Thank you.

The supplementary question?

The next question.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. When I spoke with my constituents in the riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell last week, I kept hearing how the federal carbon tax is making life more unaffordable. With many people in Ontario already dealing with the rising cost of living and high interest rates, the last thing they need is another tax hike.

Speaker, this punitive tax is increasing the cost of everything in our province. After next month’s increase, Ontarians will be paying 17.6 cents extra on every litre of gas, costing them hundreds of dollars every year. Of course, that’s unacceptable. The federal Liberals need to scrap this tax now.

Can the minister tell this House how our government is keeping costs down for Ontarians?

Individuals and families in rural Ontario rely heavily on their vehicle for transportation. The carbon tax is negatively impacting residents of rural Ontario as they are hit hardest at the gas pumps. While the opposition members representing these communities support this ludicrous tax, our government will continue to advocate for all Ontarians.

Can the minister explain what our government is doing to make life more affordable for northern and Indigenous communities and rural communities?

The supplementary question?

The member for Hamilton Mountain and the government House leader, if they wish to have a conversation, could they please do it outside the chamber, not in the middle of question period?

Interjections.

Start the clock. The member for Newmarket–Aurora has the floor.

The next question.

The Minister of Finance to reply.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and government House leader.

There being no further business this morning, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1138 to 1500.

Madame Gélinas moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 181, An Act to proclaim Family Caregiver Day / Projet de loi 181, Loi proclamant le Jour des aidants naturels.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

Today is Ontario Waterpower Association’s lobby day, and I want to thank James Carter, John Wynsma, Jonathan Atkinson and Paul Norris, along with Ryley Gutoskie, who took the time to speak to several of the MPPs.

Ontario was established on Ontario power, and this country was initiated with the initial power of having water power. This bill proclaims June 20 in each year as Waterpower Day.

This petition is called “Protect Farmland and Sustainable Growth in Waterloo Region.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government is overriding and rewriting local official plans to move urban boundaries and violate the countryside line by opening up previously protected lands to development;

“Whereas Waterloo’s regional official plan as passed in August 2022 was accommodating all anticipated future growth until 2051 without significant boundary expansion or significant loss of farmland;

“Whereas this process of expropriating prime farmland in Wilmot township has lacked transparency with no public consultation or information in response to concerns about how rezoning and development will affect our water resources;

“Whereas there is a concerning pattern of using ministers’ zoning orders (MZOs) to fast-track developments that favour sprawl over sustainable growth; and

“Whereas the 770 acres of land being expropriated and rezoned in Wilmot is prime agricultural land;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately pause all plans to expropriate and rezone lands in Wilmot township, to respect the regional planning processes, and to prioritize environmentally conscious, sustainable development in Waterloo region.”

It is my pleasure to affix my signature to this petition and give it to page Tyler.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario was created in 1962 as an agency of the province of Ontario, accountable to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; and

“Whereas the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act last received major amendments in the 1990s and these amendments focused on formalizing the operational structure of the agency; and

“Whereas in 1962 when the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario was created robotics used in agriculture was not a technology that was even envisioned; and

“Whereas advancements in robotics for dairy farms has resulted in dairy farmers in Ontario having a competitive advantage by producing more milk with a smaller herd of cattle; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would allow for more research to occur in this new technology; and

“Whereas in 1962 when the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario was created genomics was not a technology that was envisioned as something that could be used in the agriculture and food industry; and

“Whereas agricultural genomics is a rich field that contributes to advances in crop development to assist Ontario farmers in producing some of the highest-quality crops available in the entire world; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would allow for more advanced genomic studies to occur in Ontario to ensure that Ontario farmers have access to this technology; and

“Whereas in 1962 when the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario was created autonomous vehicle technology did not exist and therefore was not a focus of any research in Ontario; and

“Whereas autonomous vehicle technology has seen advancements in tractors, drones, seed planting, weeding and harvesting robots and are several of the technologies currently under development that will transform agriculture and help alleviate food shortages by improving the sustainability and productivity of agricultural activities; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act will help facilitate further research in autonomous vehicle technologies in Ontario so that Ontario can get that research out of the lab and into the field more quickly; and

“Whereas in 1962 when the Agriculture Research Institute of Ontario was created, artificial intelligence was not a technology that existed; and

