It’s always an honour to be able to speak in the House on behalf of the residents of Timiskaming–Cochrane and on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP, and today on the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act. Before I get into the remarks too far, I’d like to congratulate the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston and the member from Essex on their new roles as parliamentary assistants.

I’d like recognize the minister and her remarks, and I’d like to extend our heartfelt appreciation for her talking about the challenges in her personal life. It’s never easy. We all know what it takes to give up what you give up. I felt it too, the pain. What I was thinking about as the minister was speaking was the last time I drove out the driveway of my dairy farm, the last time I milked the cows. I know that feeling.

We wish your husband well. We certainly hope that your herd comes back. Goats—are they are herd or a flock?

Anyway, in your personal endeavours, we wish you well.

Actually, politically, agriculturally, we usually work together very well. There are issues that we disagree on vehemently, but there’s a way to work in the country, and I think we exemplify that in the House as well. We can agree to disagree vehemently, but still, at the end of the day, we can also agree to work together where we can work together.

I heard a couple of mentions of the Earlton Farm Show. I’m glad that the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston is coming.

I have to relay a personal story. As most of us are aware, the one event that the Legislature stops for is the International Plowing Match. We all have history with the International Plowing Match; I know the minister does. The minister and I have some shared history with the International Plowing Match. One day, I was in the cafeteria—I love the cafeteria in this place, by the way; everybody knows that it’s my favourite spot—and one of the cafeteria staff members asked me, “Mr. Vanthof, I know you go to this International Plowing Match every year and the Legislature stops, but what exactly happens there? Should I be interested in going there?” He had worked here a long time, and he didn’t have a clue. My explanation for the International Plowing Match is that it’s a plowing competition, something that has historical and current importance to agriculture, but it’s also a celebration of the rural lifestyle—and that’s what it has become. I said, “Do you live in a city?” He said, “No, I’ve got a couple of acres.” I said, “You will love the International Plowing Match.”

The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston and I know exactly what a farm show is, but a lot of other people might not—millions of people in Ontario. They’re open farm shows—the one I know the best. There are 60 exhibitors, and they exhibit their wares, so, basically, their tools or seed or—the tools of the trade for agriculture, and always the most advanced ones, because as we all know, agriculture is advancing rapidly. Just as an example, there will be a booth with guidance systems. When I started farming, you would start your tractor and you would drive the tractor. Now, tractors—they’re not autonomous yet, but you’re sitting there as a troubleshooter, not necessarily as an operator. Soon, they will be autonomous. It’s things like that that you see at farm shows.

What makes the Earlton Farm Show incredible is—it’s not the biggest farm show in the province. It’s a long way away from here, and a lot of people—I see the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is here too. He’s very interested in agriculture, as well. A lot of people don’t realize how advanced agriculture is in the north. Their own farm show is an eye-opener. To anyone who is thinking about maybe looking at agriculture in northern Ontario, maybe expanding into northern Ontario: I couldn’t think of a better time to come than this weekend, this Friday and Saturday, to the Earlton Farm Show.

Not everyone may know how to get to the Earlton Farm Show, so I’ll give you a few directions. I’m hoping that everyone across Ontario, whoever is watching, can find their way to Highway 400. Ontario is a big province, but you take 400 and you go as far as 400 goes, and you take 11 and you keep going, and in the city in North Bay you take a right and you keep going up 11. That’s where 11 goes to two lanes, but you keep going. You will go through—before you get to North Bay and for about an hour, hour and a half after, you will go through Canadian Shield: old growth white pine, beautiful lakes and a lot of rock. If you’re an agri-farmer, anyone in agriculture, you are going to wonder what you are doing there. You really are.

Then you will crest a hill by the town of New Liskeard and you will see a couple of hundred thousand acres of farmland open before you. If you know where to look, you’ll see the Sollio feed mill; on the other side, you’ll see Pederson Construction. You keep going, you’ll go to the little town of Earlton, and Koch Farms is on one side, Earlton is on the other side, and there’s kind of a competition which one’s bigger. I think on certain days, Koch Farms looks a little bigger than the town of Earlton. Norm and his kids will have a big sign pointing to the farm show. It’s in the arena. The arena was recently dedicated to Wilfred and Rosaire Paiement, two very famous hockey players who were born and raised in Earlton and played in northern Ontario. That’s where the farm show will be.

