I move that the standing orders be amended as follows:

Standing order 7(f) is deleted and the following substituted:

“As soon as possible after New Year’s Day, the Clerk of the House shall publish a calendar which shows the days on which the House shall meet according to the standing orders.”

Standing order 9(f) is deleted and the following substituted:

“No later than 6 p.m. on any day that the House meets, the government House leader may indicate in the House that no business is to be called during orders of the day on the next sitting day’s morning meeting, and in such case the House shall meet at 10:15 a.m. on that next sitting day.”

Standing order 36(b) is amended by deleting the words “to the minister or to his or her parliamentary assistant” and substituting the words “to a minister or to a parliamentary assistant.”

For the duration of the 43rd Parliament, standing order 40(e) is suspended and the following provisional standing order is substituted:

“40(e) Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of the official opposition and an independent member or independent members may comment for up to a total of eight minutes, commencing with the official opposition.”

Standing order 42(b) is amended by adding the following at the end:

“but shall not read the text of the petition.”

Standing order 46(c) is deleted.

Standing order 49(a) is amended by deleting “on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.”

Standing order 50(b) is amended by deleting “If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 10 minutes.”

Standing order 61(d) is amended by deleting “If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 10 minutes.”

Standing order 62(b) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Upon tabling or upon the appointment of committees pursuant to standing order 110(a) and assignment of ministries and offices pursuant to standing order 113(b), the estimates shall be deemed to be referred to the standing committees to which the respective ministries and offices were assigned.”

Standing order 63(b) is amended by adding the following subclause following subclause (ii):

“The estimates of the Office of the Premier and the estimates of the Cabinet Office shall constitute one selection and represent a single turn taken under standing order 63(b)(ii).”

Standing order 63(d) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“63(d) The time for the consideration of the estimates of each ministry or office shall be determined by the respective committee.

“(i) The estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, if selected by a committee, shall have no time allotted to them, and when these estimates are considered, the Chair shall put, without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of these estimates.

“(ii) The estimates of the Office of the Premier and the estimates of the Cabinet Office shall be allotted time jointly and shall be considered concurrently.”

Standing order 65(a) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Upon tabling or upon the appointment of committees pursuant to standing order 110(a) and assignment of ministries and offices pursuant to standing order 113(b), all supplementary estimates shall be deemed referred to the standing committee to which their ministry or office has been assigned.”

Standing order 70(b) is amended by deleting “If a recorded vote is requested by five members, division bells shall be limited to 10 minutes.”

Standing order 85(a)(ii) is amended by deleting “$150” and substituting the words “a fee in an amount prescribed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which may be amended by that committee from time to time.”

Standing order 85(c) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Where, at the request of the applicant, a standing order is suspended with reference to a private bill, a charge shall be levied in an amount which shall be prescribed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and which may be amended by that committee from time to time.”

For the duration of this Parliament, the following provisional standing order is added:

“85(h) Until the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has set new fees pursuant to standing order 85(a)(ii) and 85(c), the fees shall remain at the amounts indicated in the standing orders as they were on the first day of the 43rd Parliament.”

Standing order 85(g)(ii) is amended by adding the words “given further consideration by the House or” after “not.”

Standing order 99 is amended by deleting:

“The rules of procedure and the fees and costs related to applications for private bills are set out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. Copies of the standing orders, and the guide, Procedures for Applying for Private Legislation, may be obtained from the Legislative Assembly’s Internet site at www.ola.org or from:”

and substituting:

“The procedures related to applications for private bills are set out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly and the costs of applications are set by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Information is available at www.ola.org, or may be requested from:”

Standing order 100(c) is amended by deleting “eight” and replace with “nine.”

Standing order 110 is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Within the first 10 sessional days following the commencement of a Parliament, the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall be appointed, on motion with notice, for the duration of the Parliament, which committee is empowered:

“(a) at the beginning of a Parliament, and from time to time as may be required, to appoint or revise, for the duration of a Parliament, the membership of the standing committees referred to in standing order 110.1 and those select committees which the House has resolved should have their membership appointed under this standing order and shall make a report thereon to the House, which report shall be deemed to be adopted;

“(b) to review on its own initiative or at the request of the Speaker or the direction of the House and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the standing orders of the House and the procedures in the House and its committees;

“(c) to advise the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to members;

“(d) to act as an advisory body to the Speaker and the House on the television broadcast system and to conduct reviews, at least on an annual basis, of the televising of the legislative proceedings and of the guidelines established by the House with respect to the television broadcast system;

“(e) to be the committee which is empowered to review and consider from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available; and, as the committee deems necessary, pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the Ombudsman Act, to formulate general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his or her functions under the act; and to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate;

“(f) and to be the committee provided for by section 33 of part III (regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006, and having the terms of reference as set out in that section, namely: to be the committee to which all regulations stand permanently referred; and to examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes, but in so doing regard shall be had to the following guidelines:

“(i) Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute;

“(ii) Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties;

“(iii) Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language;

“(iv) Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute;

“(v) Regulations should not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts;

“(vi) Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty;

“(vii) Regulations should not shift the onus of proof of innocence to a person accused of an offence;

“(viii) Regulations should not impose anything in the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the amount of a licence fee, or the like); and

“(ix) General powers should not be used to establish a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal,

“and the committee shall from time to time report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations as required by section 33 of part III (regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006, but before drawing the attention of the House to a regulation or other statutory instrument, the committee shall afford the ministry or agency concerned an opportunity to furnish orally or in writing to the committee such explanation as the ministry or agency thinks fit;

“(g) to be the committee provided for in subsection 7(1) and section 12 of the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023, and subsection 108.3(1) and section 108.5 of the Legislative Assembly Act and, without limitation, to have the general mandate to inquire into and make recommendations respecting any project to restore the Legislative Building at Queen’s Park including any relocation of legislative operations to a temporary location throughout the project.”

The following standing order is added:

“110.1 The standing committees shall be:

“(a) Standing Committee on Justice Policy;

“(b) Standing Committee on Social Policy;

“(c) Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy;

“(d) Standing Committee on the Interior;

“(e) Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs which is empowered to consider and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the fiscal and economic policies of the province and to which all related documents shall be deemed to have been referred immediately when the said documents are tabled;

“(f) Standing Committee on Government Agencies which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies, and to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors to corporations in which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, excluding reappointments and appointments for a term of one year or less, according to the following procedures:

“1. A minister of the crown shall lay on the table a certificate stating that the Lieutenant Governor in Council intends to appoint a person to an agency, board or commission or to the board of directors of a corporation, together with a copy of the position description and a summary of the person’s qualifications, which documents shall be deemed to be referred to the committee.