“Whereas by modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, Ontario will be able to enhance this invaluable research into technologies that can help explore the soil health to collect insights, monitor weather conditions and recommend the appropriate application of fertilizers and pesticides to ensure maximum crop yields and reducing the amount of waste created by over-fertilizing or applying the inappropriate amount of pesticide to a crop; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act is a key component of the Grow Ontario Strategy that aims to strengthen Ontario’s agriculture and food supply chain; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act also aims to increase agri-food technology and adoption; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act also aims to attract and grow Ontario’s agri-food talent; and

“Whereas by modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, Ontario would further its status as a world leader in agriculture; and

“Whereas by modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, Ontario would help the development of the industry’s unique technologies; and

“Whereas by modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, Ontario would increase its competitiveness and productivity in the agriculture and food industry; and

“Whereas by modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act, Ontario would help in the development and adoption of new technologies in the agriculture and food industry in support of the key goals set out in the Grow Ontario Strategy; and

“Whereas the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario owns 14 research stations across the province that provide industry with the latest in agricultural and food-specific research; and

“Whereas Ontario needs to” act “to strengthen the agriculture industry by proposing to amend the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act by expanding the current scope of research to be more relevant today and serve the future needs of the entire agricultural and food value chain; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would allow research in Ontario to move at the speed of business; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would allow for the results of the research to be distributed to Ontario’s agricultural and food industries in a more accessible way; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide appropriate information directly to the fingertips of the farmers of Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on aquaculture being performed at the research institute location in Alma, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on equine, poultry and swine being performed at the research institute located in Arkell, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on vegetables being performed at the research institute located in Bradford, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on horticulture crops being performed at the research institute located in Cedar Springs, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on beef, dairy and swine being performed at the research institute located in Elora, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on field crops being performed at the research institute located in Elora, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on field crops being performed at the research institute located in Emo, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on field crops being performed at the research institute located in Huron, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on beef, field crops and horticulture crops being performed at the research institute located in New Liskeard, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on general animal facilities and sheep being performed at the research institute located in Ponsonby, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on field crops being performed at the research institute located in Ridgetown, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on horticulture crops being performed at the research institute located in Simcoe, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on horticulture crops being performed at the research institute located in Vineland, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on field crops being performed at the research institute located in Winchester, Ontario; and

“Whereas modernizing the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Act would provide a direct benefit to the research focused on field crops being performed at the research institute located in Woodstock, Ontario; and

“Whereas through the Ontario Association of Veterinary Technicians Act of 1993, the association can grant its members the right to the exclusive use of certain professional designations and membership requirements, including title protection, for over 4,500 registered veterinary technicians and registered veterinary technologists are currently addressed under a private statute in the act; and

“Whereas the Veterinarians Act in the current legislative framework that governs the licensing of veterinarians in Ontario, the practice of veterinary medicine, as well as the accreditation of the facilities used to practise veterinary medicine.

“The Veterinarians Act also establishes the governance framework for the regulator, the College of Veterinarians of Ontario. The college is the regulator that oversees the practice of veterinary medicine in Ontario, and oversees the licensing of over 5,000 veterinarians and is responsible for facility accreditation; and

“Whereas the Veterinarians Act has not been updated substantively since 1989. Since then, the practice of veterinary medicine has evolved significantly. Thus, modernization is needed to keep up with today’s practices and contemporary approaches to governance; and

“Whereas changes made by the government of Ontario would revise the 35-year-old legislative framework, appealing or amending a total of 12 bills to modernize legislation for veterinary professionals; and

“Whereas the Ontario government launched consultations to explore opportunities to modernize the Veterinarians Act in November 2022 and this was the government’s first substantive review in 30 years, explored amendments of the legislative framework, opening the door to a new standard of veterinary medicine in Ontario that is modern, flexible and continues access to safe and professional care for pet owners and farmers; and

“Whereas the veterinary community and the public have stated that the investigations, complaints and resolution processes need in order to be more efficient; and

“Whereas Ontario is working to ensure animals continue to receive good veterinary care as the provincial government recognizes the importance of access to professional care for animals in Ontario...; and

