Scary as that sounds, in this particular bill—we are in favour.

So an hour on a name change is quite a bit, and there’s a few other things changed, but I haven’t heard anything back from the agriculture organizations. But this is an example where you take a piece of legislation by itself and it goes before on its merits, whereas a lot of other bills have good things and bad things and then we focus on the bad things—and they’re usually terrible things—and then you have a couple of good things and you focus on those, and that’s the difference. This is a reasonable piece of legislation that actually won’t take long to get through the House—thank you.

We’re not opposed to, when the highway is not safe, that it should be closed. But we need to have adequate highways, adequate training on those highways—that they’re not stopped needlessly. It’s the Trans-Canada Highway. Each time that highway is stopped, our families are in danger, but—

There’s medium-term things we can do to fix the roads, and we need a long-term strategy to—okay, is this the Trans-Canada Highway or not? And are we actually going to invest in it like it’s the Trans-Canada Highway, that it’s not the only two-lane goat path in Canada? Everywhere else is four-lane, and we’ve got a two-lane goat path. We have to realize, at some point: Is it or is it not?

When northern Ontario heard that the government was uploading the Gardiner and uploading the Don Valley, you know what? We thought, “Great. They’re not really Toronto roads.” And they seem to have no problem spending—they’re going to spend billions. So why don’t they spend money on the Trans-Canada Highway, the highway that they already control?