“2. Upon receipt of a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1, the Clerk of the Committee shall distribute to each member of the subcommittee on committee business a list of intended appointees in respect of whom a certificate has been received.

“3. The subcommittee shall meet at its own initiative, at the request of the committee, or at the request of any member of the subcommittee, to select from among the intended appointees referred to in paragraph 1 those intended appointees the committee will review. Each member of the subcommittee, other than the Chair, may choose one or more of the intended appointees for review from the certificates provided by the Clerk of the Committee.

“4. The subcommittee shall report to the committee on the intended appointees for review. Upon receiving the report, the committee shall determine a date for the review of the intended appointees as selected by the members of the subcommittee. The report shall specify the amount of time allocated for the consideration of each intended appointee and the date on which each will be reviewed. An equal amount of time shall be allocated for review of each member’s selections, and where a member of the subcommittee has selected more than one intended appointee the time available to review that member’s selections shall be allocated among his or her selections.

“5. Upon notice from the Clerk of the Committee that an intended appointee has been selected for review, the minister shall ensure that the committee receives a copy of the intended appointee’s résumé or biographical information and a description of the responsibilities of the position.

“6. A subcommittee member may choose to defer the consideration of one or more of the intended appointees that the member has chosen until a future meeting of the committee at which intended appointees are to be reviewed so long as the consideration of the intended appointee has not previously been deferred.

“7. In reviewing an intended appointee, the committee shall not call as a witness any person other than the intended appointee.

“8. At the conclusion of the meeting held to review an intended appointment, the committee shall determine whether or not it concurs in the intended appointment. Any member may request that the committee defer its determination to the next meeting of the committee, but in any event no later than seven calendar days. In its report, the committee shall state whether or not it concurs in the intended appointments and may state its reasons.

“9. Whether or not the House stands adjourned, the committee shall release its report by depositing it the same day with the Clerk of the House and upon receipt of the report by the Clerk the report shall be deemed to be adopted by the House.

“10. A report that the committee will not review an intended appointee shall be deemed to have been made by the committee and adopted by the House in any of the following cases:

“i. a report respecting the intended appointee has not been made by the committee within 30 calendar days following the day on which the minister tables the certificate referred to in paragraph 1,

“ii. the subcommittee does not at its first meeting following the day on which the minister tables the certificate select the intended appointee for review, or

“iii. the intended appointee has not been selected for review by the subcommittee within 14 days following the day on which the minister tabled the certificate.

“11. The committee by unanimous agreement may extend any of the deadlines in paragraph 10.

“12. The Clerk of the Committee shall give the minister who tabled the certificate written notification of any decision respecting the appointment made by the committee or the subcommittee on committee business.

“13. During any adjournment of the House that exceeds one week, the committee shall meet on such day or days as may be determined by the subcommittee, but in any event not more than three times per month.

“(g) Standing Committee on Public Accounts which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the report of the Auditor General and the public accounts, which documents shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the committee as they become available.”

Standing order 113(a) is amended by deleting the words “standing orders 110(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g)” and replacing it with the words “standing orders 110(a) and 110.1(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).”

Standing order 113(b) is amended by adding the following at the end:

“The Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office shall be assigned to the same standing committee.”

The following new standing order is added:

“113(c) If the estimates are tabled in the House prior to the appointment of committee membership pursuant to standing order 110(a) or prior to the assignment of ministries and offices to committees pursuant to standing order 113(b), all ministries and offices shall stand assigned to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs until membership has been appointed and assignment has been completed.”

Standing order 115(b) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Notwithstanding clause (a), each independent member may deposit, with the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, his or her request to be appointed to at least one standing committee. An independent member may state his or her committee preference but such statement of preference is not binding.”

Standing order 115(d) is deleted.

Standing order 115(e) is deleted and the following is substituted:

“At any time before or during a committee meeting, a temporary substitution in the membership of a standing or select committee may be made provided a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the whip of a recognized party, is filed with the Clerk of the Committee. If notice of a substitution is delivered while a committee meeting is in progress, the notification shall be delivered by hand to the Clerk of the Committee.”

Standing order 115(f) is deleted.

Standing order 119(a) is amended by deleting “110” and replacing it with “110 and 110.1.”

Standing order 128(a) is amended by deleting the words “standing orders 110(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g)” and replacing it with the words “standing orders 110(a) and 110.1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).”

Standing order 143 is deleted; and

That the Clerk is authorized to renumber the standing orders and to make such other consequential, editorial or other minor changes as may be required to ensure a consistent form of expression throughout the standing orders.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Further debate?

Let me just thank the deputy government House leader for introducing this latest round of standing order changes, which I think continue to build on the hard work that we are doing to modernize how the assembly works.

Madam Speaker, you know that this government has been seized with ensuring that the standing orders reflect a 21st-century Legislative Assembly and the work that all members are expected to do.

One of the hallmarks, of course, of standing orders is that they are a living, breathing document that is to change in time so that we can reflect modern circumstances within an assembly.

For far too long in this place, the standing orders remained unchanged, and that certainly was the case prior to us coming into government. In fact, I’ve heard a number of members on both sides of the House remark at the speed and the number of changes to the standing orders that have occurred during our time of office, and that there were probably more standing order changes that have occurred under the last number of years than happened at any time outside of the first years since Confederation, when this place was being organized. I take great pride in having accomplished that; I think it is one of the greatest achievements that this government has made. It is part of ensuring that our democracy works better.

I have no illusion that all members will always be happy with the changes to the standing orders that we have brought forward, but I am very, very comfortable in asserting and challenging anybody who would counter that the changes that we have made and the changes that we are making will not make this a better, more representative Parliament for all parliamentarians.

I just want to take a brief moment, because I think it is quite important for us to look back at some of the other standing order changes that we have made, and I want to do this in the context of what I am sure will be a barrage of criticism that you constantly get when you do these things; it’s what you always hear. If a government brings something forward, you’re going to get the barrage of criticism. But the hallmark of good government, the hallmark of good legislation, is to really fundamentally see, in the absence of the government, what would the other parties do differently? What would they change from what you brought forward?

