Ford: $1.8 billion. GM: $2.3 billion. Stellantis: $3.6 billion. Honda: $1.4 billion. LGE: $5.2 billion. Speaker, what should bring comfort is the fact that over the last 20 months, Ontario has attracted a record $16 billion in auto investments. These are game-changing, historic investments, ushering in a new era for Ontario’s auto industry, providing employment for thousands more workers.

Most recently, Belgium’s Umicore announced a $1.5-billion investment to build North America’s first industrial-scale battery materials plant, and they’re doing it here in Ontario. The facility will locate in Loyalist township and provide employment for a thousand people, just for the construction phase. Umicore is here because they saw Ontario reduce the cost of doing business by $7 billion—

So $16 billion in auto investments in 20 months—Speaker, this government is getting it done.

The bill amends the Municipal Act, 2001, and the City of Toronto Act, 2006. It requires that codes of conduct for municipal councillors and members of local boards include requirements for those councillors and members to comply with workplace violence and harassment policies, and creates an integrity commissioner and judicial process to remove them from office for egregious acts of sexual, emotional and psychological misconduct.

Madame Collard moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 6, An Act to establish an advisory committee for foreign credentials / Projet de loi 6, Loi créant un comité consultatif pour les titres de compétence acquis à l’étranger.

We all have a part to play when it comes to preventing forest fires, and one thing that’s important is good forest management: making sure we have robust forest management plans that don’t leave forests with a lot of excess wood.

To the average person out there, I’d say make sure you’re following municipal fire bans, never leave your campfire unattended and make sure you put it out properly when you’re done. If a person causes a fire, they can be held responsible for the costs of extinguishing that fire or property damage incurred by that fire. With that being said, let’s stay diligent. Let’s keep this fire season a mild one.

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.

It is my pleasure to reintroduce a bill that was introduced initially in October 2021. The bill enacts the Foreign Credentials Advisory Committee Act, 2022.

The bill establishes a foreign credentials advisory committee to review the legislation and other rules that govern the recognition of foreign credentials in Ontario, make recommendations on how to improve the recognition of foreign credentials in Ontario, and make any other recommendations to make Ontario more prosperous and more inclusive with respect to the recognition of foreign credentials.

The committee is required to provide its recommendations in a report to the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, which must be tabled in the assembly and published on a government website.

Again, I will reiterate: Ontarians continue to have access to the care they need when they need it. That is our priority as a government. Frankly, I’m surprised that the member opposite isn’t talking about the great investments that we are making in the Niagara region with the Niagara hospital. We are making the investments that, frankly, the Liberals and the NDP never did. We’re making the investments because we understand that, in order to keep Ontario strong, we need to build Ontario, and we are doing that. We are doing that economically, in our school system and in our health care system, and we will continue to do that. Why, Speaker? Because we want Ontario to continue to be the best place to live, raise a family and stay healthy. We’ll do that.

The opposition can fight and talk about issues that, frankly, we have already acted on. We are already building in Niagara a world-class health care system. Come join us.

I do appreciate the question from the member, because it is actually a very serious one, despite the catcalling from the opposition.

I want to thank broadcasting services. Trying to keep a building this old running each and every day is truly amazing, and they do extraordinary work.

Just yesterday when you saw the speech from the throne—I’m sure as members were coming here they saw wires all over the place. That’s what it takes to keep a building this old operating. That is why the Premier has made the decision, working together with members on all sides of the House, that it is time for us to look at different options to renovate this building, bring it back to the stature it was when it first opened, to provide the people of the province of Ontario a Legislative Assembly that can be here for the next 150 years.

We are going to work very closely with members on all sides of this House to make sure that we give Ontarians the best possible Legislative Assembly, one that they can be proud of. We’re well on our way to making that happen.

Interjections.

The reality is, the Leader of the Opposition isn’t sitting in his traditional seat, not because the place is too small but because the NDP caucus is small. But we’re going to fix that. We’re going to fix that, because this place needs to be here for the next generation of parliamentarians who sit in this place. Regardless of how they feel about it, this side feels that this place needs to reflect the importance of the province of Ontario.

