La Loi sur les services en français oblige le gouvernement à offrir de façon proactive des services juridiques en français. La loi est claire : la qualité des services gouvernementaux doit être la même en français qu’en anglais.

Cependant, les expériences des francophones démontrent que dans nos cours de justice et nos tribunaux administratifs ce n’est pas le cas. Les francophones sont trop souvent traités comme des inconvénients et des boulets, et forcés de naviguer des processus en anglais. Ils sont obligés de remplir des formulaires en anglais, d’écouter des réponses à leurs questions en anglais ou d’attendre très longtemps avant que du personnel francophone soit disponible pour les aider.

Il est clair qu’il existe un manque cruel de juges et de personnel bilingue dans nos cours et tribunaux administratifs. Donc, au lieu de dépenser plus d’un milliard de dollars pour prioriser l’accès à l’alcool aux Ontariens, ce gouvernement va-t-il investir les fonds nécessaires pour embaucher plus de juges et de personnel francophones dans nos tribunaux pour que les Franco-Ontariens puissent accéder aux services en français auxquels ils ont droit?

I recognize the Solicitor General to continue debate.

Thank you for the response. We’ll move to another question.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

And now I move to the member for Sudbury for the next member’s statement.

I recognize the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

C’est avec un très grand plaisir ce matin que je veux profiter de l’occasion pour souligner et féliciter le Centre des services communautaires Vanier dans ma circonscription. Le CSC Vanier est un organisme francophone qui se démarque par son travail exceptionnel dans son offre de services mais aussi par son—

Interjections.

This petition is about transgender. This petition is about the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, which was funded by both the federal and provincial ministries of health. It describes how patients who presented themselves to the institute for help with transitioning were then subjected to the harmful practice of conversion therapy and treated as seriously mentally ill sexual deviants.

The close to 3,000 people who signed this petition are asking for the Legislative Assembly to issue a formal apology to all transgenders who were subjected to this mentally tortuous process.

Je suis vraiment intéressée à savoir ce qui s’en vient. Par contre, merci pour les investissements.

Monsieur le Président, les écoles francophones en Ontario souffrent non seulement d’un manque de place, mais aussi d’une importante pénurie de personnel qui dure aussi depuis longtemps. C’est une crise de recrutement et de rétention.

En 2021, un groupe de travail a publié un rapport sur la pénurie de personnel enseignant dans le système d’éducation en langue française de l’Ontario, ce qui a mené le gouvernement à élaborer une stratégie de recrutement pour les années 2021 à 2025. Nous sommes maintenant en 2024 et le problème est très loin d’être réglé.

Le dernier budget du gouvernement n’a même pas mentionné une fois la pénurie importante de personnel enseignant dans nos écoles francophones. Alors, comment le gouvernement envisage-t-il de réussir à recruter et retenir le personnel nécessaire pour combler les nombreux postes d’enseignant nécessaires dans nos écoles francophones si on ne fait pas d’investissement?

Good morning, everyone. I appreciate the privilege to be able to stand here in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to comment on the motion to change the rules that govern the legislative process and the rights of members of the House, among other things.

Changes to standing orders have an impact on members, and a motion to change the rules should be an opportunity to improve the way we function here in this House. Now, with the changes that are being proposed in this motion, I do have some important concerns that I’m here to share this morning.

For one thing, I will say, what a missed opportunity to make things less acrimonious in here by working together on procedural changes instead of being forced to react to what is being decided by the government alone. Because that’s what I did—that’s what I did when I was asked by a reporter what I thought about the proposed changes, because we didn’t know they were coming, and we were not asked to provide any input whatsoever. So, when government drafts bills, they consult with stakeholders. And when government drafts changes to the standing orders, we, the members of this House, are the stakeholders. And I believe that we should be consulted in the process.

I would also like to respond to the government House leader’s comment about my ability to be an impartial presiding officer in this place because I reacted to his motion in a political manner. First of all, my role as House leader for my caucus requires me to defend and protect their rights to be able to do their job in this House to the fullest extent possible, just like other officers make political statements when sitting in their seat or outside this House, as members of their own party. Second, I believe that I have proven, since I have been appointed third Deputy Speaker, that when I am in that chair, I wear no colours other than the black and white of the uniform, going as far as allowing our then interim leader to miss his late show when it could have been easy for me, sitting in that chair, to give him a quick text—but no, I figured it was not my place to do that, because I take my role seriously.

So, going back to the motion itself, the government claims that it is fixing some of the complaints the independent members were expressing; namely, for not being able to respond to ministerial statements. In fact, I can appreciate that the government House leader got tired of having the ungracious task of saying no to our constant and numerous unanimous consent requests. Through 19 days of sitting after we came back in February, we rose 13 times to ask permission to speak, and the government granted it three times.