In that context, I want to look over some of the items that we have done on the standing orders. I have a lot of time, so I’m sure you’ll permit me to reflect back on some of these things.

Back in 2019, some of the initial changes that we brought on—you won’t remember, Madam Speaker, because you weren’t elected at that time, and, frankly, it’s good that you don’t remember these, because, in fact, our Legislature, I think, was not as democratic a place as it is today because of these changes. So those members elected in 2022 will have a much different Legislative Assembly than those who were elected in 2018.

But let me go over some of the changes. In 2019, a modification in the daily order of business to increase the profile of members’ statements by moving them from the afternoon to the morning, before question period: Now, that might seem like a little thing, but members will know, at 1 o’clock or 3 o’clock, when we’d come into the place and do members’ statements, the chamber is completely empty. Members are usually at committee meetings. It is not the time of day when the galleries are full. And we decided to elevate members’ statements—to do it at a time when the chamber is full, when galleries are full and when most of the media are here watching and when most of the attention of Ontarians is faced on question period. We would do members’ statements before question period. I ask very sincerely to members opposite, would that be something that they would remove from a future standing order change if they ever got the opportunity to do it?

You know how proud I am of being a Canadian. We returned the royal anthem to the once-a-month singing, when we do our national anthem. We returned the royal anthem. I’m a very proud monarchist and was very, very happy that we were able to do that.

We explicitly permitted—imagine this, Madam Speaker; I know you will find this amazing—the use of laptops, tablets and smart phones in a non-disruptive manner in the chamber. Imagine, a 21st-century Legislature did not allow members to use your smart phones, your laptops, your iPads in the daily functioning of your business, but that was something that was in the rules in this place. Would the members opposite remove that standing order? I highly doubt that they would, Madam Speaker.

We outlined the format for introduction of visitors in the chamber. Members will know it still goes on a little bit longer, but members will know that that would go on for a very, very, very long period of time, and members would be making speeches as opposed to introducing the visitors. So we did that. I doubt that they would change that.

We eliminated the need for a minister to verbally refer a question to a colleague during question period, which is the practice in other Canadian Legislatures—again, you will not remember, Madam Speaker, because you were elected in 2022—and we still have it. Every day a question comes, and 99% of the questions go to the Premier. Under the previous system, the Premier would have to get up in his place and refer the question to the appropriate minister, which actually kills time and means less questions for the opposition to have, and ultimately, the appropriate minister would also answer the question anyway. So it gave more time to the opposition, and it was a procedure that was used in no other Legislature in Canada and, frankly, no other Western parliamentary democracy.

We allowed the electronic distribution of background materials to reports and sessional papers that are tabled in the Legislature. Imagine that before we made this change, you were not able to electronically distribute these documents. Is this something that the opposition will take away if they ever get the opportunity to serve on this side of the House? I doubt it.

Now, we know for sure that the Liberals, the independent Liberals, who have systematically refused to accept the verdict of the people of the province of Ontario, have—

The verdict is that we got elected.

You hear the member for Kingston and the Islands: “I got elected”—as independent members. They are not a party. But the arrogance of the Liberals to suggest that the votes of the province of Ontario were wrong not only in 2018 but in 2022 and that we should forget about the verdict of the people of the province of Ontario and restore them to a party in this Legislature—that is the arrogance of the current Liberal Party. I wish you could say it was the current Liberal Party, because that is typical Liberal Party arrogance.

But despite that arrogance, we provided a motion: changes to the standing orders that provided time allowing independents to reply to opposition day motions, because before we came here, independents could not reply to opposition day motions. They hum and holler, but who gave them that opportunity? This government gave them that opportunity. Who didn’t give independents that opportunity? It was 15 years of Liberals, who never ever once thought that independents should have a voice in this place. They’re going to hum and holler and scream, “Oh, you’re taking our rights away,” but, systemically, we’ve given it back. Will the Liberals or the NDP take that away? I hope not and I highly doubt it.

We allowed for members to co-sponsor private members’ bills by up to four members, including members belonging to the same party. How often have we brought private members’ bills to this place where more members wanted to participate, to bring cross-party unity, to bring members of a caucus who have worked on something? We allowed that to happen. Will the opposition take that away? I highly doubt that they will. But do they hum, holler and scream at these standing order changes? Absolutely. They will take none of it away but, I guarantee you, they’ll hum and they’ll holler.

We allowed debate of the same bill in the one-hour morning and afternoon sessions of the Legislature, so that we can more effectively use the Legislature’s time and give more opportunity for members to participate.

We permitted the temporary committee substitutions for afternoon sessions of the committee with at least 30 minutes’ notice, and we’ll have more on that in these standing order changes.

We established time for questions and answers following each speech given during debate on government bills, replacing the two-minute comments. Now, Madam Speaker, you will not remember this, but when bills happened in the place, members actually didn’t debate—so a debating chamber that had no debate. You gave a little speech about your bill or government legislation, you’d get up for two minutes, and then you would sit down, but there was no debate back and forth. That’s a hallmark of the Liberals, right? Because the Liberals don’t like debate, so why should we have debate in the chamber? So it’s clear to me that if they ever got the opportunity, they would take this away, because for 15 years, they didn’t put it in.

I know my colleagues in the NDP actually like debate. We debate quite a bit on policy. We have disagreements on things. We have vigorous debate back and forth. But for 15 years the Liberals thought it best not to engage in debate back and forth, because for 15 years they systematically destroyed the province of Ontario. So why let members debate what it is that they were doing? “Let’s crush that. Let’s crush the representation in the Legislative Assembly.” That was a hallmark of 15 years of Liberal rule, and we decided in 2018, starting with the changes in 2019, that we were not going to have that, that a flourishing democracy in the 21st century needed to have—go figure—debate in the House on the bills, and that that was good for democracy.

The Liberals will take that away. I’m hopeful that the NDP won’t, but we’ll see.

Interjection.

We’re permitting temporary committee substitution in the afternoon sessions, with at least 30 minutes’ notice.