Again, I want to thank broadcasting services for the work that they do each and every day to keep a building 150 years old operating—

This bill would amend the City of Toronto Act, the Municipal Act and other legislation.

The bill and the proposed regulations would give new powers to the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to support our commitment to build 1.5 million new homes to address the housing supply crisis over the next 10 years, and to help advance other priority projects.

The bill would support efficient local decision-making to help our municipal partners cut through red tape and speed up development timelines.

Thank you, Speaker, for giving me this opportunity.

Ms. Sattler moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 with respect to paid leave / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne les congés payés.

I’m very proud, on behalf of the NDP, to bring forward, for the third time, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act—legislation that provides all Ontario workers with the paid sick days they need and deserve, not just during the COVID-19 pandemic, but on a permanent, ongoing basis.

The bill requires employers to provide 10 days of paid personal emergency leave that can be used for illness, injury and urgent matters, including caring for family members, and also prohibits requirements for a doctor’s note. It gives Ontario workers access to 14 paid infectious disease emergency leave days, an increase from the paltry three that are currently available to cover workers affected by a pandemic now in its third year.

Finally, the bill includes a temporary program of financial assistance to help struggling small businesses in the transition to providing paid leave.

Mr. Blais moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 5, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to workplace violence and harassment policies in codes of conduct for councillors and members of local boards / Projet de loi 5, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les politiques en matière de violence et de harcèlement au travail prévues dans les codes de déontologie des conseillers et des membres des conseils locaux.

My question is for the Minister of Legislative Affairs. We have a lot of people who came to watch question period today, and I want to thank you for coming, but many of you may wonder why we had a delay in question period today. I wanted to ask the Minister of Legislative Affairs if he can explain to us that delay that happened today.

Interjections.

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs: Mr. Hardeman, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Byers, Mr. Dowie, Ms. Triantafilopoulos, Mr. Anand, Mr. Smith (Scarborough Centre), Mr. Cuzzetto, Mr. Kernaghan, Ms. Fife, Ms. Bowman, Ms. Brady.

The Standing Committee on Government Agencies: Mr. Bouma, Mr. Coe, Mr. Jones (Chatham-Kent–Leamington), Mr. Pang, Mr. Sabawy, Mr. Sandhu, Mr. Harris, Ms. Gallagher Murphy, Ms. Begum, Ms. Pasma, Mr. Fraser.

The Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy: Ms. Scott, Mr. Thanigasalam, Ms. Smith (Thornhill), Mr. McGregor, Mr. Grewal, Mr. Holland, Mr. Sabawy, Mr. Pang, Ms. Lindo, Mr. Harden, Ms. McMahon.

The Standing Committee on the Interior: Mr. Babikian, Mr. Yakabuski, Mr. Flack, Mr. Smith (Peterborough–Kawartha), Mr. Bresee, Mr. Leardi, Ms. Dixon, Mr. Sarrazin, Ms. Shaw, Ms. Stiles, Mr. Schreiner, Ms. Hunter.

The Standing Committee on Justice Policy: Mr. Coe, Ms. Hogarth, Mr. Saunderson, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Kusendova, Mr. Riddell, Mr. Ke, Mr. Jones (Chatham-Kent–Leamington), Mr. Mamakwa, MPP Wong-Tam, Mr. Blais.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Rae, Mr. Harris, Mr. Sandhu, Ms. Gallagher Murphy, Mr. Sarrazin, Mr. McGregor, Ms. Hogarth, Mr. Oosterhoff, Mr. West, Ms. French, Mr. Hsu.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Ms. Skelly, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Cuzzetto, Mr. Byers, Mr. Kanapathi, Mr. Crawford, Ms. Smith (Thornhill), Mr. Bouma, Mr. Rakocevic, Madame Gélinas, Madame Collard.