Please, if you’re thinking about—that’s why I’m so glad that members from the government side come, because if you’re thinking about farming in northern Ontario or wondering what it’s like to farm in northern Ontario, and if you’ve got the itch and if you’re not quite ready to seed your own fields yet, we’ve got a couple of weeks yet in northern Ontario. Please come to the Earlton Farm Show. We will welcome you with open arms. We’re there for the whole time. We will welcome you with open arms. Thank you very much for saying you’re going to come. Thank you very much.

The Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, I don’t think this act has been changed for years and years and years—60 years. Basically, the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario controls 14 sites. There are about 200 buildings, in a partnership with the University of Guelph, in most cases, and the Ontario government, where research is critical to keeping agriculture current and keeping Ontario as a leader. That’s where it’s conducted.

This is one of the few acts—it has sailed through the Legislature. For good reason. I give credit where credit’s due. I said this at the second reading, but it’s worth saying again: This act is singularly focused. There’s no poison pill in that, there’s no wedge issue in it. It’s focused. It’s well consulted. I think that showed at the committee hearings. It was well consulted. As a result, we’re having good debates. We’re actually talking about—I will bring up a couple of issues that came up in the committee. I’m not opposed to rancorous debate, but I think the debate here is constructive. We’re talking together to move an industry forward.

I would like to quote the minister, and I agree, “Consultation equals results.” This act is an example. I hope that the government uses this as a template, because I’ve got to say that not all of the government’s legislation, even regarding agriculture, has been like that. I don’t think that during the greenbelt fiasco—that bill had to be rescinded—I don’t think that anyone in agriculture is going to say that they were consulted. When it was proposed to subdivide agricultural properties into three, that never made it to the House, but no one is going to—that was not consulted well at all. As a result, I think everybody paid a price. So this is an example of: The government of the day knows how to do it, but sometimes whoever’s running the show chooses not to do it.

I commend the minister on this act. I do. I give credit where credit is due, and the Minister of Agriculture—you know how to do it. On this one, you did it, and as a result, we’re having a good conversation about it.

So, in Ontario, there are 14 sites, and I remember in my second reading debate, I did a whole tour of Ontario, where all these sites were. I don’t think I’m going to make people suffer through that again, but there’s a few sites that are special to us all.

I’ll get it yet without having to read, but the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston mentioned one that was close to his riding, and I’m going to mention one that’s very close to my riding—not close to my riding; it’s in the centre of my riding. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston—I’m going to get it yet—is actually going to go visit that site and specifically the SPUD unit at that site, right? And I commend him for that.

The SPUD unit is—we just say it’s the SPUD unit and then people go, “What is the SPUD unit?” It’s a tissue—and I have no science background—a tissue propagation facility. Basically, they take in seeds of plants, not just potatoes, but strawberries, garlic, asparagus. They actually create a very prolific and very popular type of asparagus at the SPUD unit, and it’s grown in many places.

An example is—so there’s something called a—and anyone scientific is going to think, “Oh, man, Vanthof, what are you talking about?” but I try to explain things in lay terms, the way I understand them. So, you take a potato and there are—in Prince Edward Island, they recently had something called potato scab, a disease on potatoes. You don’t want to grow potatoes that have potato scab. The SPUD unit can take those potatoes and somehow go down to the genetic material and the resulting seed will be virus-free, so you’re starting with pure, clean stock. That’s really important—incredibly important.

Now, the SPUD unit has been operating for 40 years in New Liskeard, and New Liskeard is very close to where—I just told you where the farm show is. I forgot to tell you that the farm show, from here, if Toronto traffic is good, is about seven hours. The SPUD unit is about six and a half hours, right? And the reason it’s so far away: Because of prevailing winds and because of—the area itself is relatively clean as well, like, the air. There’s not a lot of other things being grown around it. It’s easier to keep it sterile when the outside air isn’t full of virus, full of disease. It’s not without challenge, but it’s easier. It’s really important.

So what happened to the SPUD unit—I’m going to have to back up for a second. At one point, the research farm in New Liskeard, which is an ARIO site—it was about 10 years ago, when I was first elected. I guess it was maybe my first or second year. There was a very strong direction from the University of Guelph to close the site in northern Ontario. They were hoping to focus everything closer to Guelph, and we fought back because—and I talked about this at the committee—conditions are different in different parts of the province, and so it’s relevant to do research in an area that, in northern Ontario, is growing in importance and in size in agriculture. It’s relevant to do research there.