We established time for questions and answers, as I said—we’ve done that. This was in our first standing order changes back in 2019. I don’t recall how people voted on that, so I’m not going to suggest whether they voted yes, but I do remember the speeches. Everybody was dead set against it. Oh, my God. The world was going to fall apart if we made these changes. If we allowed debate to happen in this place, the world was going to fall apart. So I hope we’ll hear from the opposition, in particular the Liberals, who I know are going to get up on their feet today and hum and holler because they don’t like debate in this place. Which one of these from 2019 will they take away if they ever got the opportunity? Which one will they take away?

In the fall of 2020, a whole host of additional changes, Madam Speaker—frankly, I knew as far back as 2020 that the people would return us with an even larger majority in 2022, so we started on making even more changes to increase the ability for members to participate and for democratic reform. What did we do? We enhanced the focus of private members’ business by considering one item per day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

I remember the hollers on this. “Holy mackerel, if you focus on one private member’s bill a day, what’s going to happen? How am I going to bring my people? We should do it on Thursday.” Thursday afternoon, when the House is empty, is when we used to do private members’ business here. Thursday afternoon between 1 and 4, we would stuff three private members’ bills into one day and then that would be the end of it, right? That, I didn’t believe was a good focus for private members’ business. So what did we do? We made it once a day Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so that a PMB can be the focus of everybody’s attention on that day.

And then—well, I’ll get to that; well, I’ll get to it right now, because we’re talking about PMBs—we said the vote had to be deferred. You’ve got to be able to vote on a PMB, not just a few people but everybody. If you’re bringing a private member’s bill here to this House, then all members should have the right to vote on that bill, so, while you debate it one night, after question period the next day, the entire House is here and you vote on that PMB. You stand in your place and you be counted—a change that we made and brought to this place, and I think it is a change that has worked very well in ensuring that private members’ business is elevated in this place. Will the opposition take that away? I’m hoping to hear in some of their remarks if they will take that change away. I’m particularly interested in the member for Kingston and the Islands, who’s humming and hollering, because you know where I got that standing order from? The federal Parliament, where we both served. He was very silent there with respect to some of the private members’ business. So we’ll see if he’s still feisty about the changes.

I already talked about how we’d defer private members’ votes so that all members can have the opportunity to speak. Again, I think that is one of the better changes. I have to say, the PMBs happening on a daily basis so there’s one focus with a deferred vote where all members are held accountable, I think, is one of the better changes that we made.

We also changed debate time, making debate time more equitable by adjusting the length of questions and answers to five minutes for any speeches shorter than 10 minutes. I think all colleagues will understand and remember why we did that.

Allowing more debate time on legislation by extending the sitting day if the afternoon routine lasts longer than 60 minutes. That’s a very technical one—extending the day if routine proceedings go more than 60 minutes. What does that mean? That means that if for some reason there are obstacles or something happens in the daily routine, as opposed to reducing the amount of time that members have to debate something, we’ll actually extend the day so that we can continue on the process of debating very important bills. We know the Liberals will probably want to take it away, because they’re never really here past 5 o’clock anyway, so they’ll probably take that away anyway. I challenge more than one of them to stand up and disagree with me on that right now. I doubt that they will.

We established a take-note debate. We created the provisions for a take-note debate—this was in the fall of 2022—allowing the debates to take place after the House would normally adjourn so that we are not impacting House business. This is something that we never had before in this place, a take-note debate. We have utilized it in the last Parliament on a couple of very, very important issues. It allows members to speak freely on issues of the day that are very, very important. We’ve used it on a couple of occasions in this place. I think there were very successful debates that highlighted important causes for members. I then again ask, is that something that will be taken away in the standing order change? Those colleagues who were here in the last Parliament will recall the humming and hollering on that provision.

We allowed deferral of closure votes so that the schedule of the House could be more predictable and so that more members can have the opportunity to vote, which I thought was really good.

Something that we created, Madam Speaker, another exciting provision: We created more opportunity for debate in the Legislature by adding a 30-minute report stage when a bill is reported back from committee. What does that mean? Why would any government that has passed a bill add a provision in the standing orders that allows for more debate on a bill that just came out of committee? Why would any sane government with a massive majority, both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, add this provision? Why did we add the provision? Because it would allow the independents, who don’t necessarily serve on a committee, to have a debate and talk about the issues that they were not able to participate in a committee on and raise that here in the House.

How many times, colleagues, have the independents risen in their place to take advantage of this important provision in the standing orders—10, 20, 30? We’ve had hundreds of bills—zero. In fact, the only ones that have triggered that have been us, to give them more opportunities in the last Parliament to debate something that the member from the Green Party, if I’m not mistaken, wanted more opportunity to debate.

So while they hum and they holler and they scream and say, “We don’t get enough time. You’ve got to give us more time,” when you give them more time, do they use it? No, because for them it is all about show, no substance. It’s all about convincing the people of the province of Ontario that the people are wrong and that the Liberals are right. The people are wrong, and the Liberals are right. They should be a party because—you know what—the people were wrong; they were wrong, and they should be a party.

I’ve got something here from—in fact, I think this quote says it best. I’ll get to this quote again later because I think it’s important—the Liberal House leader: “Worst of all, these changes were put forward without consultation at all with the independent members”—I mean, it’s tabled; we’re debating it, and they have a right to vote on it, but I digress. “The independent members represent more than 1.8 million people.”

I get elected in my riding. I feel I represent 125,000 people. I’m not arrogant enough to assume that because I was elected in the government I represent 16 million people, like the Liberals do. That small grouping of seven, eight—whatever it is—they, like any other member here, represent everybody. We represent the people in our riding, in our constituency, and we do it very, very effectively. I would suggest that most members in this place do it very effectively, but the difference between Liberals and NDP and Conservatives, frankly, is that we don’t bring an arrogance to Parliament that they do. We don’t bring an arrogance to Parliament that they do because we are strong believers in this place. I’m a very strong believer in how this place works.

We went even further. We actually gave the independents and the opposition more opportunities to ask questions in question period. That is something that we did. We allowed more questions for them to hold the government accountable. Guess who did that? We did that. That’s right; we did that.

We closed an additional loophole that would allow a bill to be debated in the morning, afternoon and the night sitting. It was a loophole that existed. We eliminated that loophole so that there could not be a bill rushed through this Parliament without due debate time. And, of course, we made a number of minor amendments as well, back in 2020.