“Whereas updating the legislative framework would explicitly recognize the role of veterinary technicians as part of the broader animal care team in the delivery of veterinary medicine in addition to other non-veterinary animal care providers; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework will recognize the important roles veterinary technicians play in providing care; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework will move the scope of practice and delivery of care from an exclusive scope-of-practice model to a more risk-based activities approach; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework will promote the recognition that veterinary care is delivered by a team and acknowledge the roles of both veterinarians and veterinary technicians; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework will enable the regulatory college and government to define a broad scope of practice for veterinary technicians that reflects their skills and training; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework will include a list of authorized activities that describe the specific activities that make up the practice of veterinary medicine; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would enhance clarity and better enable non-veterinarians to provide care to animals using lower-risk forms of treatment without the legal uncertainty that now exists; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would not restrict low-risk animal services such as grooming, hoof trimming, physiotherapy and massage; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would remove the association’s power to grant its members the right to the exclusive use of certain professional designations, as this is granted through the Veterinary Professionals Act, 2024; and

“Whereas Ontario would continue, from the current Veterinarians Act, the exemptions for animal owners including those who care for their own animals; and

“Whereas there would be greater diversity on the governing council of the regulatory college, including a greater number of public appointees, new spaces for veterinary technicians and academic members, and ministerial oversight of the regulatory college’s governing council...; and

“Whereas the name of the regulatory college to the College of Veterinary Professionals of Ontario from the current College of Veterinarians of Ontario to reflect its new role in overseeing two categories of veterinary professionals within a single veterinary profession would be updated; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would mandate the regulatory college to develop a formal quality assurance program, which would include continuing education, to better ensure the competence of members of the profession and to further increase public trust. This aligns with the requirements for other regulated professions...; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would provide a streamlined complaints and resolutions process, which would enable disputes to be addressed more quickly, and new and updated procedures for investigations, addressing professional misconduct and a member’s fitness to practise; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would provide new legal protections for members who report professional misconduct, concerns about a member’s fitness to practise, suspected incompetence, and new requirements to report these items; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would enable a greater amount of information about a licence holder to be collected, and where appropriate, posted on the public-facing register to provide additional information to animal owners and the public; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would increase penalties to better reflect the seriousness of actions that harm animals and fines for taking actions that could foreseeably cause serious harm to an animal without being licensed by the college would be set in legislation. This would carry a fine of up to $25,000 for an individual on first offence and $50,000 for subsequent offences and $50,000 for a corporation on first offence and $200,000 for subsequent offences. There would be maximum fines for practising veterinary medicine without a licence that would increase to the same levels; and

“Whereas modernizing would provide a framework for members of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario whereby they would be able to carry out prescribed authorized activities on animals, subject to guidelines, processes, terms, conditions, limitations or prohibitions that would be set out in regulation. Chiropractors providing care to animals would remain members of the College of Chiropractors and would not have to be a member of two different regulated colleges; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would continue to allow farmers, farmer family members and employees to continue to treat and provide care for their own animals without veterinary oversight and continue to access necessary inputs without veterinary involvement; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would ensure Ontario farmers have access to modern and quality care for their livestock, a crucial component of the economic stability of Ontario’s rural communities; and

“Whereas modernizing the legislative framework would promote the maintenance of a healthy, safe and sustainable agri-food system;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fully support the ministry of agriculture and rural affairs initiatives to improve research in Ontario’s agri-food industry and improve the people of Ontario’s access to veterinary services by passing Bill 155, the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario Amendment Act, and Bill 171, Enhancing Professional Care for Animals Act, 2024.”

I fully endorse this petition, will sign my name to it and give it to page Ahmad.

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 27, 2024, on the motion regarding amendments to the standing orders.

Thank you to the member opposite for that question. You know, I don’t know what the member opposite has against consumer choice and more consumer convenience. I don’t know. But I’m sure the member opposite—because he’s a very studious fellow and a learned fellow; he follows current events—knows that there’s a lot of auto theft in this province. This government is the one combatting auto theft. In fact, he failed to mention that the budget includes four helicopters to be purchased by the OPP to be able to do their jobs. We’re going to give more tools to our enforcement officers across this province so they can combat crime and go after the bad guys.

But listen, let’s lock arms and let’s go down to Ottawa and ask the federal government to help us at the ports, where those cars go in and get shipped off to other countries and other parts, which is driving the cost of insurance up.

Thank you to the associate minister for that response. It’s clear the opposition and the federal government are ignoring the concerns of Ontario’s job creators. The carbon tax continues to negatively impact small business owners in the construction sector who are helping the government build more homes.