So we fought back, and we cut a deal with the then Minister of Agriculture—at the time, it was Ted McMeekin—to hold on that decision and give us some breathing room to come up with a solution. As a result, we cut a deal to sell half of the research stations and build new research facilities on the other side of the road.

The problem is, the SPUD unit is on the half that was sold. That’s, quite frankly, what happened. The SPUD unit is a rented facility, and it’s worn out. Quite frankly, it’s worn out. It needs to be rebuilt, and we’ve been pushing to have it rebuilt for quite a while.

Last year, at the estimates for agriculture, it came up. I brought it up to the minister, and to her credit, the minister, I believe last year, toured the SPUD unit when she came to the farm show. Everyone’s welcome at the farm show. We would love it if you came to the farm show, Speaker. We’d give you the royal treatment.

So this year at the hearings, the berry growers came to hearings on the ARIO bill. The SPUD unit is an ARIO facility. I’m going to quote directly from the representative from the Ontario berry growers. His name is Mr. Tom Heeman. I’m going to talk about what he said about the SPUD unit:

“It breaks my heart that this past fall we had to stop shipments of genetic material from New Liskeard because the HEPA filter was not replaced and there wasn’t a budget to do so.” Like, they didn’t have the budget to change the HEPA filter. “So our samples got contaminated with mould. I know that sounds like a small thing—a couple of plants had to be thrown out and started over again”—that’s what people on the outside world think—“but it takes over three years to replace those dozens of plants into millions and millions of plants. Those plants go throughout the country. They go throughout the United States. You may not buy Ontario berries all the time, but the technology in New Liskeard helps create those Florida berries that get imported during the winter as well.

“I just want you to” know “about these changes. Adding intellectual property I think would be a benefit so that you can work with the university and have a clear guideline on intellectual property.”

But the main problem here is that this facility is worn out. I’m very proud of agriculture in Ontario—extremely proud. I made my living at it most of my life. I am much more qualified as a farmer than I ever will be as a parliamentarian, I guarantee you that. But this facility is worn out. Everyone knows it, and we waited until nothing—now we’re having to import that genetic material. We can’t say we’re leaders and we can’t say we’re research leaders when facilities are breaking down.

So I asked Mr. Heeman about the challenges that we’ve had trying to get the SPUD unit rebuilt. We have a perfect site for it on the ARIO research land across the road, where the provincial government helped build a brand new research station for field crops. That is the perfect spot for it. Everyone agrees that that’s a perfect spot.

I’m not going to read my whole question; it’s not about me. So to Mr. Heeman: “You mentioned some frustration, but just how important is the tissue culture centre and where are you in the process?” And I’m going to quote exactly what he said:

“Thank you. I don’t think anything has changed. I was at this 10 years ago because we had a hard time getting contracts renewed. We’d call and call because we’re a client and we didn’t know who to talk to, and we’ve been able to expand that process up to the minister’s level.

“Again, these facilities are good but we need to have stakeholder dialogue. That whole mandate on technology transfer and expansion—OMAFRA does a tremendous job”—give credit where credit is due, “but they need to have the people in place. It all started when we lost the faculty member”—so when Guelph kind of didn’t pay attention to the SPUD unit. “The faculty member retired and was never replaced. Now we just have a technician with an overseer in Guelph, so there’s not active research being advanced at that facility” today.

“I brought an example today of what it means. I don’t know if you’ve all heard about the Ontario hazelnut story,”—so we’re going to talk about the hazelnut story, a direct quote—“but this is something that is a homegrown success story. It required the tissue culture in the New Liskeard plant in order to make sure that the varieties they were breeding and bringing into nurseries were clean of virus. Now we have delicious Ontario hazelnuts ... something we never had before.” Something we wouldn’t have had without the SPUD unit in New Liskeard.

He goes on to say, “What has been communicated to me is that the challenge is the funding for the joint partnership agreement.” And that is a challenge for this act. This act is good. We have supported this act from day one. But you also have to have funding to actually replace some of these facilities, have the funding to manage these facilities. And it was identified in there that that is not the case—so now I lost my place—“where you can have funding for the facilities, but if you don’t have the funding for the faculty to operate the facilities, then you get a shortfall. Again, you don’t have a lab director for that facility. They’re under another individual out of Guelph who doesn’t physically visit that spot, and you have a technician who is very skilled but close to retirement. She communicates with us, because she’s very exasperated at times for not being listened to. I think it’s a very difficult position, where she has all these plants to keep alive and she knows that growers are counting on her, but I don’t think that—because it’s basically an orphaned facility.”

