I want to thank the member opposite for his comments. I’d like to be clear on a couple of points before I pose my question. First of all, the decision and what this bill is proposing is not to change. What it’s doing is pausing the decision of the OEB, because already, in its regulations, it goes for a 40-year horizon. So we’re not changing any of that.

I’m on natural gas, and I, like all my neighbours who are on natural gas, share those costs over a 40-year period. The decision—and, I think, the dissent by Commissioner Duff—doesn’t say that we shouldn’t be shortening the window. What she does say, though, is that we’re shortening it from 40 years to zero years, and that’s no ramp at all. That’s no amortization period.

So what she’s suggesting is that we look and have hearings in which we examine the nature of the implications of shortening that window. And so, my question to the member opposite: Does he not agree that that is an important discussion to have to prevent stranded assets, but also to allow an on-ramp to prevent barriers for homebuyers getting a home and having reliable, safe heat?

My question is to my colleague from Durham, who, I understand, had a long and fruitful practice in law. I’m wondering if he could speak to some of the changes that are being made through this legislation that will impact the legal profession, such as changes to the Creditors’ Relief Act and the Execution Act.

I understand in the last Parliament, 12 members from the opposition introduced petitions around the need to improve Ontario’s efforts towards sexual assault. This bill is doing just that in the education system, where there’s a power imbalance between faculty and students. This is specifically addressing faculty and student issues. We’re being accused, I understand from the member opposite, of tinkering where there needs to be monumental change. So I would ask the member opposite, what are the monumental changes that she thinks—