Speaker, our government refuses to go down the path of unaffordability and inaction. From cutting provincial gas taxes to reducing housing development fees and red tape, we are providing substantive pocketbook relief to Ontarians.

But we know that more still needs to be done. That’s why we will keep on calling on the federal government to scrap its disastrous carbon tax and its detrimental cost on small businesses—

Interjections.

My question is for the Premier. Speaker, the budget dropped, and once again, it’s Groundhog Day for Ontario drivers, who still pay the highest auto insurance premiums in the country. Every year, the government promises action, and like clockwork, the rates go up higher than inflation. They even went up during the pandemic when cars were parked and accidents were way down.

Now, the minister’s newest gimmick is to get drivers to slash their own coverage to save a penny, but in the media, he couldn’t even promise this would actually reduce premiums. Man, the insurance companies are smiling. They’re so proud of him. And if he pulls this off, he’ll make it to the auto insurance company hall of fame. Good luck, Minister.

So will the minister finally come clean and admit that the insurance companies themselves are writing his own policies on auto insurance?

Interjections.

Let’s talk about postal code discrimination in auto insurance. Right after the last election, the Premier himself said he’d fix it. But here we are, two years later, and they just can’t get it done. In this budget—get this—they’re going to buy more time and study it for another two years. You just can’t make this stuff up. It’s like they’re driving in reverse.

Will the minister tell the drivers in Brampton, Scarborough, Vaughan and my community why they just can’t get it done for them on auto insurance?

Interjections.

I would just say this, Mr. Speaker: I think the member opposite is actually better than that. If he thinks that insulting somebody is a way to make a point, this is certainly not the place for that. I know that he’s better than that and I hope that, in future, the debate will be elevated beyond insults.

I just want to do a point of order. I just wanted to recognize my northern colleague MPP Bourgouin, the MPP from Mushkegowuk–James Bay. It’s his birthday.

“Family caregiver” is a term used for a family member, friend or person of choice who gives care to someone who has care needs due to a disability, a physical, neurological or mental condition, chronic illness, frailty or age.

The bill would proclaim the first Tuesday in April of each year as Family Caregiver Day.

Mr. Mantha moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 182, An Act to proclaim Waterpower Day / Projet de loi 182, Loi proclamant la Journée de l’énergie hydraulique.

I recognize the government House leader.

I don’t think I have a heck of a lot of time left, so I will continue on.

I want to thank the member for Peterborough for his very lengthy petition, and I thank him for this because it highlights the challenges with petitions and why we are proposing within this package of amendments to change how petitions are accomplished here in the House. If it is the goal of members on both sides of the House to have more opportunity to present petitions in this place so that they can better reflect the views of their constituents, both for and against policy initiatives of the government, then I think it would obviously be well supported by members that the rules, where there is interpretation, do not let it be ambiguous in any way, shape or form.

I also want to talk a bit about something else that was in the standing orders, and it’s a small point, but it highlights some of the other work that we had done with respect to the estimates of the Premier’s office and Cabinet Office and the Lieutenant Governor. As I said, those estimates, in particular, of the Premier’s office and Cabinet Office will be considered jointly—and, obviously, clarifying that Her Honour would not be subject to a call before a legislative committee to defend her estimates; I think that goes without saying.

It also does highlight, I think, some additional work that we had done in this place with respect to committees and estimates, in another, frankly, unprecedented move by a majority government. We insisted that the estimates process be modified so that parliamentarians had the opportunity to review all of the estimates of government as opposed to just a small handful of them. As you would have known—again, because you’re wise beyond your years, Madam Speaker, I just assume automatically that you have been here for so many years, but you will not have known.

In the previous Parliament, when the estimates came, it would come before a committee, and only a few of the estimates would ever be dealt with in this place. The vast majority of them were done on concurrence here in the House. The vast majority of the estimates were never reviewed by parliamentarians.

We didn’t like that process. We thought that one of the most fundamental duties of members of Parliament is to review the spending of the government through the ministries, so we insisted on a change in that process. We broke down the estimates to their component parts. We changed the committees here. I talked about that earlier—how we changed committees; we dissolved some, created other ones. We ensured that members of the opposition had representation on all committees and leadership roles on committees.

