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.

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—

There’s no such thing as a bad petition; there are ones that are way too long—and the incredibly long one from the member from Peterborough are going to be, if this motion passes today or tomorrow morning, the last two petitions heard in this House—a good example and a not-so-good example.

But the problem that they’re trying to fix, the loophole that the government identified, is their own. They’re creating their own problem. I don’t understand what the purpose of that is. For the life of me, Speaker, I don’t.

Another one: private members’ bills. The government House leader raised points about private members’ bills that I agree with in a way but also that I disagree with in a way. Private members’ bills: So each member in this House who’s not a minister has the ability—there is a draw, and during the session each member has the ability to bring one piece of private legislation forward in the House, one time per session. It’s a pretty big deal, right? Once again, you pick issues that are relevant to the people you represent, relevant to your area, relevant to a cause that’s really important. Sometimes that’s something that is not really a government priority, but it’s something that could be, should be made into legislation.

The latest one—I’m trying to think—is Orthodox Christian Week, presented by the member from Humber River–Black Creek. It had universal approval.

So now we have one private member’s bill a day, except on Mondays, but Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at 6 o’clock until 6:45. We’ve been battling each other all day, and from 6 to 6:45 sometimes we’re not at our best. We’re not at our friendliest sometimes, Speaker, and sometimes it slips through.

It used to be it was on Thursdays. The House leader has a point that not everyone got to vote on that bill because if the vote was deferred till Monday—or if it wasn’t deferred, not everybody got to vote on it. That’s a fair point. But when all the private members’ bills were held in one session, the actual tone of the chamber was different.

I loved Thursday afternoons. I was here all the time because, often, it was less partisan. People spoke more often like I’m speaking now, without notes, just from the heart. And although sometimes the issues weren’t earth-shattering to the general population, we had some of the best debates—sometimes oppositional, but some of the best debates that we ever had in this Legislature. It wasn’t just people in the backrooms writing notes; it was people actually sharing opinions and opposing opinions, and sometimes changing each other’s minds. We lost that. We lost that when it was moved from Thursdays. That we disagree—is it something that is actually really going to change how the system works for the people of Ontario? No. We’ll work with what we have, but it is an example of what is on paper sometimes doesn’t work as well in reality.

The government just made another change in this standing order. So there is something, ministerial statements—sometimes when a bill is introduced, a minister makes a statement, but more often on a special day like International Women’s Day. The government has 20 minutes, recognized opposition parties have five and the independents had to ask for unanimous consent. It’s important for people to realize that any rule here can be superseded by something called a unanimous consent motion. If someone asks for something and everyone agrees, it happens. A unanimous consent motion trumps everything. But for whatever reason, the government said no to International Women’s Day for the independents to speak. In the end, they changed their mind, and I commend them for that.

Now they’re going to change the standing orders so that the opposition and the independents share eight minutes, and the opposition speaks first. I don’t think that’s an improvement necessarily, but I just want to make it clear: When these standing orders pass—they’re going to pass. The government has a huge majority, so they’re going to pass.

I understand how majorities work. They’re going to pass.

I just want to put it for the record here that in a ministerial statement, we will maintain our five minutes and we will pass the three minutes along to the independents. We’re not going to battle that every time. We believe that everyone in this House should have a right to speak. We also believe that this House is built on the party system and there are certain decisions that should be made by parties, not necessarily by independent members, but we do believe that people should be allowed to speak, so that’s how we’re going to handle that. Just to make it clear, we do not want to prevent people from speaking.

There’s another change that the government is making with—this committee is so new that I don’t even—the procedure and House affairs committee, correct?

Interjection: Yes.

So a few standing order changes ago—the government House leader says this was to improve the democratic process. We disagree. It used to be—and I’m not going to be very technical in this. I’m not a lawyer; I’m a farmer. It used to be the parties advised or recommended who from their party should go on the various committees, and we picked that by who had interest in the committee and who we thought would be the best on the committee. We submitted the names and, in the vast majority of cases, that’s who got on the committee. Then the committee decided who was Chair and Vice-Chair, but that was also in consultation with the House leaders of the various parties. Now there are two House leaders, two parties, but that’s how it used to be done.

