huge issues, there might be a few things in that budget which are not just acceptable, which are good, but we take the overall bill and we look at the pros and cons of the bill, and that’s how we make our decision. And that’s how we will make our decision on Bill 91 as well.

Having said that, Bill 91 is a substantial bill. And I’m not complaining that it’s a big bill, but it was first introduced in the House and the first time the official opposition saw any of it was April 3. The first time I was able to get a paper copy—because there’s a lot in this bill about changing to electronic, and I’m not opposed to that. We’re not opposed to that. But some of us are still paper types who actually like to make notes. Believe it or not, I do make the occasional note. But that paper copy wasn’t available until this morning, and when I got it, it was hot off the press. It was still hot. I’m not kidding.

So please don’t fault us for saying it’s hard to make a credible critique of important legislation when you’ve actually only had access for—in my case, I’ve only had access to this since 9 o’clock this morning. So the government is, whether by choice or by whatever the reason, putting a serious disadvantage to critique of their legislation. So it’s going to be very important with this piece of legislation that we have the time so that the critics—because I think there are 30 schedules in here, 30 different acts covering many different critic portfolios—that we listen to their presentations because they—mine is going to be very, very broad and basic, even more basic than usual because we simply haven’t had the time.

This petition pertains to growing the health care workforce for years to come.

“Whereas to address the current staffing shortages in the health care sector, the Ontario government has proposed an investment of $200 million in 2023-24 to address immediate staffing shortages; and

“Whereas to grow the workforce for years to come, this includes:

“—offering up to 6,000 health care students training opportunities to work in hospitals providing care and gaining practical experience as they continue their education through the Enhanced Extern Program. This program has offered these opportunities to over 5,000 health care students; and

“—supporting up to 3,150 internationally educated nurses to become accredited nurses in Ontario through the Supervised Practice Experience Partnership Program; and

“Whereas more than 2,000 internationally educated nurses have enrolled in this program and over 1,300 of them are already fully registered and practising in Ontario; and

“Whereas Ontario is continuing to hire more health care workers to ensure everyone can see a trained professional when they need to; and

“Whereas key new investments in 2023-24 to build the health care workforce include:

“—$22 million to hire up to 200 hospital preceptors to provide mentorship;

“—$15 million to keep 100 mid-to-late career nurses in the workforce; and

“—$4.3 million to help at least 50 internationally trained physicians get licensed in Ontario;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the passage of the Ontario budget bill, Bill 85, Building a Stronger Ontario.”

Speaker, I’ll put my name to this petition and provide it to Felicity.

This petition was submitted by the Jean Lumb Public School in Spadina–Fort York.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Elementary Teachers of Toronto to Stop the Cuts and Invest in the Schools our Students Deserve.

“Whereas the Ford government cut funding to our schools by $800 per student during the pandemic period, and plans to cut an additional $6 billion to our schools over the next six years;

“Whereas these massive cuts have resulted in larger class sizes, reduced special education and mental health supports and resources for our students, and neglected and unsafe buildings;

“Whereas the Financial Accountability Office reported a $2.1-billion surplus in 2021-22, and surpluses growing to $8.5 billion in 2027-28, demonstrating there is more than enough money to fund a robust public education system;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“—immediately reverse the cuts to our schools;

“—fix the inadequate education funding formula;

“—provide schools the funding to ensure the supports necessary to address the impacts of the pandemic on our students;

“—make the needed investments to provide smaller class sizes, increased levels of staffing to support our students’ special education, mental health, English language learner and wraparound supports needs, and safe and healthy buildings and classrooms.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and pass it to page Ryan to take to the table.

Further debate?

Mr. Speaker, this petition is entitled, “Reducing Red Tape in Ontario.

“Whereas the Ontario government introduced the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act, 2023, which, if passed, would pave the way for better services, help Ontario businesses grow and save people time; and

“Whereas red tape is a key part of building a stronger economy and improving services for Ontarians, which is why our government is continuing to bring forward burden reduction packages that are saving businesses nearly $700 million each year in compliance costs; and

“Whereas Ontario’s spring 2023 red tape reduction package includes 42 new initiatives that, when fully implemented, are estimated to save businesses, not-for-profits and the broader public sector $119 million in net annual regulatory compliance costs; and

“Whereas the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction continues its work to develop further packages, people and businesses are encouraged the red tape portal at ontario.ca/redtape;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To immediately pass Bill 91, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act, 2023.”

I proudly affix my signature and will give it to page Keya.