At the same time we said, on the estimates process, that we have to ensure that we have a process whereby all of those estimates from the government can be scrutinized by members of provincial Parliament on both sides. And it has worked very well. I think in the last round of estimates—and I’m looking over towards my team, who can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was one of the first times that every ministry appeared before the estimates to defend the estimates. To my knowledge, that has never happened in this place before. It happened through the changes that we made. I’m actually quite proud of that change.

To summarize some of the changes that we’re contemplating in this Parliament—as I said earlier today, we already, yesterday, I think, did a historic change with respect to the languages that we are recognizing here in this place. Again, I thank all members for that—just for the benefit of all those colleagues who weren’t here this morning.

Interjections.

In accordance with what we did in the last Parliament, parliamentary assistants will be able to answer what we call the late show.

It is, again, an increasing of the role of the procedure and House affairs committee in this place that we’re proposing. I thank the House leader for the opposition and the opposition whip in particular, both who made impassioned pleas with respect to how committees are created in this place. I listened to them very, very intently, and I had been thinking for weeks how is it that I can better respect the outreach of the members opposite who suggested that parliamentarians should have a better role in deciding who serves on committees. That is why the procedure and House affairs committee will be asked to undertake review of who serves on what committee, and to make those appointments.

As I say, that forms a double role. It allows parliamentarians, through one of its standing committees, to make decisions, for them to discuss and to make those appointments. Madam Speaker, as you know, that’s a newer committee, from the last Parliament, chaired by an opposition member of the House. So they will have that opportunity at that committee to debate, make recommendations and bring that to the House to establish committees.

As you know, the process right now is that I, as the House leader, bring forward a motion. I, as the House leader, can decide who serves on what committee. I, as the House leader, can remove people from committee. Madam Speaker, as you know me, knowing me as well as you do you, Madam Speaker, you know the responsibility has weighed on me tremendously. And I thought, as part of a continued democratic renewal of this place, that we should allow members to have that say.

The member for—

You’re a benevolent guy, Paul.

She knew it was coming. The member for Oshawa knew it was coming. The opposition member for Oshawa, who is the Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I will tell you, Madam Speaker, is a fiercely independent and very qualified Chair—

Interjections.

Again, I know that colleagues sometimes get concerned with the bipartisan nature by which I handle this job. I thank the opposition whip for truly highlighting that bipartisan nature and the frustration that she had working with me sometimes because I was too good to the opposition, and I reached out too much—

Having said that, despite all of that, I am quite proud, and I’ve said this on a number of occasions, that we have created the best province and the best country in the world in which to live, work, invest. Regardless of who has been in office, I think we’ve always moved things forward, and I think we should actually be quite proud of that.

But at the same time, the standing orders, as I have said earlier today, are a living, breathing document. When they are stuck in the 20th century, when you have rules that don’t allow you to use your iPad or your computer in a place, which we know is so fundamental to the work that is being done, those things have to be updated. We know that that didn’t happen for a long period of time in this place.

Again, as I say, some of the members opposite—“Well, you know, standing orders just never change. They never change.” That’s not actually a good thing that the standing orders don’t change. I think we always have to be reflecting on how we can make this place better. I think that is the job of a House leader. I think it’s the job of all parliamentarians, frankly, and there are not many parliamentarians who don’t come to me with suggestions on how we can make this place work better for them and their constituents. We reflect on that and bring those changes forward, Madam Speaker.

Just in closing, again, I want to reiterate how important it has been—the massive steps that we have made in order to ensure that our independents have an opportunity to participate in this place. I think we have gone, as a Parliament—certainly not unilaterally, myself, but as a Parliament—we have gone over and above to ensure that all members have the opportunity.

You know, when I was in the federal place, Madam Speaker, I served with a couple of independents who you would’ve never even known were actually there because they didn’t have the opportunity to speak in the House. They were certainly not on front benches of the House. They weren’t able to petition to be on a committee at all. Through the democratic reforms of the Liberal government there, that hasn’t changed. In a minority Parliament, that hasn’t changed.

But we are doing what the federal Parliament led by a Liberal government is afraid to do. We are making sure that this place is more democratic, more representative, that members have the opportunity to participate in debate. They have the opportunity to judge and reflect on the policies that the government brings forward in a way that is frankly unmatched by any other parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world. I think we should all be very proud of that, Madam Speaker.

