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—