The ayes are 4; the nays are 58.

Further debate?

By deleting everything from “Standing order 115(b)” to “Standing order 115(f) is deleted” inclusive; and

By inserting the following: “Standing order 35(g) is amended by adding, ‘In addition to the Speaker’s allotment of questions to independent members under this standing order, the Speaker may also allot to independent members the slots that would otherwise be the third and fifth questions allotted to government members.’”

I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This is a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1721 to 1751.

Mr. Vanthof has moved adjournment of—

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser has moved adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour of the motion please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerk.

All those opposed to the motion please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerk.

I recognize the member from Ottawa South to continue the debate on the amendment.

By deleting everything after the word “following” and inserting: “In exercising his discretion under standing order 35(g), the Speaker shall recognize independent members for four questions per day, each followed by one supplementary.”

I recognize the member from Kingston and the Islands.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Report continues in volume B.

It’s a pleasure to speak today, and in particular to speak opposite to and debate my former colleague in the House of Commons, who is currently the government House leader.

One funny thing about this morning is was he was making a big deal about how the voters spoke and knocked the Liberals into the third party here in the Legislature. He is conveniently forgetting that the only reason why he’s here in the provincial Legislature is that his party got the boot in 2015.

The government House leader also spoke about needing to have more debate and having that back-and-forth. It’s a good way of keeping the government to account. And I challenge the government House leader to amend the standing orders of this House to have more questions and answers. Actually, we don’t even have questions and answers in this debate. But why not have questions with supplementals when we debate bills? Why not disallow reading speeches so that we really have to internalize what we want to say and respond to each other with the knowledge that we have about the bill and about what we really believe rather than what some staffer in the minister’s office has told us to say? That’s my challenge to the government House leader.

There are many ways that we could improve the function of this Legislature, which is to hold the government of the day to account. Another thing that’s been suggested by scholars is to remove the speaking lists that the Speaker uses to decide who gets recognized in the House.

Finally, the government House leader will remember that, in the federal House of Commons, there are actually very, very few slots—only two slots for the government side to have softball questions which don’t actually hold the government to account but simply give the government a way to get its message across in the chamber.

I think that the amendment we’re talking about right now is very important. I’d like to do something a little bit extra. I would like to move that that amendment be amended as follows:

By deleting everything after the word “following” and inserting: “In exercising his discretion under standing order 35(g), the Speaker shall recognize independent members for four questions per day, each followed by one supplementary.”