All that to say, I appreciate the opportunity. I hope members will reflect on these changes and, at the very least, if they’re not supportive of some of these changes, will highlight not only the ones that they’re not supportive of but what their suggested changes are and which of those standing order changes that they have voted against in previous versions they would be changing back to the original format. I think that is also a very, very important part of all of this, Madam Speaker.

And I’ll just finish off by saying these aren’t the last standing order changes that we’ll bring forward. I’m sure there will be more in order to make this place even better than it is. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your time and your ear this afternoon.

Oshawa.

It’s always an honour to stand in this House and today to talk about standing order changes that the government has proposed.

Before I start talking about the individual changes, I’m just going to back up and talk about what Parliament is and what the standing orders are from our perspective and from my perspective.

One of the great things about this Parliament is that everyone—and I’m a good example of this: Anyone can be a parliamentarian. You don’t need years of university poli sci. You don’t need to be a lawyer. You don’t need—right? I’m a farmer. I’m proud of it. That is the great thing about Parliament, that all voices can be heard.

It’s not a perfect system, and we are all working so that even more voices can be heard. We did something yesterday and I’ll talk about that later, but it’s really important to remember that.

The standing orders are basically the rule book. They are the rules on how Parliament works. I’m not a history major either, so I’m not going to go through when each change was made, but that’s basically what the standing orders are. They’re the rules. They’re how we engage each other, the parameters of how the government makes legislation and how we, as the official opposition, point out either where we think the legislation isn’t adequate or, if there’s legislation we agree with, where we’ll vote with the government. But it’s really important that there are rules. On occasion, the rules are changed. The rules weren’t changed very often in the past. I believe that this government certainly holds the record for changing the rules. I agree with the government House leader that it is a living, breathing document—but it’s not a quarterly. If something bothers me today, on the government side—“Oh, we’re not going to let that happen again.” And there have been occasions where, in our opinion, that has been the case—not all.

This morning, I listened very intently to the government House leader. I disagree with him vehemently on many occasions, but I enjoy working with him, actually, and I respect him. We don’t always agree. He sometimes makes me very angry, makes us very angry, but I respect him. Some of the changes that the government has proposed—and the government House leader, in his speech this morning, listed many of them off, and his perspective on why they were changed, how they were changed and how it improved debate in this Legislature, or, basically, how it improved how laws are made in the province of Ontario. And on some points, we agree.

In one of the standing order changes, the government changed—after a debate of a bill, you would debate for an hour or 20 minutes or 10 minutes, and there was a period that used to be called “questions and comments”; it was basically four little speeches of two minutes, and then the original debater got to put in his extra two minutes. The government changed that to questions and answers—so a minute a question. We think it was a beneficial change for everyone. It holds everyone more accountable for their remarks, because if you’re paying attention—I love this place, and I pay attention to almost everything that’s said here, except that last petition. When you pay attention to a speech, you look for places where either you want more information or you want to challenge the speaker, you want to challenge their position, because that’s what debate is about. When the government added questions, it also put more pressure on the opposition. When the opposition criticizes the government on whatever issue of the day, the government members get a chance to question the opposition members who just made that speech, so the opposition is more accountable for what is said. I think that was a great change done by this government, done by the current House leader.

Another change they did is to members’ statements right before question period, and the government House leader said the reason they did that is because members’ statements—a member’s statement is a minute and 30 seconds. A percentage of members get to do a member’s statement every day—I believe it’s nine members who aren’t ministers. You get a minute and 30 seconds to talk about whatever you want—usually, it’s something great that’s happening in your riding or something bad that’s happening in your riding, or someone in your riding who has had a momentous event; sometimes they’re a tribute to someone who has passed. They’re very important. They used to be at 1 o’clock—sometimes 1 o’clock or sometimes 3 o’clock—in the afternoon. The House leader changed it, or the government changed it, to right before question period, so 10:15, because there are a lot more people in the House at question period and a lot more attention. That’s one way of looking at it. I’m not disputing that that is a relevant point, but in actuality, the way it works, for many members’ statements it’s worse, because question period starts at 10:30. If your member’s statement is at 10:15, for the first three or four members’ statements often there’s nobody paying attention. You can’t even hear the people talk because everyone’s filing in for question period. It’s incredibly distracting. It sounds good on paper, but people aren’t actually sitting for question period, they’re all filing in.