That’s why I’m bringing it up today: because this is an ARIO facility, and someone who depends on it. We’ve all been talking about research, and someone, a group who depends on this facility is basically saying, “It’s orphaned.” And that came up at committee.

There was also, at the same committee, a representative from the University of Guelph. In response to the same question—and it’s the first time I’ve been at committee that someone answered a question that I didn’t ask—he was obviously very impacted. I give credit where credit is due. I respect, by Mr. Heeman’s comments, when he said that that facility was orphaned. It was Dr. Shayan Sharif—he was the representative from the University of Guelph. He said, “If I may just to diverge here and just point out one big important thing in regard to the SPUD unit, because it has been discussed quite significantly and very extensively: I just wanted to tell MPP Vanthof that I don’t really think that that SPUD is orphaned.... We hope to lease out to industry to have a sustainable plan for the operations of SPUD. SPUD is not forgotten; it will never be forgotten. It is really critical for the industry and for the north. We recognize that, but we need to have a sustainable plan that would ensure its viability for the future.”

I couldn’t agree more. We’re just getting frustrated. And the member from Essex—where are you from, then?

Interjection: Kent.

Kent. He agrees, and he knows more about strawberries than me.

When you get to the point that your tissue cultures facility is falling apart and we’re still talking about that it’s time for a plan—we’ve been talking about this for a long time. We’ve known this issue, and we get it, and you get it. That’s one of the reasons I’m glad that this bill is at the table right now. I’m focusing on this because this needs to be settled. It needs to be settled.

Forty years ago, I am sure that this facility was groundbreaking, breathtaking in what it could do. Now it’s worn out. And when the minister said—and we are: in some areas, we are way ahead. We are world leaders in research. But in tissue propagation for commercial breeders? Not right now. And even the one thing we’ve learned—we’ve learned a lot of lessons from COVID, and the one thing we have also learned from COVID is that you need to be able to rely on your own facilities when things go wrong in the world. I think this is a case where, for 40 years, we’ve had that facility, and now we didn’t have the money to change the HEPA filter. Like, what is that?

I’m from northern Ontario, and I’m a bit jaded, because 10 years ago, we had to fight to keep the research station, period. We saved the research station with the University of Guelph and with the government. But this feels eerily similar. It just does.

So when you’re at the Earlton Farm Show, see the potential—and there’s way more potential in northern Ontario—but also recognize what’s there and what needs to be changed. Because if there’s one thing that needs to be changed, and actually, there’s not a lot of—there’s starting to be more potatoes and there’s a few strawberries, but most of it isn’t for local. That one—and I take the rep from the University of Guelph at his word. I take the minister at her word last year at committee when she said that there was a plan in place to rebuild it and to rebuild it in New Liskeard. She specifically said in New Liskeard. I take everyone at their word. The question is, “When?” and “How many more?” The berry growers are now—they were hurt, and for no reason. So if the act is updated, hopefully that will help speed up the decision-making process too.

I know I’m dwelling on this issue for a long time, Speaker, but it’s an issue I likely won’t get to talk about again very much. And I don’t think anyone’s specifically out to hurt the SPUD unit. We all want the industries to flourish. This is one that I hope we can get some action on as soon as possible. I think all members who have any agriculture in their heart, because it is something that’s in—and I don’t think it’s just agriculture but, for me, it’s just agriculture. There’s something about agriculture.

So with that, I’m going to switch gears. I think I’ve made my point in that. I was listening intently to the minister when she was talking about their herd. I like personal stories.

My wife hates this time of year. It’s not so much—she likes the spring, but the spring is when I start looking for tractors. Farmers love tractors. My problem is, I spend all my time here driving around the riding. I still have a farm. I sharecrop my farm with someone else—actually, with Koch Farms—and I have no real need for another tractor, but man, the pull is there.

Just one other personal: This year it’s going to be a different year for farming in northern Ontario, for a lot of things. Because we didn’t have any snow, right? So with wildfires, it could be a very different year. But most years—I’m going to give you my experience of the springtime, coming to the Legislature. Around, oh—when is the snow usually gone here? Around the end of March?

It’s warm here, and there’s no snow, and you can smell the ground. Farmers, gardeners—there’s something about it. There’s something about fresh soil. You can smell it. So you’re here for a whole week, and then you forget, so when I drive home, there’s still three feet of snow.