Now, those three times were not real consent. One was for International Women’s Day, when the government had to reverse its refusal following significant public backlash. I think we can all remember that time. There was another one, for Black History Month, which was granted to us—and I think, or suspect, that maybe the government House leader might have been distracted and just omitted to say no. The third one was actually almost an insult, granting us consent to speak to a PMB knowing it wouldn’t take place because the member was sick and wouldn’t be there to debate it anyway. I will say that the art of mockery in this House has been quite elevated, and I find it is quite a shame.

There are 16 independent members, and our requests for equitable privileges are not unreasonable and are not being met in any way in this motion. Here are the simple things we are regularly being denied when we ask:

—sharing five minutes to speak to private members’ public business—not adding more time—just being able to share that five minutes so we can have more people express their support or non-support;

—having eight minutes to speak during an opposition day motion—that’s out of a two-hour debate—but, no, that’s not acceptable;

—sharing five minutes to respond to ministerial statements; and

—having more questions during question period and, then, the ability to manage them with flexibility.

These repeated requests are not addressed in this motion that proposed the changes to the standing orders. In fact, the independent members are being even further penalized by these changes. The change that would allow us to respond to ministerial statements considers that, out of the eight minutes allocated to the NDP and the independent members together, we may get three minutes or two minutes or maybe less, because once everyone is done applauding the member who just finished speaking—because that’s usually what happens during responses to ministerial statements—the clock is still running and then it will take a while before the remaining time is handed over to the independents. That’s instead of the firm five minutes we’ve been asking for. So not a real win. But I’m sure the government House leader is expecting us to say thank you, and my colleague from Ottawa South already did that during his debate time.

The other shortfall we are facing is our ability to participate in committee. Not only our automatic right to be appointed as a member of a committee would be removed, to now be at the discretion of the procedure and House affairs committee, dominated by government members, but the motion would also remove the ability of the independent members to substitute for one another on a committee. I mean, people need to understand—and I know, it’s us, we’re nine—it’s challenging enough for us to cover all the important stuff, and if we can’t have the flexibility to cover for one another, it simply steals our ability to participate fully, to move motions or vote on amendments as an important way to ensure that the voices of our constituents are heard throughout the legislative process. I’m thinking specifically, as an example, of the budget consultations by the finance committee that travelled the province. The substitutions we were able to make allowed us to hear from our own communities, something we will likely not be able to do again.

Now, the government House leader mentioned something interesting that exists in the current standing orders that would seem to give more speaking time to independent members. He was referring to standing order 38(b). The government House leader stated, “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 the 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.”

Now, that may sound like we, the independent members, really haven’t been clever enough to take advantage of this provision. However, the challenge with this provision is that 12 members need to stand up for that 30-minute debate to kick in, and without knowing when a particular bill might be reported back from committee, anyone can see how unreasonable it would be to expect every day to have 12 members ready to stand up. Sometimes there is hardly that number of members total in the House when reports by committees is called during afternoon routine business.

Just a brief word on petitions, just to say what my colleague from Ottawa South has already mentioned—disagreement with the new formula proposed. I also agree with the NDP that 15 minutes per day to hear from our communities on why we’re asking something shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Now, the last time we debated this motion, my colleagues brought forward some amendments. The sub-amendments would direct the Speaker to recognize the independent members during question period for four questions per day, each followed by one supplementary. Currently, independent members only have one or two questions per day, and we are constrained as each member is only permitted to ask one question for eight sitting days. So if someone is sick or cannot be there to do their question for any reason, another member cannot always simply step in and take their place. In contrast, the Conservatives usually have five or six questions per day to which it would not be a problem if these slots were used by members to get real answers for Ontarians and hold the government to account. My colleague from Ottawa South moved that amendment to allow the independent members more questions, and he said, “It would relieve the burden on government members to ask another carbon tax question.” I know it sounds really funny—and my colleague from Ottawa South is a funny and likeable guy, I’m sure you will agree—but the joke is actually not that funny.

Should question period be about pinning the fault of our weaknesses in our responsibilities to Ontarians on another level of government? In the UK Parliament, question time is an opportunity for MPs and members of the House of Lords to question government ministers about matters for which they are responsible.

In the House of Commons, any member can ask a question, although the time is set aside almost exclusively for the opposition parties to confront the government and hold it accountable for its actions and to highlight the perceived inadequacies of the government. It is that part of the parliamentary day where the government is held accountable for its administrative policies and the conduct of its ministers, both individually and collectively—and this is lifted directly from the House of Commons website.