The Standing Committee on Social Policy: Ms. Ghamari, Mrs. Martin, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Barnes, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Wai, Mr. Rae, Madame Gélinas, Mrs. Gretzky, Mr. Shamji; and

That these committees be authorized to meet on the following days when the House is scheduled to meet:

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs may meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays;

Standing Committee on Government Agencies may meet on Thursdays from 9 a.m. until 10:15 a.m.;

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy may meet on Wednesdays and Thursdays;

Standing Committee on the Interior may meet on Mondays and on Tuesdays from 1 p.m.;

Standing Committee on Justice Policy may meet on Wednesdays and Thursdays;

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may meet on Tuesdays from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and on Thursdays from 1 p.m.;

Standing Committee on Public Accounts may meet on Mondays;

Standing Committee on Social Policy may meet on Mondays and Tuesdays; and

That on the committee’s motion, the following committees are authorized to meet from Monday to Friday when the House is scheduled to meet and during adjournments of the House specified in standing order 7(b) or other adjournments of the House which do not exceed one week:

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs;

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy;

Standing Committee on the Interior;

Standing Committee on Justice Policy;

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; and

Standing Committee on Social Policy.

Thank you, Speaker. I’ll give a copy to page Benjamin to take to you.

We look forward to continuing to work with our health care professionals across this province and continue to be incredibly grateful for all the work that they have been doing. That is why this government has made record and historic investments to support health human resources across this province. Since March of 2020, we have added over 10,500 health care professionals across this province. We are also introducing and building across this province over 52 new capital projects to support further health care capacity, including new hospitals in cities like Brampton that were ignored and neglected by the previous Liberal government, building in cities like Windsor, Ottawa and Mississauga. We will continue to invest in health care and health care workers across this province.

On this side of the House, in our government, we continue to look to solutions to support the health care system. The members opposite have voted against each and every single one of those measures, including adding an additional 10,500 health care support workers since March 2020.

We look forward to working with the members opposite and building hospitals across the province, building health care capacity across this province to ensure that people get the care they need—

Back to health care: That’s what we care about on this side of the House.

In Niagara and across this province—a question to the Minister of Health—health care workers are making immense sacrifices: postponing vacations, taking extra shifts and losing the time off they need to recover from the gruelling work they’ve been doing since the pandemic began. All the while, the Premier and Minister of Health have been missing in action on summer vacation.

Our Niagara hospitals are so close to the breaking point that our local mayors and regional chair had to release a joint letter to the public asking residents to avoid the ER or risk stressing the system beyond capacity.

Will the minister admit that it is her absence and the absence of her government that is the problem, not workers who are being asked to work through their vacation?

It gives me great pleasure to introduce my son, Mike Harris, with two of his children, Maddox and Anika, as well as a friend of Anika, McKinley Fox. Welcome to Queen’s Park, guys.

Hi, Damien.

I would like to thank my friend Kim Madore, as well as Kim Pyke, as well as Blake Kohler, for being here today. I have many others here today for my inaugural speech, but I don’t see that they’re in the House yet. But I do thank them in advance.

Mr. Clark moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 3, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to special powers and duties of heads of council / Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les pouvoirs et fonctions spéciaux des présidents du conseil.

Mr. Speaker, it’s Mr. Jordan. Thank you.

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.

Point of order.

Standing order 1(a) sets out that the business of the chamber and committees shall be regulated through the standing orders.

Standing order 1(b) outlines that the purpose of these provisions is “to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of members....”

Standing order 1(c) calls on the Speaker to provide guidance on where the standing orders are unclear.

I am requesting your guidance to navigate what we perceive to be a conflict between standing order 110 and standing order 115(a). The intent of standing order 115(a) is to ensure that the distribution of committee memberships is done in a fair and impartial manner that respects the outcome of elections by allocating committee seats to the respective recognized parties in proportion to their representation in the House. By setting aside committee seats explicitly for a recognized party, surely the principles of democracy require that that recognized party be able to determine which members fill those seats.