Week two, I drive down here. The grass is growing. It’s springtime. I’m sitting here in my seat thinking, “Oh, I’ll get home and do stuff.” I’m not selling northern Ontario now. I drive home and there is still three feet of snow.

Week three, I drive down here. I don’t know if they’ve started yet, but there’s a nice sidewalk that goes up University here, and there’s a bunch of flowerbeds. The flowers will start coming out, and then it’s really, “Oh, man. We’re going to get home and start planting.” You go home and, Speaker, in week three, there is still snow. It’s so frustrating.

Week four, I drive down here, and people are mowing their lawns. Everybody’s in shorts. It’s just beautiful down here, right? Week four, you drive home, and the grass is this tall, because your spring lasts a month; our spring is a week. So it’s hotter at home than it is here. The dust is flying off the fields. There might still be a bit of snow in the bush. But week four, I’m behind, because, I was, “Oh, there’s still snow.” The moral to the story is, that’s why it’s so important to do research in different places, because of just the difference in the physical conditions.

The fall is not quite so bad. Your falls here are a little bit—

Interjection.

Now I’m going to get back to the bill, but an hour is a long time to fill, Speaker.

The worst weather I’ve driven through since I have been elected was in London, Ontario. The Heinz plant in Leamington closed, and I had to drive down there for a presser or something. I always listen to classic rock stations. I’m driving, and the DJ goes, “Yeah, the weather is a bit gloomy.” It was in November, so fine, a little bit gloomy. “The weather is a bit gloomy and there’s a streamer coming down Commissioner Street.”

I’m from northern Ontario, used to 40 below. I’m just driving along, wondering what a streamer is. A streamer is a snowstorm, an instant snowstorm, that would shut northern Ontario down for three days. It’s just cars in the ditch on both sides, and then you go for about a kilometre or a kilometre and a half, and it’s all gone again. That’s not weather that we—our weather is much more stable. It gets cold; it snows. This year is different. This year, it’s almost like southern Ontario weather. And that’s something you have to get used to, too, when you’re overwintering crops. So some years winter wheat works great in our area, but not every year. Those are all things that make a difference, why research should be regional.

There’s a couple of other quotes here I want to read before I tell too many personal stories; just give me a second, Speaker. I want to read something that I found from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They made a written submission, but they also came to the board. Mr. Mark Reusser came to the board, or came to the committee. The OFA was in favour of the bill. We’re all in agreement of that; that’s why we support it. But they did have some—and I’d like to put them into the record, into the Hansard, as well—Mark called them concerns. I would call them more constructive suggestions. I would like to read some of them into the record.

From Mr. Mark Reusser: “We do have some concerns and some suggestions with regard to the bill, and I will focus on those, if I may.

“The first one has to do with the mandate. The proposed updates to the mandate or objects of the ARIO are a significant expansion of the objectives,” which is true. “The core function of providing advice to the minister remains, and OFA supports that a key objective for ARIO is to advise the minister on high-impact, transformational agri-food research and innovation....

“OFA appreciates that the mandate expansion will increase collaboration, and we support increased engagement of the agri-food sector. Engagement with agriculture organizations, industry and researchers is key for the sector to reach its full potential, and ARIO will be more effective in its role with cross-collaboration.” So that’s the purpose of the bill.

“However, to be successful in determining research needs and promoting research opportunities, farmers must be recognized and included as key participants, not merely consulted stakeholders. So OFA recommends that ARIO engage directly with farmers and producer organizations on research needs and objectives as a key priority....”

That struck me, because when we ran into the issue where ARIO and the University of Guelph were thinking about divesting the New Liskeard Agricultural Research Station, there was a breakdown between the farm community and the research done there, because farmers, agricultural stakeholders, need to see some relevance in the research to really buy into it, and that was lacking. There was very little reporting of what research was being done. There wasn’t really a connection. I think that’s what OFA is—I don’t want to put words into OFA’s—they spoke for themselves; they’re on the record. But my interpretation was that there needs to be a connection between the agriculture community and ARIO, the research organization. That connection needs to be there, and if that connection isn’t there, then not only will the agriculture community lose, but Ontario as a whole will lose. Although we may not agree with everything that the government talks about—their goals in agriculture. Where we profoundly disagree is about the importance of saving farmland. So you need to have that connection. The agriculture community in Timiskaming didn’t have that connection with the ARIO site in New Liskeard and, quite frankly, the University of Guelph didn’t either, or they wouldn’t have thought about closing. That’s why it’s so important that we need that connection.