Colleagues will remember the outrage at these changes—two packages of changes—outrage at both of them. But I challenge the members opposite: Which one of those changes are you going take away? I challenge them very, very clearly. As you’re debating this, stand and let us know which one of the other ones you are going to take away. Which one of the very reasonable measures are they going to take away? Because I think that is very, very important for people to know.

We eliminated deferral slips in 2021 for all recorded division. You’ll remember, Madam Speaker—or you won’t, Madam Speaker, but when you went to defer a vote, you had to come out with a deferral slip and go up and defer. It’s now automatic because we think people should have the opportunity to vote and their vote should be counted. So deferral slips are automatic.

We allowed committees to recall themselves when the House stands adjourned. Again, what government with a massive majority would then write into the standing orders that committees, which I believe are one of the most important parts of this place, could recall themselves even when the House was adjourned? You would think that that should have just been in there, but it wasn’t. And do you know why it wasn’t? Because for 15 years, that group, which is now a group of independents, treated this place as an afterthought. They didn’t want debate, neither in the House or in committee. We made the change so that the committees could work stronger and more effectively and so that they could be recalled even when the House was in adjournment.

Madam Speaker, you will remember this change—and I will say the opposition NDP were upset with this change, and I still, to this day, don’t get it: We instituted bipartisan leadership on committees by requiring that Vice-Chairs of committees be elected from a party other than the party from which the Chair of a committee is elected. You remember this one, right? We thought that maybe the roles should be shared—it shouldn’t just be a government Chair or government Vice-Chair—so we decided, “Let’s allow the opposition to be Vice-Chairs of committees or Chairs of committees.” And we would split—so we had to force them. And then I was actually accused of being too bipartisan. Do you remember that? Colleagues, you were here the last time. I was accused by the then opposition House leader, who’s now the whip, of being too bipartisan; I was working too closely and too collaboratively, and it had to stop. The speeches on that—“My gosh, this guy is working too much with us. He has to stop. We don’t want to be Vice-Chairs of committees. We don’t want to be Chairs of committees. Stop it.” I didn’t know what to say about that. I have never been accused of being too bipartisan. Maybe I work too closely with the opposition; maybe I take that on myself, colleagues. Working together is something that I like to do. Forcing the members to be Vice-Chairs or Chairs of committees—I was very happy about it. I think it works out very well. I think it is something that is long overdue, frankly. And I tend to believe now that upon reflection, my good friends in the opposition actually enjoy this and think that this is a good change to the standing orders.

Here’s the other thing: Right now, on two of our committees, we have independents who are Vice-Chairs. We have the—I’m not sure what his title is, to be honest with you. He sits on the front bench there for the Liberals. He’s their leader in the House but not their House leader. They’ve managed to double up positions with a caucus of eight people. They’ve red-taped themselves to death. They’ve doubled themselves up. He serves as a Vice-Chair. The leader of the Green Party serves as a Vice-Chair of another committee. I challenge anyone to find for me in any Western parliamentary democracy where independents serve as Vice-Chairs of committees. This change allowed that to happen. I wonder if they’ll take that change away, colleagues. But they’re going to holler about it and scream about it.

In fact, we went even a step further in this Parliament. Not only do we have two independent member Vice-Chairs, we actually have an independent member who serves as one of the deputy Speakers of this Legislative Assembly. I challenge any member—I challenge the Liberal members, any one of the six or seven or eight of them, whatever it is—to stand in their place and tell me, in any other Western parliamentary democracy, where that has happened. I guarantee you they will not find that.

How does that happen, Madam Speaker? You will know that the Legislature votes on the Speaker, but how do the rest of them—how do you and the other Speakers? It is via a motion from the government. The government puts a motion forward that is debated and voted on, setting the officers below the Speaker. It is not any other fashion; it is the government that brings that forward.

It is this government that put an independent member in the Chair as a Speaker. It is this government that allowed independents to serve as Vice-Chairs of committees. It is this government that allowed independent members to have a voice in question period. This is the government that gave up our questions so that they could ask a question or two, unlike any other parliamentary democracy.

These are the changes that we have made so far. It is this government that has allowed this place to be a chamber that actually debates bills. It is this government that has systematically, since 2020, been making changes to improve how this place works.

Now, let me go on to some of the changes that we’re talking about now. I’m just only going to be brief on this one, because I don’t want to conflate it in what we did. Let me just say, I think yesterday we had a very historic day in this place. We made changes that allow Indigenous languages to be automatically recognized in this place. I think all members were unified in their support of that. I don’t want to say any more than that, but that was a change that was long overdue. It’s very, very important. I think all members will agree with that. Very clearly, we separated it out, because we didn’t want it to be the focus of what could be differences on this. But I thank all members for that, something that was probably—not probably—something that was very, very, very long overdue and, again, that we worked together on.

The other changes that we’re bringing forward: We’re permitting any parliamentary assistant to answer a late show question. For those who don’t know what a late show is, if somebody answers a question and a member doesn’t like it, they can ask for further debate in the evening. This is something that we had done in the last Parliament. The parliamentary assistant would be able to participate in the rebuttal and the reply. It worked very well, so we’re just bringing it back.

The next one that we’re doing—I’ll acknowledge this a bit: We are extending the five minutes for reply to a ministerial statement to eight minutes and allowing independent members to use any time of the House as a group. Right now, in a ministerial statement—and I acknowledge that before the House left, I refused consent to allow the independent members to speak to something. It became something that it wasn’t intended to be, Madam Speaker—

Interjection.

You hear the member opposite hollering and screaming about it, and she has every right to do that because it was—

Now, we’re changing the standing orders to allow for the opposition to split their time, eight minutes guaranteed—three minutes. We’ll come away, and we will put it on for the independents in proportion to the size of their caucus. They don’t need to ask for permission anymore. It is automatic. It’s guaranteed. The opposition and the independents will work together to have their time on any ministerial statement.

As you know, the standing orders, as they have been for a very, very, very long time, give the official opposition five minutes, and we’re suggesting that an additional three minutes be added on so that the independent members can have that time. Nobody’s ever suggested any other changes to it, so we’re adding on time for the opposition to speak to a ministerial statement.

