I’m not sure why the member is calling this a doorstop. I think that’s an insult to the people of Ontario. This is not a doorstop, Madam Speaker; this is feedback that we have received from Ontarians. I think the fact that the member referred to this as a doorstop is a clear indication of why we have 83 seats and they lost seats in the previous election. If they had done a better job, maybe I would be sitting on that side of the House. So maybe instead of calling this a doorstop, she should actually take the time to read through it, because I’ve had no issues reading through this and doing my job. Maybe she should do hers.

One thing I can say is that I have a really good relationship with all the farmers in my riding of Carleton. I really do appreciate them and I take time to listen to them. Just a few weeks ago, I actually had my farmer appreciation breakfast, and over 200 farmers came and attended, and it was just such a fantastic thing. In Carleton, and I’m sure across all the province—at least, I know, on this side of the House—we have a fantastic working relationship with our farmers.

Madam Speaker, to answer the member’s question, the way that these changes will benefit farmers is that updates to the financial protection programs will help to strengthen protection for Ontario farmers, level the playing field for grain and livestock dealers and elevators, and support the current and future risk management needs of the agricultural sector. In fact, we have the largest grain elevator in eastern Ontario in my riding of Carleton.

Ultimately, what this legislation does is it’s streamlining processes. One of the things that I know the parliamentary assistant was speaking about earlier today is how we need to allow people to use technology to become more involved in their community and to become more engaged in the civic process. So by allowing the use of technology to engage in, let’s say, condo meetings or board meetings, this is allowing for civic engagement. I hope the member will support this important piece of legislation.

That not-for-profit—what we do is we raise money for a school that was built in rural Somalia to provide education to young children, usually orphans or from very poor families. I joined that board back in 2019, and one of the challenges we faced during the pandemic was not being able to conduct as many meetings as we wanted to, because the way that the bylaws or amendments or whatever were written out, it just wasn’t really conducive to electronic meetings. I think that’s something a lot of not-for-profits faced during the pandemic.

And so, Madam Speaker, what the amendments here to the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act do in schedule 22 is they would “provide that meetings of directors may be held entirely by one or more telephonic or electronic means” or in any hybrid format. I think this is a fantastic way to support Ontario’s not-for-profit corporations, like the Somali Hope Foundation.

I’d like to thank the member for his question. I’ll find it here. There we go—no. I can’t even find it; I don’t know where it went. You’ll have to give me a moment. I have all my notes here. See, this is the problem, Madam Speaker, when you over-prepare and you’re a lawyer and just have a huge binder with notes everywhere. All I would say is that—oh, there we go; I found my notes.

With respect to the Pension Benefits Act, it’s removing the requirement for the administrator of a pension plan to send notices to members upon retirement reminding them that they may request non-electronic written communications. It says “may,” Madam Speaker, not “shall,” so I’m not quite sure why the member is so opposed to electronic communication, especially since the member seems to think that he is a huge advocate for the environment, and yet for some reason he wants everything to be on paper.