The minister, in her comments, talked about Emo, and I think the quote she was referring to—many people can find Nemo, but not too many people could find Emo. That was my quote.

Interjection.

Everybody knows what Finding Nemo is.

Interjection.

I didn’t know that. So that points to something else: that perhaps we need to do, together, as the agriculture sector—again, agriculture and aquaculture aren’t exactly the same thing. But as a research sector, we need to do a better job of making sure that everybody else knows what we’re doing—because unless the general population knows, then you have a chance of losing it. One of the great things about this job is that we can bring this forward and, hopefully, spark someone’s attention.

Someone the members on the government side didn’t mention, who came to committee, who I thought was very interesting, and I’ll just find his—I don’t quote people very often, and that’s why I have such a hard time finding the quotes when I want to find them. Mr. Gerald Schipper chaired a dairy advisory committee at Ridgetown college. Ridgetown is also an ARIO site. In Elora, they’ve got new dairy facilities, and they are state-of-the-art, and that is where very critical research is being done. Someone on the government side, I believe, the minister or—I can’t remember which one of you said it, but it was a very good point, about methane, about where the research—so that there will be less methane coming from cattle; specifically, dairy cattle. What Mr. Schipper brought forward was also a good point. In agriculture, we are also facing a big labour shortage. So not everyone who is going to end up working in the dairy sector, in production, as an example, is going to be destined to do research at that high-end facility. Like Ridgetown also was beneficial for someone who wants to learn how to be a better herd manager, or to be—right? That not necessarily, but right now, Ridgetown is an outdated facility that, quite frankly, is pretty close to not passing for standards of care of dairy cattle. It’s an old tie-stall facility.

And he brought forward a good point. That’s something we need to look at too: So where are we going train the dairy managers? Because they are not always going to be—not everyone is destined to do high-end genetic research—it’s very important—or high-end feed research. It’s incredibly important. Right? But where are we going train the people who are going to manage herds?

And I’m focusing on dairy. I know dairy pretty well, so I’m not going to focus on the strawberry end as much. But there is a need because to be a manager of a dairy herd, it’s a very—as an example, it is not an easy job. You need a specific skill set. It’s a very skilled job and it’s a very good job.

It’s a great job, right? But you might not need to go to the best research facility in Ontario to learn how to do that. So he brought up a very good point. It didn’t 100% fit into the bill. I get that, I get that, but one of the things I miss about—and I appreciate this afternoon, because we can actually listen to each other and what we got out of the committee, because we’re actually talking about what came out of the committee.

He did that; that stuck with me. Because a lot of the people I know, if you want to learn to manage dairy, the only one left really is Ridgetown, right? Well, if Ridgetown isn’t there anymore, and okay, we’ve got this great facility in Elora, great, but not everyone is going to learn how to manage cows in Elora. That’s the point he brought forward, and it’s a good point. It’s a good point.

If you look at a modern dairy farm, a modern robotic dairy farm, it’s totally different than tie-stall. Tie-stall technology 20 years ago was even prevalent. No one builds a tie-stall now; very few build parlours now. It’s all robotic. So if you’re going to work on a robotic farm, where are you going to learn that, unless you come from that type of facility? I appreciated that he brought that forward.

I can’t be so complimentary. I can’t be complimentary all the time, so I’m going to take my last 10 minutes and not be so complimentary. I did take polite exception to the minister’s comment that the NDP doesn’t understand the cost of production. Certainly, we understand; those of us whose job it is to understand the cost of production certainly do understand the cost of production.

I hesitate to go here, but as everyone knows, the NDP are against the individual carbon tax because we think its regressive.

So the member from—where is it? Kitchener–Conestoga? We agree that neither one of us nor our parties agree with the individual carbon tax. We believe it’s regressive; you guys are just talking about politics. Because actually, do you know who invented it? It was actually the federal Conservatives who invented the carbon tax. That’s actually a Conservative policy.

So, they said, “Okay, cap-and-trade and the carbon tax are the same thing.” They’re actually not the same thing. But you never hear them talk about their industrial compliance fee on carbon. They never talk about that, and I believe they pulled in, what, $147 million, $150 million?

That’s one of the things, Speaker, that drives me crazy about this place. It drives me crazy. So let’s actually, you know, talk about what the province can do, talk about what you’re doing. Yes, the Conservative government, the Ford government, has got a compliance fee for carbon, basically an industrial carbon tax—not an individual one, an industrial carbon—

We all disagree with the carbon tax—at least two sides.