Instead, with this motion, the government has given itself de facto control over which MPPs are appointed to committees. The motion ignores the official opposition appointments that were communicated by me, on behalf of the NDP caucus, in a letter to the government House leader on July 19. In some cases, this motion actually removes the members we intended to nominate as chairs or vice-chairs—information that was also communicated to the government—from their respective committees.

I should also point out that our appointments were made after extensive consultation between our interim leader and members of our caucus out of respect for the democratic rights of members. And indeed, in our quick review of past committee appointment motions, we could not find a single example where a motion appointing committee members was brought before the House in a manner that did not follow recognized party recommendations.

Speaker, that is our concern with the motion before us today, and the reason for our request for your guidance. With this motion, the government has unilaterally assigned which MPPs from the official opposition will fill the committee positions that are expressly assigned to the official opposition. One can only imagine the uproar that such a motion would have caused, the indignation and outrage that we would have heard from members across the way—even the government House leader—if this was moved when they were on this side of the floor.

And while the standing orders do not explicitly authorize the recognized opposition parties to name their own members to committee, it is important to note that, in the same fashion, the standing orders do not explicitly give the government such power, either. In fact, in instances where the standing orders intend for the government to have discretion, such discretion is unequivocally provided for. One only needs to look to the next clause, standing order 115(b), where the standing order clearly states that the committee preferences expressed by independent members are not binding on the government.

Historically, committee membership motions are done via unanimous consent because they are brought before the House through a process of collaboration and respect. The fact that I am forced to rise on this point of order shows that no such consensus or respect exists.

Given the unprecedented application of standing order 110 as contained within this motion, it is, at a minimum, incumbent upon the government to convincingly demonstrate to the House why this new interpretation supersedes generations of past practice and interpretation. Several decades of consistent application is neither accident nor coincidence, Speaker.

If this interpretation of standing order 110 is allowed to stand, what is to prevent the government from simply assigning the same two MPPs from a recognized party to every committee, if the standard is narrowed so that only the language of the specific provision matters and the intent, past practice and impact of relevant standing orders are rendered silent when the rules are used in ways they were never designed or intended to be employed?

At a minimum, standing order 110 was not designed to give the House unfettered control over the committee appointments process. It is my hope that we do not establish such a dangerous precedent today.

Before I conclude, I want to offer a brief observation about the context for the motion that was tabled. As the Speaker may know, the official opposition was pressured to support one of the candidates in the recent Speaker election over another and threatened with government interference with our committee appointments if we did not support their desired outcome. This motion follows on the heels of that interaction.

With that, Speaker, I thank you for listening, and I look forward to your ruling on this matter.

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.

I relish the opportunity today to actually stand on this point of order because it really continues a process that we saw started in the last Parliament by the NDP, which was one that was somehow focused on the independents and how we could remove the ability of the independents to participate in committees in this place.

You will remember, colleagues, and, Mr. Speaker, you will remember, how this very same opposition House leader brought a motion to this place suggesting that I was being too bipartisan—you remember that, colleagues—that I was working too hard to make this place work better, that I was working too hard to give the opposition authority, to give opportunities for the independents to serve on committees. And what is this point of order from the member again about? It is about ensuring that the independents don’t get an opportunity to participate. It is about the NDP trying to do, through motions and points of orders, what they are incapable of doing at the ballot box, and that is increasing their seat count.

It is very, very clear—standing order 110: “Within the first 10 sessional days following the commencement of a Parliament, the membership of the following standing committees shall be appointed, on motion with notice, for the duration of the Parliament....”

Further, standing order 1(b)(i): “to submit motions, resolutions and bills for the consideration of the assembly and its committees, and to have them determined by democratic vote.”

How is that vote being taken, colleagues? By a motion that was tabled by me, that was on the order paper yesterday, that will be considered today, that the assembly as a whole will vote on—the assembly as a whole. The people who were democratically elected in this place two months ago will have the opportunity to vote on a motion that was brought forward. It’s not a unilateral motion by me; it is a motion brought forward, put on the notice paper, and allowing members to decide who will serve on the committees.