Now, some have suggested that adding that amount of time for a small group of independents is too much time, given the size of the official opposition in comparison—I mean, the official opposition is twice the size. Some have suggested it’s too much time. But what we’re allowing them to do is, the clock will be extended to eight minutes with the lead-off happening by the official opposition. They can extend that time up to eight minutes.

Again, this never happened before, right? As I said, as independents, you need to ask for permission from the government to reply. Now again, not on an opposition day motion because, you will remember, as I said—I want to clarify: not on opposition day motion, because on an opposition day motion, the independents never had the right to reply until we made that change that gave them the guarantee to reply. This is on a ministerial statement now, right? So we’re now adding time, taking away time and adding it so that all members can participate in a ministerial statement without having to ask for permission.

Well, what does the independent member from Haldimand say. I can read the whole quote. This is what she said:

“I think people would be shocked if the House leader has the ability to tinker with these standing orders to the degree that is occurring. We are all elected officials who should have the same parliamentary privilege. And this erosion of parliamentary privilege is an erosion of democracy, in my opinion.... They’re punting responsibility over to the NDP to ... wedge the NDP against the independent members. And you know, I believe that the NDP will treat us independent members fairly.”

So the independent member is now not worried about us as we worried about the NDP not giving them the time to speak. The independents would still rather ask me for permission than share an extended amount of time with—now, I know the opposition House leader. I know him. We work very, very well together. He’s a very gracious and good human being, a wonderful parliamentarian, and I think that the opposition will be able to work together with this extended amount of time. I reject the member for Haldimand who insists that she ask me for permission to speak in this place. It’s not the way it should be. It should be guaranteed in the standing orders, and that is what this change is going to do. It’s part of this continuing bipartisan nature of working together, right? We can do that, and we will do it.

Now, we’re going even further. We’re allowing the procedure and House affairs committee to appoint and revise the membership of other committees. Now, this is a new committee, procedure and House affairs, that was brought together—as you know, we’re in the process of decant of this building. We’re looking for another place to exercise democracy while this building is closed down and undergoing an expensive renovation. So we created a new committee called the procedure and House affairs committee, which is a very powerful committee of this place, to be fair. We didn’t take the chairmanship on ourselves; just so members will remember, we actually insisted in the standing orders that the Chair of this committee be from the official opposition. We thought that helps ensure accountability, especially in the process of decant.

But what we’re saying is that the membership of committees will come from the procedure and House affairs committee. Presently, these motions, as you will know, occupy House time. The proposal would see that the House appoint the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and empower the committee to appoint other committees and their memberships. It’s a practice that is already in use in the House of Commons. It works very well there, and we know that it will work here.

This is in reflection of comments made by the NDP. Again, in the spirit of working together and listening to them, they did ask that appointments to committees be taken out of the government’s hands because, again, Madam Speaker, in this place, the House leader can get up and appoint whoever he wants—or she wants, whoever the House leader is—to any committee that they feel. It takes up government time; it takes up the time of the government, but I can get up in my place after question period today and I can move anybody to any committee that I pleasantly feel without any regard. Well, now that will happen through the procedure and House affairs committee, where members from all parties will have the opportunity to comment and have a role.

I do have a quote here from that debate on how important it was to remove the House leader. It was a very impassioned speech. It was a great speech, to be honest with you. I enjoyed it a lot. But I’m not going to read the quote from the member because I think the member recalls how impassioned he was that it not be just the House leader that appoints people to committee. So I’m fulfilling the demands of the opposition, yet again working in a bipartisan fashion; we’re doing that.

I’m also going to allow, if the House approves, substitutions on committees at any time and not just for 30 minutes. This just reflects the nature of what this place is, how busy members are, the fact that we are going to be approaching a decant at some point in time, that members will be scattered a bit more than they are right now. Some times, just through no fault of their own, members aren’t there and need to be replaced. If you don’t do it in the first 30 minutes, well, then everything changes.

Now look, Madam Speaker, to be honest, the reality is that, on committees today, Conservatives have an overwhelming majority—overwhelming majority. You remember, Madam Speaker, that, again, we went the distance here and we said, although we have such an overwhelming mandate from the people, in order to make committees work better, we did a motion in this House and unilaterally provided more opposition members to our committees. We thought that was important, because in committees, this place would have had one NDP member, eight or nine Conservative members, and that’s not reflective of how a committee should be. So we unilaterally gave more opposition members to be on committees. We did that. We thought it was important to do back then, and I’m very proud that we did that.

We’re also making changes to the standing orders that would forbid the verbatim reading of text of a petition, Madam Speaker. I just think that this is a loophole that needs to be closed. Petitions are one of the most important things that we do here. It is a very, very important thing that we do here—petitions. I know members collect petitions and they want to bring them and present them to the House. Many table them. Some get up in their place and make a statement on them. But they should not be allowed to be used as a 15-minute speech for a member, because then you frustrate the ability to actually present petitions. So the loophole that we are closing is allowing members to still, obviously, rise and talk about a petition—a petition, for instance, could be, “I’m very upset that the previous Liberal government closed over 600 schools, predominantly in rural Ontario, destroying the fabric of the nature, and I’m presenting this petition,” and then you sit down, as opposed to going on for 15 minutes about all of the bad things that the Liberals did in their time in government. Everybody knows that; they don’t need to be refreshed on that. But we need more time to present petitions. There are some members here who present a lot of petitions. They do a lot of very good work, and this just closes that loophole.

We’re also sending more power, again, to the procedure and House affairs committee to amend private bills and the fees that were charged on private bills. This is a small thing, but I think it’s an important update. I know all members know, but for the masses watching at home: Private bills are very small bills that, if a corporation needs to be revived, somebody can petition the House and we would revive that corporation. The fees haven’t been changed to do that since 1929. In 1868, the fee was $60. The fee was increased to $100, and in 1929, the fee was at $150, and here we stand today. It’s $150 to have that done. We are going to be asking the procedure and House affairs committee to review and come back with a fee framework that more closely aligns with today’s reality. To be clear, these private bills are an important part—but there is a substantial amount of work that goes, not only by parliamentarians, but by officials who review these private bills; legislative counsel, which has to review all of these bills. We are going to be asking the procedure and House affairs committee to review that for us and come back with a new framework that works and then to be responsible for looking at that framework for us, as a Legislature, whenever it is required.