What I really want to know is, if we have an industrial system in Ontario—which we do; the Ford government instituted it—what can we do to make sure that the system that you have complies so people don’t have to pay the carbon tax? Because actually, we’re paying double because of the Conservative government. We’re paying the backstop carbon tax and, indirectly, people are paying the compliance fee.

Interjections.

Yes, let’s talk about reality. The Conservative industrial compliance fee for carbon—you charge it. You charge it. That’s reality. So what can you do so people don’t have to pay the carbon tax? Is there something you can do with that fee, or is it just because you don’t want to talk about that you’re forcing Ontarians to pay it, to pay the individual carbon tax? I don’t know. I’m asking the question.

Anyway, getting back to the bill, this bill is an example of, if you consult extensively, you consult carefully, legislation will go through the House, it won’t be held back and the opposition won’t do deleterious things. Good legislation, if it’s consulted on, will pass through the House very quickly, as opposed to legislation like the greenbelt legislation, which didn’t pass very easily through the House—but because of the rules, it did. What happened is, the government ended up—actually, no, the people of Ontario ended up paying the price, because the government had to end up rescinding the bill and now are mired in investigations. That’s the example of legislation that isn’t consulted on at all, isn’t for the benefit of Ontarians, and Ontarians lose. This is an example of a bill that was done for Ontarians, for people in agriculture and for people who eat the wonderful food that’s grown in Ontario.

And my last minute: There is a reception tonight for Farm Fresh Ontario starting at 4 o’clock. I believe it’s in the—just wait a sec.

The dining room. Where better to have a reception for Farm Fresh Ontario than in the dining room?

I brought this up earlier, right? When you don’t consult—again, when this government proposed to allow the division of farms into up to three without any consultation, they didn’t know, didn’t realize the havoc they were going to cause because they never asked anybody, or they just decided to help out one group. So many members on the government side came over to me and said, “You know, John, we were about to stop that.” No, no, no; it never would have become public if that had been the case.

But this is an example that it can be done well, and you have done it well on this bill, and we commend you for it. As a result, this bill’s going to pass this afternoon, I hope.

So with that, I’m going to leave a minute on the clock, because I could see people—even the Speaker’s eyes are starting to—I’m getting a bit worried.

Interjections.

I have said this publicly: I have family in Oxford county. If I could trade my land acre for acre for land in Oxford county, for its productive capacity, I would do it in a minute—or even two to one.

But having said that, there is incredible opportunity in northern Ontario—tile drainage, specifically, from the heritage fund. The minister may not know, but the original application for tile drainage to the heritage fund—I wrote it before I was a politician. Anyway, without tile drainage, agriculture will never truly flourish in Ontario. It is one of the best infrastructure investments that can be made. It’s long-term. My dad tiled a farm in 1971 in Earlton with cement tiles—

It’s not canola; canola has always done very well in the Clay Belt, because canola is actually a cool-weather crop. It’s soybeans. We’re starting to be able to grow soybeans—or we grow a lot of soybeans, not starting. And grain corn: I’ve always grown silage corn to feed cattle, but grain corn is starting to be profitable.

But our weather—and again, I’m not a climatologist—is becoming a bit more extreme, less predictable. Overall, likely, in the Clay Belt, in northern Ontario, we will be winners in the climate change draw, but we’re a very small place compared to the rest of the world.

Actually, when ARIO and the University of Guelph were thinking about shutting our research station down, we struck a committee, and one of the first places we went to look at was Vineland, to see how they were structured, because they’re structured slightly differently than many of the other sites. It was very informative, and many of the ideas that we got to try to save our research station, although our conditions are completely different—completely, totally different. But the way they look at the situation—we were very impressed. And I agree with everything that was in that statement.

It comes up a lot, the closures of Highways 11 and 17. The most direct impact: If you think about it, there is a lot of—or one, but it’s a pretty important one that a lot of people don’t think of. There are a lot of cattle that cross Highways 11 and 17. When the highway is closed for hours, not only are people stranded, but often, transport loads of cattle or hogs are stranded on the highway. And there are rules in Canada and in Ontario as well for how long an animal can be transported before it has to be unloaded so it has access to water, to feed, to bedding. If the highway is closed for 10 hours, you can have all the rules you want, but it does result in mistreatment of animals.