Question period, formally called oral questions, is an important method of ensuring that the government answers to the people, represented by the opposition parties, and is held accountable for its actions. That’s according to the Canadian Encyclopedia.

So this proposed amendment by my colleague from Ottawa South would help in returning question period to what it should be and essentially returning things to the way they were before the 2022 election. It would strengthen our parliamentary democracy and improve government accountability.

Again, it’s not an unreasonable request. The government was willing to implement this change in the last Parliament, and we have even more independent members now than we did then.

So I will conclude by repeating my offer to work with both government House leader and the opposition House leader if they are interested in making things better around here. There are 16 independent members, and I believe they deserve a voice at the table. I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion number 2 regarding support for primary care providers be apportioned as follows: 56 minutes to each of the recognized parties and eight minutes to the independent members as a group.

Interjections.

I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 40(e), five minutes be allotted to the independent members as a group to respond to the ministerial statement tomorrow on International Women’s Day.

Merci beaucoup à la députée.

On va passer aux questions. We have questions for the member for Nickel Belt, for those who listened carefully to her remarks.

The Attorney General to respond.

The House adjourned at 1828.

To respond, the parliamentary assistant to the Premier.

The member for Ottawa South.

Merci.

Prochaine question? Next question?

The member for Ottawa South.

The member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay to respond.

We’re going to move to further debate.

Interjections.

Start the clock.

The member for Humber River–Black Creek can resume.

I’m sorry; I’m just going to interrupt the member. According to the rules, you can’t refer to the Premier by his name—so the title of the riding, please.

Interjections.

I apologize; I need to interrupt the member. I do have a point of order.

The member for Nepean.

The Minister of Environment.

Community organizations play a crucial role in addressing social issues and inequality. Whether it’s offering food assistance, mental health support, education and rehabilitation programs, or assistance to find housing, these organizations work tirelessly to uplift the most vulnerable members of society, addressing gaps in government services. The Vanier Community Services Centre, the CALACS, Montfort Renaissance, Le Cap, Lowertown Community Resource Centre, St. Joe’s Women’s Centre, Centre espoir Sophie, Gloucester Emergency Food Cupboard—all these organizations and many more play this important role in Ottawa–Vanier. All of them, however, have described to me how the decreased funding they have seen over the last few years is threatening their very survival.

Because of their deep roots in the community, these organizations are uniquely positioned to develop and implement tailored solutions to local challenges in an efficient and cost-effective manner. By providing adequate financial support to these organizations, the government can amplify their impact and achieve greater outcomes at a fraction of the cost. So I beg the government to provide the financial support required to keep these entities alive and thriving.

Next presenter? The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Thank you again to the presenters and to his sons, James and Stewart, who are watching from home and others as well. And thank you to those who are joining us in the gallery.

Today we are honoured to remember and pay tribute to a former member of our provincial Legislature, the late Mr. John “Jack” Keith Riddell, who was the MPP for Huron–Middlesex during the 30th, 31st, 32nd and 33rd Parliaments, and Huron during the 29th and 34th Parliaments.

Joining us in the Speaker’s gallery are Mr. Riddell’s family and friends: his children and their spouses, Debbie Thompson, Hiram Thompson, Wayne Riddell, Debbie Riddell, Donna Overholt, Dan Overholt, Heather Riddell and Brenda Riddell; his grandchildren and their spouses, Jason Riddell, Amber Parker, Jon Parker, Lea Glavin, Marty Glavin and Kendra Bloomfield; and his great-grandchildren—that I see there—Dax Glavin and Ada Glavin. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

We also have in the Speaker’s gallery David Warner, Speaker during the 35th Parliament; Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments; Phil Gillies, MPP for Brantford during the 32nd and 33rd Parliaments; and Judy Marsales, MPP for Hamilton West during the 38th Parliament and Chair of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians.

We can now start with the presenter for the first review, the Minister of Agriculture.

I wish to thank the presenters as well as the family and friends who have joined us here in the Legislature for the tribute or if you’re watching at home.

Today we are honoured to remember and pay tribute to a former member of our provincial Legislature, the late Mr. William Darcy McKeough, who was the MPP for Kent West during the 27th Parliament, and Chatham–Kent during the 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st Parliaments.

Mr. McKeough’s family and friends are watching from home, including his sons James and Stewart. Joining us in the Speaker’s gallery are David Warner, Speaker during the 35th Parliament; Steve Gilchrist, MPP for Scarborough East during the 36th and 37th Parliaments; Phil Gillies, MPP for Brantford during the 32nd and 33rd Parliaments; and Judy Marsales, MPP for Hamilton West during the 38th Parliament and chair of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians.

I will recognize the member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for the first tribute.