Then it was changed—and the government House leader said that; he was very plain about that—that the government House leader decided who was on the committees. That’s kind of the same as if I, as opposition House leader, decided who was the minister of certain ministries. It doesn’t make practical sense. And it’s not needed, either, because they have a majority in the House and they have a majority on all the committees, so nothing is actually going to happen at committee if the government doesn’t want it to happen.

With the new standing order changes, the government has moved the decision of who goes on what committee from the government House leader to the committee of procedure and House affairs. But that committee is constructed exactly the same way as all the other committees, so whoever the government wants to put on the committee from the opposition—that is what’s going to happen, because they have a majority. So it takes it one step away from the House leader—

I said this the last time we talked about standing order changes: We have a good working relationship, and I hope that we can continue to build on that by actually taking suggestions from the opposition seriously, about who we feel would be the best on committees.

At the end of the day, the government has the control of the procedure and House affairs committee. I agree that the member from Oshawa is a fierce, independent Chair, but as the Chair, she shouldn’t—and I don’t think the other Chairs should, either—influence how the committee votes. She’s the referee. The committee members should do that. But the majority of the committee members are of the government side. So, at the end of the day, as long as the process continues that the government picks all the committee members, it doesn’t really matter if it’s done at procedure and House affairs or if it’s done by the House leader as a motion here. In fact, it’s a bit less transparent when it’s done at the committee of procedure and House affairs. It sounds better, but it actually isn’t any better, and it won’t work any better, either.

The standing orders shouldn’t make things work better for one party or another party; they should make the system work better for everyone.

I’ll give you an example. We’re about to change petitions. Years ago, there was no time limit on petitions at all. One of the few tools that the opposition has to change the government’s mind on an issue is to slow things down. When a bill is widely consulted and it’s non-contentious and we all agree, it should sail through the House—first, second, third reading and committee. And when they are like that, they do. The Veterinarians Act, the ARIO Act—which that long petition was read about—we all agree with that bill. There is nothing holding that bill back. It’s going to sail through the House.

But on bills that are highly contentious, like the greenbelt bill that had to be rescinded—years ago, with the standing orders, we could have read petitions for days. We could have done all kinds of things and hopefully protected the government from itself. Because the fact that this government has had to rescind legislation—not change it but rescind it—on several occasions, it means, well, it’s bad governance, but it’s also that the government hasn’t allowed the House to do its job to slow down legislation that has obviously got a lot of public opposition.

These standing order changes they’ve made today aren’t going to improve that. Are they going to damage it beyond repair? No. There are several standing order changes here that are housekeeping. It is a living document. There are things that are going to go smoother, as the government House leader said, when they made a standing order change that we could use computers. We all used computers. We were all breaking the rules, so they changed the rules. Great.

But these aren’t the kind of standing order changes that actually strengthen our democratic system and make the legislation that comes out of this place stronger. We could make changes in the standing orders that would improve the legislation coming out of this place. The government has a right to put forward and to pass their agenda. They won the election. We’re not arguing that. But if they made some changes that actually would give the opposition the time, give the public the time to actually make their views known before the legislation was passed, it might have saved them massive embarrassment, massive amounts of money—and it would have served the people so much better.

I’ll give you an example, Speaker. We just had the budget yesterday. In the budget, they’re talking about what we all know: There’s a housing crisis in this province. We all know this. In the budget is, “Oh, yeah, we’ve listened to municipalities, and they need infrastructure. They need water, sewer, roads.” And you know what? They do. But last year, they weren’t talking about water, sewer and infrastructure. They were talking about, “We need land for houses. We need the greenbelt.” So they wasted a whole year talking about land when, instead of taking development fees away from municipalities, they could have been going a year ago already on what municipalities needed. They wasted a whole year. That’s an example of bad consultation and of having rules in this place that actually sometimes don’t benefit Ontarians.

With that, Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member from Nickel Belt and the member from Niagara Falls.