The member opposite has made some allegations with respect to being pressured. Mr. Speaker, let me be very, very clear: If the member had truly been disturbed by the meeting that we had on July 7—at that time, you were still the Speaker of this place, although the House had not been called back—she could have sent a letter to you. You were still the Speaker, and she could have outlined her concerns with the meeting. She could have done that on July 14; she could have done it the week after; she could have done it the week after. But what did the opposition House leader do? She walked out of my office and upstairs to the Toronto Star and put down on the table allegations. What was that meeting about? It was a courtesy meeting to try to explain to the NDP how this place would work following an election. Yet again, we had a situation where there was one official party outside of the governing party and there were a number of independents.

First of all, any point of privilege on this matter, I think, is long since passed.

Again, Speaker, you know very well we had a discussion ourselves. I don’t think it’s a surprise to anybody in this place that I openly supported the member for Mississauga–Streetsville to be the Speaker of this House. It was not a reflection on you as a Speaker. It was not a reflection on you and the work that you have done in your riding. I felt that this place, after 155 years, would benefit from having a female Speaker for the first time in history.

Interjections.

As a member of the crown, I am incapable of bringing that motion forward. I’m not allowed to do that as a member of the crown. But as a member of provincial Parliament—I think you will agree, Speaker—I have every right, as every other member did in this place, to advocate on behalf of somebody that I thought would also perform the job equally as good as you have done. I never hid the fact that that is what I thought was best for this place.

Ultimately, in a democratic vote, the members of this Legislature, in their wisdom, put you back in the chair, Mr. Speaker. That is what happened in this place.

The member—again, after you were elected—could have raised this point with you but didn’t. Instead, she waited until this day to bring forward a motion.

She talks about membership on committees. First and foremost, let me say this: The standing orders don’t require me—Mr. Speaker, you will know that because of the diminished representation of the NDP, the people of Ontario so turned their back on the NDP, so reduced the size of that caucus, in giving us one of the largest majorities in provincial history—the reality was that when committees were to meet again, there would be only two members of the official opposition on committees.

Did the opposition House leader provide me with some suggestions? Absolutely. She also provided those suggestions to the media right away. Did we consider those suggestions? Absolutely, we did. I don’t know what day the Toronto Star wrote that, but I do have a copy of the letter that the Leader of the Opposition submitted to me. You will see that in the recommendations that we have tabled in this House today, many of those suggestions are actually in this motion. Many of the members the member opposite has suggested will serve on the committees that they had requested.

It is not my job, nor is it her job—the opposition House leader’s job—to tell me or a committee who will serve as a Chair or a Vice-Chair. Imagine this, colleagues: The opposition House leader, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, wants to start Parliament by suggesting that they get to decide who will be a Chair or a Vice-Chair—not the committee, not a democratic vote of the people who will serve on the committee; somehow he, the interim Leader of the Opposition, or the opposition House leader, will make that decision on behalf of the committee. How is that democratic? Not only is it undemocratic and not only do I and all of us have a responsibility to make sure that that doesn’t happen, that it is a free vote that committee determines itself—I don’t know how the NDP would actually operate if they ever got government. Thankfully, that is not going to happen again in anybody’s lifetime, but I think we’re getting a clear indication of how it would be. They would bring motions here that would be of no consequence because one or two people would decide how everything would go. That would be the end of it. So whoever he likes—the Leader of the Opposition—bang, you’re the new Chair of this committee. Forget about the democratic voice of the members of the committee; they’re going to make the decision on your behalf.

What did I do? I referenced earlier how, under the reduced representation by the NDP—it doesn’t take much to figure it out. The Leader of the Opposition won’t even sit in the traditional seat of the Leader of the Opposition, across from the Premier. He won’t do that because his caucus is so diminished, so reduced, that he feels he has to be over more. And I thought—we thought, the Premier thought—that the best way to ensure a vibrant democracy, despite the fact that the people of Ontario gave us such an overwhelming majority, was that this place had to function well, and that is why we took the unusual step of adding a third member of the NDP—