We’re also, of course, making changes that will ensure that when committees are struck, as I said, membership of those committees will go to the procedure and House affairs committee.

I know the independent Liberals are going to be suggesting that we’re removing their ability to serve on committees. We’re removing the ability, yes, for them to automatically serve on committees. We’re putting it in the hands of the procedure and House affairs committee to decide what committees they should serve on or if they should serve on committees. This is consistent with every other Western parliamentary democracy.

Remember that we also added the ability for reports from committees to be debated in this place for 30 minutes, at any time when they’re reported back. So not only do we give more questions to independents, not only do we give them the right to serve on committees, unlike other jurisdictions, not only have we made them Chairs and Vice-Chairs—not only have we put them in the seat—but we have also added a provision that allows for debate in this House.

This is what the Liberal independent House leader said—I’ll read the quote entirely, and I’ll tell you why I’m going to get to it. So—I think I’ve read it once, but I’m going to read it again: “Once again, the government has demonstrated it is committed to silencing the voices of 16 members in the Legislature. Worst of all, these changes were put forward without any consultation at all with the independent members, despite many offers to work with them to make reasonable changes. The independent members represent more than 1.8 million people. Ontarians deserve to have their duly elected representatives empowered to participate in every aspect of the Legislature.”

Madam Speaker, that member also serves as a presiding officer in this place, and I think that is a very difficult position for that member to be in. This is a presiding officer who has made a decision on a standing order, on changes that this House has not yet fully debated or passed, which by its nature will call into question any rulings that person makes when sitting in that chair. That is certainly something that that independent caucus is going to have to look at.

Moreover, we have a situation where this House now will have the opportunity to reflect on an additional series of standing order changes that I believe will make this place a more accountable Legislature, that will provide more opportunity for members to participate in debate, which grow and make it even, as I said, more democratic—

Yes, because you shut down women on International Women’s Day.

Read my lips: No new taxes. That’s right; our government is getting it done for the people of Ontario by investing in housing infrastructure, highways, transit and health care without raising costs on families, businesses and municipalities.

Yesterday, our government tabled the 2024 budget, Building a Better Ontario, and, Speaker, our government is getting it done for the people of Ontario and Niagara. Now, like the rest of the world, Ontario faces uncertain economic times due to high interest rates and global instability. But in this time, we’re continuing to press forward in ensuring that we’re getting the job done for the families in my riding and the rest of this province. Despite the challenges facing us, Ontario is continuing to deliver on its plan to build by investing in infrastructure to get more homes built faster, attracting better jobs with bigger paycheques, all while keeping costs down for families and businesses and retaining a prudent path to balance.

For Niagara, building a stronger Ontario means:

—extending the gas cuts for families;

—expanding GO rail service to our region, increasing service levels;

—twinning the Garden City Skyway over the Welland Canal in St. Catharines;

—supporting the redevelopment of West Lincoln Memorial Hospital to completion, adding more primary care for 11,000 Niagarans;

—supporting the new South Niagara Hospital to completion; and

—supporting local grape growers and winemakers by cutting the 6.1% on-site farm tax, strengthening local economic development.

Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, our only option in these uncertain economic times is to move ahead, and we’re going to continue to get things done for the people of Ontario and all of Niagara.

Last Thursday, I had the privilege of hosting a community safety discussion at the Aurora town hall with the York Regional Police. In response to recent incidents of auto theft and break-ins in our community, we organized a town hall to provide our residents with updates on local safety initiatives led by the York Regional Police services.

With the rise in crime over the last few years, as a provincial government, we have committed to fighting this crime by investing millions of dollars to combat various forms of crime, from auto thefts, to enhancing court resources to prosecute criminals, to standardizing investigative practices, particularly for hate crimes, as well as addressing the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy.

The message was clear from the residents in attendance: an increased police presence and greater CCTV monitoring as well as stricter bail reform to ensure perpetrators who are committing multiple crimes over and over will be kept in prison.

A heartfelt thank you to York Regional Police as they are on the front lines to support our community to protect us and keep us safe. Thank you to all of the vigilant residents whose partnership and proactive stance when it comes to safety helps drive our communities forward.

In early March, Englehart hospital had to close their ER for a couple of days due to a physician shortage and, like many rural hospitals, is also facing ballooning budget problems because of agency health care staff—agency nurses.

So we were very interested, in looking at the budget yesterday, what that was going to do for rural hospitals. There was an increase in base funding to hospitals. That’s a good thing, but the base funding increase was less than inflation. So, actually, that was a cut. It was less than inflation, and it didn’t do anything to address—one of the biggest issues in hospitals is paying for agency nurses, agency PSWs. It’s a huge issue, and it’s an issue that this government seems to want to ignore—or, actually, almost seems to want to perpetuate.

When we see in our hospitals the biggest budget item is agency nursing and we know that the cost is massively inflated by the profit margins of the agencies, it’s an issue that has to be addressed. Is there a role? Do we need agencies in some cases? In some cases, yes, but not at the extent of what’s happening now. This government has missed the mark on this, and we don’t know why, but they need to act now.

My apologies to the government House leader. It is now time for members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

My former artistic home, the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra, continues to bring world-class performances and music education programs to communities throughout our very large region. The three orchestra concerts I attended this month alone were not only huge artistic successes, they were full houses. And there are always full houses for the collaborations between Indigenous artists and the TBSO. Everything that is under the control of the organization is on solid ground, but, unfortunately, not even full houses can make up for years of funding cuts.

Yesterday, I was shocked—there was no mention in the budget of restoring funding to the Ontario Arts Council. In fact, apart from some supports for film production, there was no mention of the arts at all. This is short-sighted. The TBSO is the epicentre of a unique industry in our community that diversifies the economic landscape. In recruitment materials for professionals and workers in all categories, the orchestra is a key selling point for the city of Thunder Bay, and I know that the centrality of arts organizations to community life is true throughout the entire province.

Artists, in all disciplines, are the lifeblood of our communities and it is long overdue that the government recognizes this and restores funding to the organization that supports it all, the Ontario Arts Council.

Mr. Speaker, you’ll be delighted to hear that this year, on April 6, is the 60th anniversary of the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival. Friends, this is the largest single-day maple syrup festival in the world. It holds a Guinness world record and this year, we’re expecting roughly 80,000 people in a city that’s built for about 15,000. So you can imagine how busy it’s going to be.

