Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

The Honourable Paul Calandra, MPP, is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council;

John Vanthof, MPP, is appointed by the caucus of the official opposition.

—the Review of the Pre-Election 2022 Multi-Year Fiscal Plan from the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario;

—a letter to the Speaker from the government House leader respecting the dissolution of the Select Committee on Emergency Management Oversight;

—an opinion on the statement regarding the Ontario Liberal Party under section 4(5) of the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, from the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario;

—an opinion on the statement regarding the New Democratic Party under section 4(5) of the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, from the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario;

—the 2021-22 annual report from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario;

—the 2021 annual report and statistical report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario;

—the 2019-20 annual report from the Chief Electoral Officer;

—the annual report of the review of expense claims covering the period April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, pursuant to the Cabinet Ministers’ and Opposition Leaders’ Expenses Review and Accountability Act, 2002, from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario;

—a report entitled Expenditure Monitor 2021-22: Q4 from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario;

—the 2021-22 annual report from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

And I beg to inform the House that I’ve laid upon the table the 2021-22 annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario.

Consideration of the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

To the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session.

I recognize the member for Durham.

I’ll recognize the member for Ajax.

Further debate?

Being 10:15, I have to interrupt the proceedings and move forward.

Before we begin members’ statements, I need to address the House regarding the participation of independent members in this new Parliament. As members are certainly aware, at the time of the opening of the 43rd Parliament, there are 10 independent members of the Legislature. Eight were elected as candidates for the Liberal Party, one is a candidate for the Green Party, and one is without a party affiliation. For the purposes of the standing orders, none of these members belong to recognized parties, since a recognized party is defined by standing order 3 as a party with at least 10% of the total seats in the House, which is currently 12 seats. Accordingly, and pursuant to the standing orders, it falls to the Speaker to determine the appropriate parameters for participation by the independent members in a number of proceedings, including various debates, question period and members’ statements.

In exercising my discretion on these matters, I must ensure that each individual independent member has the same opportunities for participation as any other individual member of the Legislature if party status were not a factor. Fortunately, I’m able to look to several precedents from the 42nd Parliament for guidance.

I will start with the independent members’ participation in the debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, as it is the first substantive business before the House in this new session of Parliament. Standing order 44(a) provides that there shall be 12 hours allotted to the throne speech debate. Following the mathematical approach that was taken in the 42nd Parliament, as described on July 19, 2018, at pages 26 to 28 of the Journals, in a 12-hour debate each of the 123 individual members of this Legislature could expect to be allotted approximately six minutes of debate time. Accordingly, both the member for Guelph, Mr. Schreiner, and the member for Haldimand–Norfolk, Ms. Brady, will each be granted one six-minute allotment of speaking time for this particular debate.

The affiliated status of the eight Liberal independent members requires a slightly different approach for this and other debates. Consistent with my statement of July 19, 2018, and the subsequent conduct of debate for the duration of the 42nd Parliament, the Liberal independent members will be permitted to pool their speaking time into longer allotments. The eight members will be allotted a total of 48 minutes, which, for the purposes of the throne speech debate, will be broken down into four 12-minute segments.

Further, and pursuant to the precedent established by the statement I made on March 6, 2019, at pages 303 to 304 of the Journals, the Liberal independent members will be permitted to share these 12-minute allotments of debate time with one another if they so wish. This decision conforms to the language of standing order 26(d), which provides that speaking time may be shared among members of the same party during certain debates, including the throne speech debate.

A similar approach will be taken to debates on second and third reading of government bills and on substantive government motions. In calculating the allotment of speaking time for individual members in the 42nd Parliament, I made the assumption that a typical debate is at least six and a half hours long, as that is the point at which the government can allocate time to the remaining stages of the debate, pursuant to standing order 50. Members can therefore reasonably expect that debates on second reading of government bills and on substantive motions will last for at least 6.5 hours, which breaks down to about three minutes of speaking time per individual member.

The member for Guelph and the member for Haldimand–Norfolk will thus be allotted three minutes for all debates on second and third reading of government bills and on substantive government motions. This time may be banked so that if the members do not wish to participate in a certain debate, their three-minute allotments will be recorded in a time bank which they may draw on in future debates in order to permit longer speeches. Over time, this will ensure that these members have approximately the same opportunities to participate in debates as any other individual member.