This petition is titled “Invest in Ontario’s Arts and Culture Sector.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the arts and culture sector contributes $28.7 billion to Ontario’s GDP and creates over 300,000 jobs;

“Whereas the Ontario Arts Council budget has not been increased at Ontario’s rate of inflation, exacerbating the income precarity of artists and cultural workers, some of whom are earning less than $25,000 per year, and still less for those from equity-deserving groups;

“Whereas the income precarity was worsened during the pandemic through issues of regulatory unfairness in the arts and culture sector, disproportionately impacting the performing arts sector and OAC-determined priority groups, including BIPOC, Indigenous, women, people with disabilities, and LGBTQIA2S+ artists and cultural workers;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to sustain the Ontario Arts Council budget of $65 million in the 2023 provincial budget and adequately invest in the arts and culture sector, including supports for equity-deserving groups, small, medium and grassroots collectives in our communities, and individual artists to ensure their personal and economic survival.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 5, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act to enact two Acts, amend various Acts and revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 91, Loi visant à édicter deux lois, à modifier diverses lois et à abroger divers règlements.

Uncle Ernie says we have enough time.

Hey.

I’m being heckled, Speaker, by Uncle Ernie and his companion, and I’m okay with that.

But before I start talking about the bill, I’m going to start talking about red tape: what red tape is, what it isn’t and how we react to it. No one in Ontario wants what we all think of as red tape. It’s unnecessary regulation. No one wants that, regardless of your political stripe. But we do need safe, workable legislation that keeps people safe. That’s what our society is built on. And there’s a balance to that.

The first time I really had to think about that as an MPP—I can’t even remember what year it was, but I do remember it was really cold. It was like a northern Ontario morning, 30 or 35 below, when the tires freeze and the first 10 kilometres you’re going bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce—one of those mornings. I was scheduled to speak at Professional Engineers Ontario, I believe their regional meeting in North Bay, myself and the member from Nipissing. He was at that time the finance minister. We both spoke there. He spoke first—he’s very eloquent, Speaker—and I spoke second. How do I describe this? When you follow someone, especially like the Minister of Finance, you have to do something to catch people’s attention. That’s part of our job. As people who represent the public, we have to find ways to get the public’s attention so they’ll hear us.

I can remember parts of my speech and I’m going to repeat part of it because it has something to do with this bill. Mr. Fedeli finished and it was my turn. Remember, it was 30 or 35 below that morning. I got up and I said, “I’m a farmer by trade. There are three types of people that farmers naturally dislike: (1) politicians; (2) lawyers”—

I said the reason that farmers don’t like politicians is because when they watch them on TV all they hear them do is criticize each other. But now that I am a politician, I realize that, although we have different political stripes, we often work together and we get along together. We have to. But it’s not just that we have to; we want to. I pointed to the member from Nipissing and I said it’s “because we work together on issues that benefit our people.”

The politicians were covered. Lawyers: Nobody likes lawyers—I have to back up because my daughter is a lawyer now—but everybody laughed at that.

I said, “Why farmers don’t like engineers is, on a morning like this, when it’s 35 below and I push a button on something that’s supposed to work—that day it was a silo loader, and because it sat cold the metal brakes got stressed and that silo loader, which was designed to operate for 10 years but I’ve been using it for 15, snaps and I’m stuck fixing it at 30 below. I blame the engineer.” They laughed. I said, “But you play a crucial role.” Because engineers design equipment—they design all kinds of things but they specifically design equipment—to be strong enough and usable enough but light enough and affordable enough to actually work for the period that it’s designed for. It’s critical.

Then I continued and I said, “We’ve just heard the Minister of Finance say that the goal of the government is to eliminate one quarter of all the regulations in Ontario.” That’s what he said.

There is red tape in Ontario and we agree that it needs to be limited, where possible. But if some of those regulations that are being eliminated by the government are starting to impact people’s safety, it will be the job of engineers and all professionals to not only warn the government but to let the opposition know that some of these changes aren’t right. I think that still holds true. Are there things that can be modernized, made better? Of course. The government is looking for ways and we look for ways, and where we can we work with the government to make that happen. Where we get a bit nervous is when we get big bills with no time ahead, because then you always have to look to see if somewhere hidden in here is something very egregious—that at some point, the government is going to say, “And you voted for this.” So I’m hoping that’s not in here. Quite frankly, we haven’t been able to go through it all the way yet. We’ve had a whole day and a half. There’s quite a bit of agriculture stuff in this bill, and when I contacted some of the agricultural organizations—some of the consultations for this were held four years ago—they didn’t really know this was coming right now either, so they’re in the same position.

On the matter of regulations, how we end up with red tape—because despite what some people think—and I’m not from Toronto. I’m not from the city. I’ve lived my whole life on a little country road. I have yet to find the office building full of bureaucrats whose whole life is dedicated to making red tape. That’s not how it works. How it works is, a regulation usually comes into being to fix a problem, and because it comes into being to fix that problem, sometimes that problem goes away, or sometimes that regulation impacts something else that it wasn’t intended to do, and sometimes another patch is put on top of that patch, and sometimes you get three or four patches and it doesn’t work anymore. That is how red tape develops. To have an initiative to remove that red tape—we’re not opposed to that.