But this year is going to be a little bit different. In late December of last year, we lost a champion of the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival: Doug McLean passed away. He served on the festival committee for over 35 years, twice as chair, and also ran the toy show for many years.

So, Doug, on the 60th anniversary, this one’s for you, my friend. All the best to your family, and I can’t wait to be in Elmira on the 6th.

The housing crisis is the primary cause of the affordability crisis in this province. That is why last week, the Premier announced that Ontario will be investing over $1.8 billion in housing-enabling infrastructure in order to help build 1.5 million homes by 2031. That investment is part of the commitments our government has made to help build more affordable homes across Ontario.

Speaker, the new $1-billion Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program will help support core urban infrastructure that growing and changing communities need, such as roadways or waterworks. This funding is supporting our existing $1.2-billion Building Faster Fund to help reward communities that meet or exceed their housing targets.

Our government is investing to build homes that Ontarians can afford and looking at new methods of housing, such as modular homes.

York region and my city of Markham are looking forward to working with our government in order to get more shovels into the ground that will help build more housing, especially affordable housing.

I would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the associate minister and the PA for their hard work to help create more housing supply.

Last Saturday evening, I attended a local Purim celebration at Temple Sinai in my riding.

During Purim, Jews commemorate escaping from tyranny with the help of Queen Esther.

Although Purim is normally joyous, this year it is clouded by uncertainty as over 130 hostages are still being held by Hamas terrorists, over 170 days after October 7.

Temple Sinai also commemorated the life of Judih Weinstein, a member of its congregation murdered by Hamas, whose body has not been returned to Israel or her family. Those present listened to a haiku recorded by Judih, which ended with the sentiment, “Now, more than ever, kindness and tolerance with an open heart.”

On Sunday, I attended a rally at Queen’s Park, organized by Canadian Women Against Antisemitism, CWAA. On public land, the crowd sang along with gospel singers to Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah and listened to women describe their experiences with anti-Semitism. People held up signs reading “Love thy neighbour” and waved the Canadian flag, and Judih Weinstein’s haiku was shared again.

At the same time as the CWAA event occurred, a Shut It Down for Palestine demonstration occurred. The objective, as the name implies, was to shut down the activities of others, including by blocking intersections and waving signs saying, “By any means necessary.”

Instead of persuasion, that strategy relies on power and intimidation. Power and intimidation are not democratic tools, and we cannot and will not be intimidated. This is our Queen Esther moment, and we must fight back against anti-Semitism and all attempts to impose tyranny.

Yesterday’s budget, Building a Better Ontario, was a very exciting day for Ontario families, residents, seniors and workers, including those in the health care sector.

When we got elected six years ago, we made a commitment to ending hallway health care, investing in infrastructure, growing our health care workforce and supporting those on the road to recovery in their mental health journey.

In contrast, the previous Liberal government wreaked havoc on our health care system, by freezing hospital budgets and their inability to sit at the table with our doctors.

Speaker, yesterday’s budget had many wins for health care, such as an increase for behavioural supports, $2 billion more for home care and 3,000 more nursing student spots at our colleges and universities.

We understand that more seniors want to grow old in their home, beside loved ones, and not in a hospital hallway. And this is true for seniors living with dementia.

Yesterday, we announced an investment of $46 million to support the continued operation of 59 existing behavioural specialized unit beds and to add more than 200 new BSU beds.

We are also investing $2 billion into home care, bringing stability to the sector and helping people manage chronic conditions like dementia at home for longer.

Our front-line heroes have always been there for us, and we will continue to have their backs.

I rise today to honour an outstanding citizen of Kingston, Mr. Jamshed Hassan, affectionately known as Jimmy.

From Pakistan to California to Toronto to Kingston, 21 years ago, Jimmy fearlessly worked his way to where he is now. He opened a Pizza Pizza franchise when he got to Kingston—a store he still owns, and where he still sweeps the floors today.

Jimmy treasures the diversity of Canada, and he founded the Canadian Colours Kingston Foundation seven years ago to promote just that by gathering different parts of our community together.

Through his business, he has donated to local charities every year and used his contacts to organize drives to collect blankets and food for the homeless.

He’s the producer and host of his own cable TV show, Community Voices, about local social and political issues.

And in 2022, he was elected to Kingston city council.

You’ll find Jimmy at community events, at the mosque, in his store, in council chambers, at political events, or maybe he’s away visiting his family in Pakistan.

He’s a husband, a father to three boys, a successful businessman, a community leader and, most of all, proud to be Canadian.

Sometimes it takes an immigrant to remind all of us what Canadian citizenship really means.

It’s an honour to call you a friend, Jimmy.

Kathy Kairies of Port Colborne is grieving the loss of her beloved husband Ernie Kairies, who died on Monday, October 16, 2023, at the age of 67. Her journey on the loss of her husband of 20 years is deeply personal and emotional. Ernie was a healthy, intelligent husband, father and grandfather, very active in his family’s lives, and they continue to struggle with this overwhelming loss.

Kathy, a registered nurse for over 35 years, knew a delayed cancer diagnosis would lead to serious consequences or death, and that’s what happened. Classic symptoms were either heart failure or cancer, and his heart was fine. But Ernie couldn’t get an oncology appointment until he had a cancer diagnosis. That dragged on for months, with several painful biopsies. One of those biopsies was sent to British Columbia when there was a clinic in Toronto that could have done it.

Kathy said she witnessed so much wasted money and resources as she continued to advocate for her husband. The process was exhausting. It was stressful for Kathy to watch her husband suffering this whole time and the ongoing hardships in getting the proper treatment for him.

As she grieves, she wants other families to know what happened to Ernie. She says there is a lack of coordinated care in our region and across the province, which contributes to high costs and poor, inconsistent care across different facilities. There’s a direct correlation between the decisions this government makes in the budget and the way the health care system works. Right now, it is in crisis.

I will continue to advocate for people like Kathy and her family as they are impacted by doctor shortages, underfunding, lack of staffing and hospital plans that are shrinking our health care services in EMS, urgent care and emergency surgical care at a time when our population in Niagara is growing.

We must do better, Speaker.

I’d like to welcome to the House Julie Barnard and her mother, Carole Desborough. Welcome to the people’s House.