Was that done in bad faith? I don’t believe so. But it is a case of it not really working out as well as portrayed. Sometimes it does. Some speakers are more commanding than other speakers, so if you have the last member’s statement and you’re a really forceful speaker, sometimes you can quiet the crowd down. But a lot of people are almost—and I don’t mean this in a non-parliamentary way, but they’re almost cheated out of their member’s statement, and not on purpose. Whereas if it’s 1 o’clock in the afternoon and there aren’t a lot of people in the House, you can project easier, right? It’s not as good a change, sometimes, as how it’s portrayed.

Another change the government House leader mentioned that isn’t, in our humble opinion, as beneficial as you might think: It used to be that we could ask a minister a question, direct it to the minister, or direct it to the Premier and the Premier would have to direct it to the appropriate minister. They changed that, so now the House leader can put it wherever he wants in a cabinet. But we used to be able to direct a question to a minister and the minister would have to respond. So, as a result, you get a lot more questions to the Premier, because we can’t decide where it goes anyway.

Before, if I wanted to ask a question to the Minister of Agriculture and I knew it was going to—I don’t ask a lot of questions to the Minister of Agriculture. But occasionally, and I’m just using myself as an example, I ask a tough question and I want it to go to a certain minister, but the way the standing orders have been changed, there’s no guarantee of that. Is that really—from the overall of making us all more accountable, is that an improvement? I don’t think so. So there’s always two ways of looking at things.

One thing I would like to—I don’t know how I’m going to put this. I’m just going to backtrack for a second. Yesterday, we made a change to the standing orders. Yesterday was a historic, historic occasion because, up until yesterday, the only languages that could be spoken here were French or English. Yesterday, we made a change that, for people of Indigenous origin, First Nations, if they’re elected, they can identify what their language is and it can be spoken here in the Legislature. That is incredible. It’s a lot more complicated than it sounds too, because it will be translated simultaneously in the Legislature. It will be written in their language. It was an incredible change, and I commend—I give credit where credit is due: I commend the member from Kiiwetinoong. His first language is Oji-Cree, and he started the ball rolling. But I also really do try to give credit where credit is due. I credit the government House leader. He saw the need, and we worked together, along with the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, to make that happen. We consulted beforehand. We looked to make sure that the standing order change would work. We did that all beforehand, because we all realized the importance of it. And to the government House leader’s credit, we did it separately from the standing orders today, because there might be things we disagree with on with the government in this, but there certainly was no disagreement; it was unanimous yesterday. It was amazing.

The only thing that will be more amazing is the first time when Sol Mamakwa, the member from Kiiwetinoong, can stand in this place and ask a question or make a speech in Oji-Cree. That is the only thing that will eclipse what happened yesterday, and I give credit to the government House leader, the Minister of Northern Development and Indigenous Affairs, mostly to the member of Kiiwetinoong. We didn’t do it only for the member of Kiiwetinoong but for the First Nations people, who need to be represented here for generations to come.

So I give credit where credit is due. That is the way it should be done, but it isn’t always the way it’s done, and sometimes standing orders are brought forward, changes are brought forward that don’t always benefit the democratic process as much as the government claims—not always.

For those of who you were just here and just heard a petition of, I believe, 15 minutes—well, there’s 15 minutes on the clock, our first petition was a minute, and it went well past the clock. That is the case. In his speech, the government House leader identified a problem, that there was a loophole where people could abuse the petition process and read long petitions to limit other members from using the time for petitions, and then one of the government’s own members, for three days, I believe, did exactly that, to create the problem that the government House leader had identified.

The person who has done the most petitions in the House since I’ve been here: the member from Nickel Belt. We call her the petition queen. Her average petition? Under 60 seconds. The vast majority of people who do petitions here are respectful and respect other people’s time. When there’s 15 minutes, there’s often times when we run out of time for petitions. We get it; some petitions take a bit longer. A few petitions sound like War and Peace. That one sounded like the whole series. And the Speaker has the discretion to advise, if you have a really long petition or if it’s been read before, to summarize it. I’ve been here for 13 years and change, 12 years? Anyway, quite a long time, and very rarely does the process get abused. Now we’re going to change the petition process so petitions themselves can no longer be read in the Legislature. They can be summarized. It doesn’t really lay out how long the summary is going to be or how short, but they can be summarized—must be, not can be. They must be summarized. So the two petitions that we heard today, the reasonably short one from the member from Waterloo—

Further debate?