An example of how a regulation could be developed that eventually would cause red tape: When an issue develops that the government of the day has never had to deal with before and they are trying to deal with it—I’ll give you an example. In my riding, right now, we have got unorganized territory. For the people who don’t have unorganized territory in their ridings or have never heard of unorganized territory, it’s places where there is no municipal government; the province is actually the municipal government. Sometimes they have a type of council to maintain roads, but there’s actually no municipal government; the government is the province. And there are huge swaths of that that are uninhabited. But in Timiskaming–Cochrane, specifically in Timiskaming, there is a lot of unorganized territory around towns and—we don’t really have cities; we have one town that’s called a city, but it’s a town. People like to move to unorganized territories because the taxes are cheaper. If you’re close enough to a municipality, the services are still close enough to access. There are many people who have lived in unorganized territory for a long time.

In unorganized territories, you need a permit from the public health unit for a septic system, and you should have a building permit to build, but there’s no building inspector. So it is the tendency of people, when you don’t have an inspector, often—not everyone. But often, things are done on unorganized territory that maybe shouldn’t be done—because there’s a reason you have building inspectors: to keep things safe.

So now there are unofficial subdivisions popping up in unorganized territory. One company specifically—it’s called Boreal Forest Medieval Villages—is unofficially subdividing in unorganized territory. The people buying these lots are leasing or they’re investing, but the fact is, they could be moving into these half-acre lots with no real municipal oversight.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ credit—I give credit where credit is due—he and his ministry have been looking at how to deal with this, how to keep people safe, how to keep development sustainable, but it’s a tough issue to deal with. I can’t speak for what he’s doing—that’s his job—but he’s been doing what he can to come up with a way to deal with this. It might end up with regulation. It might—I can’t say; I don’t know, but it very well could end up with a regulation. And that regulation might impact someone else unknowingly. The government wouldn’t be doing this on purpose; I know that. I disagree with this government vehemently on many issues, but I don’t think they would do that—

The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan seems to be surprised that I would disagree with the government.

So if regulations are created to make sure that the people surrounding the Boreal Forest Medieval Villages developments, the people within those developments—that everything is done safely and sustainably—if those regulations are created, they might solve the problem. I don’t know. But those regulations, once they’re on the books, could impact future development, right? And the government is aware of that. As parts of northern Ontario become more developed, perhaps those regulations will have to be changed once again. So those regulations could be seen, in the future, as red tape, but they’re not red tape when they’re created. They’re trying to solve a problem or resolve a situation.

There are schedules in Bill 91 that certainly are not reducing red tape; they’re actually strengthening regulations. They’re actually creating red tape, but it’s not red tape. In some cases, it’s useful regulation. To make the line between red tape and regulation, it’s really important that we understand on which side of that line it is. Like I told the engineers, it’s easy when you’re looking for ways to cut red tape—that sometimes good regulations that you don’t really understand why they were created get thrown out with the bad.

Sometimes government simply makes a mistake or situations change. There is a schedule in here about broadband. The government introduced a couple of acts about broadband, and they’ve said many times—and the Minister of Infrastructure, I have a good relationship with her as well—that they’re going to spend, I believe, $4 billion and everyone’s going to have usable broadband by 2025. I’m not sure that’s going to happen because the money doesn’t seem to be going out and the time is getting shorter. But they’ve also, in this act, changed some of the regulations in an act that was just proclaimed. Sometimes, believe it or not, although they don’t like to admit it, even the government doesn’t get it right the first or second time, and sometimes they don’t get it right at all.

I need to make clear that it’s not getting rid of regulation—cleaning up red tape is the goal we’re all looking to do, but we have to make sure that the cleaning up of the red tape isn’t taking out needed regulation, because once you take out needed regulation, at one point, someone is going to suffer. That’s a line that we are all trying to find—this is a long-winded; I have an hour to talk; that’s why I’m being so long-winded. That’s why part of our job is to go through all these regulations—our critics and our researchers—to try and make sure that we catch what needs to be caught and to reach out to the stakeholders. I’m hopeful that the government has also reached out to all these stakeholders to make sure that their concerns are caught.

Sometimes it gets a bit confusing. I listened very intently to the Minister of Red Tape Reduction this morning. This is a big bill. I’m reading through the schedules, and the minister this morning mentioned something about the Milk Act. I’m pretty partial to the Milk Act. I’m a retired dairy farmer, but I used to be on the board of Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I spent a fair bit of time thinking about the Milk Act. When he mentioned something about the Milk Act, I was leafing through the schedules; I couldn’t find it.

So, somehow, the minister’s speech—and I’m not criticizing the minister, not at all. I can’t find the schedule that says, “the Milk Act.” So which schedule is it? The Grains Act—but the Milk Act? I don’t see it. If you can find the Milk Act for me, I’m happy—