In keeping with the approach to the throne speech debate and the precedents of the 42nd parliament, the eight Liberal independents will be permitted to pool their speaking time into 24 minutes of total time, or two 12-minute allotments per debate. If the Liberal independent members do not use this time before speaking times are reduced to 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 26(c), then the speaking times will be 10 minutes, not 12. This time may be shared pursuant to standing order 26(d), but it may not be banked.

Moving on now to the conduct of question period: As I did on July 16, 2018, I must consider the opportunities to participate in this proceeding that are afforded to all individual members. In a typical 60-minute question period, following the daily leadoff questions and the supplementary questions that are granted to the official opposition, there will be approximately 12 questions asked per day, each followed by a supplementary question. Given this total, each individual member can reasonably expect to be recognized to ask a question once every 10 days.

In order for the House meeting schedule to accommodate this expectation, I am prepared to recognize one independent member to ask a question per day with a second question by an independent member every Tuesday. However, in keeping with the statements I made on March 6, 2019, the ability to pool question period allotments is afforded to recognized parties only. In order to ensure that the independent members are not granted a disproportionately high number of opportunities to ask questions, each of the 10 independent members will be recognized a maximum of once during every two-week period of House meetings.

Finally, we’ll turn our attention to members’ statements. Every day, nine members of recognized parties will make members’ statements and be recognized to do so. Each of the 82 members who are currently eligible to make statements can reasonably expect to make one statement every nine days. I will recognize one independent member to make a statement every day, again ensuring that no one member is recognized more than once in every 10-day period.

Before I conclude, I would like to advise the independent members that they will be required to inform the Chair in advance when they intend to participate in a debate, in question period or in members’ statements proceedings. I will also take this opportunity to remind members that while the standing orders give the Speaker discretion to arrange the participation of independent members in the way I’ve described, the House, of course, is master of its own proceedings, and I would welcome any recommendations that the House might have in this regard if it feels that a different arrangement to provide for participation by the independent members would suit it better.

I thank the members for their patience. I want to thank our staff at broadcast and recording services for reinstating the microphone service for all of us.

I’m going to invite the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, if she wishes to do so, to redo her statement now that the microphones are working.

That concludes our members’ statements for this morning.

I recognize that everyone is enthusiastic about the visitors, just as I am. The prolonged standing ovation is eating into the time that we’re going to have. We only have a minute and forty-five seconds, and a number of members want to introduce guests. So if we could just keep the ovations to a minimum from now on, I think we’d all appreciate it.

Start the clock. Member from London North Centre.

Thank you. The supplementary question.

To reply, the Minister of Health.

The supplementary question.

The supplementary question?

The Minister of Infrastructure.

Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

President of the Treasury Board.

Next question.

Interjections.

Order.

We’ll start the clock.

The member for Niagara Centre.

There being no further business, this House stands in recess until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1221 to 1300.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

Looking at the written version of the motion in comparison to what the member said, the Standing Committee on Social Policy—I believe it’s Mr. Jordan who is to be appointed to that committee, not Mr. Jones.

Interjection.

Are there any other members who wish to speak to the point of order? Government House leader.

The government House leader to wrap up his statement.

Are there any other members who wish to speak to the point of order? Leader of the Opposition.

Are there any other members that wish to speak to the point of order? The member for Durham.

The member for Windsor West.

We’re debating a point of order.

The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

We have to conclude this soon, and then I’ll have to have a chance to deliberate.

Interjections.

Interjections.

Interjections.

Having heard both sides of this discussion, I now require a few minutes to deliberate. I will recess the House and return when I am ready to rule.

This House stands in recess.

The House recessed from 1357 to 1414.

I want to begin by saying there is nothing procedurally out of order with government notice of motion number 1, and to suggest that pursuant to standing order 1(c) this is a contingency not provided for in the standing orders is simply not the case. The motion is, in fact, compliant with the standing orders and is properly before the House.

I want to thank the members again for their contributions to this important matter.

The member for Barrie–Innisfil has moved government notice of motion number 1. Would she care to begin the debate?

The government House leader.

Pursuant to standing order 32(b), the time allotted for the afternoon routine has expired. I am now required to put the question on government notice of motion number 1.

Ms. Khanjin has moved government notice of motion number 1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1431 to 1501.

Ms. Khanjin has moved government notice of motion number 1. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be acknowledged by the table.

Motion agreed to.

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 10, 2022, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The member for Oshawa has a point of order.

The member for Waterloo has the floor.

Order.

Further debate?

Oh, are you sharing your time? I apologize. I didn’t hear that.

The Leader of the Opposition.