Like you said.

In Oshawa, we had a couple of make-the-news stories, which I have shared in talking about this bill before, about the kangaroo that came to visit. It was also not part of this bill, but some of the conversation that came from this visiting kangaroo that was on the lam, so to speak, in Oshawa was, what on earth is a kangaroo doing in Oshawa? It brought some attention to roadside zoos: the lack of oversight, the challenges both for veterinarians and people who deal with animal care.

This is a bill that we don’t have a problem supporting, but there are other opportunities for this ministry, for this government, to make strides in caring in a better way for more animals, especially the roadside zoos being one example. What are some other things that you’ve heard?

Like we said.

I give the minister credit. When they found that out, equipment went in; they dug and stopped that.

But that was a fully approved site. And it wasn’t 20 years ago. It was approved with that concrete in the plans—in the plans. Now, rightfully so, in my opinion, there are members of the public who have lost faith in the ministry’s ability to monitor that site, so now they’re asking—the comment period just closed. For the first time in 12 and a half years, our office actually commented in the comment period. I don’t know if that’s proper, actually. But the reason I did it is because the first two times I asked the question, both times the response was completely wrong—it wasn’t even “we’ll look into it”; it was “nope.” So, now, every time when they say there’s no problem, we don’t buy it. The comment period is over. We want to know, how does the ministry ensure that when raw human sewage is spread on those fields that the crops from those fields don’t end up in the human food chain? We don’t have direct access to those answers. I think that’s something we need to know. Just having the ministry say, “Everything is fine, folks”—fool me once, my fault; fool me three times—and I’m not criticizing the ministry, not really, not at all. I believe that the people who work for the ministry are doing everything they can. But the rules, to me, aren’t clear. So we don’t know where those crops are going. We do know that the company that did the spreading was fined for spreading at the wrong time. I’m a farmer by trade. They spread that liquid human sewage under conditions that no competent farmer would ever spread human sewage—

Actually, I agree with that—I said that before I started—since I know where that advice came from.

The new member from Milton, in his speech, talked about how one political issue had made him end up coming here, and I had the same thing. Actually, one of the people who I called told me to find something better to do with my time, and that was also the member from Oxford. That’s why I’m here.

But anyway, in closing, we made it very clear with second reading, we made it very clear in the committee, we’re making it very clear now: We are in favour of this act. It makes changes that people have needed in the veterinary industry, in the agriculture industry and people who have pets. These changes are good for the people who work with those animals and for the people themselves. So, with that, we are happy to support.

My final closing is that I hope that the government learns from this: that you bring good legislation forward, directed legislation, and, actually, it will result in good results for the people of Ontario. We may disagree in philosophy on some things; that’s fine. But a good piece of legislation is a good piece of legislation, and this is.

One other comment: We should look not at lowering the bar, but at expanding the bar to people who have practical experience, because there are some people are more cut out to be a large-animal vet. We need to do that. We need to find a way to do that. I don’t want to lower the bar, but to broaden the life experience bar.