Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 19, 2023, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion regarding the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre.

Interjection.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Carleton.

Mr. Speaker, the attacks on Israel earlier this month shocked the world. We heard over 1,400 people were murdered one by one; over 3,500 people wounded; almost 200 people taken hostage. The elderly, men, women, children and babies in arms were murdered. They were mutilated. They were raped. They were burned. We should call it by its name: It was an act of terror. And we call for the immediate release of the hostages.

Speaker, these attacks are not just another conflict on the other side of the world. The impact is being felt throughout the country, including here in Ontario. There is no excuse, no justification for the horror we’ve seen. As the Premier has said, “This is terrorism in its darkest form.”

Israel was founded not just as a homeland for the Jewish people but as a sanctuary of safety and security to ensure that what happened in the Holocaust could never happen again. One reason this attack is so shocking is that it is a fundamental challenge to any idea of coexistence, which is essential on the pathway toward peace and stability in the region. Israel has an unalienable right to defend itself, to go after Hamas and rescue hostages, to deter further incursions and to strengthen its security for the long term. That must be done in line with international humanitarian law while recognizing that Israel faces a vicious enemy who embedded themselves behind civilians.

That is what brings us to the discussion on the motion today. Simply put, all forms of hate and discrimination against any faith, including those of Jewish and Islamic background, are wrong. Hate is hate. I think the member of Hamilton Centre is fully aware of the impact that her statement would have. The fact that the member’s statement is still online and has now been pinned to the top of her profile is evidence of her intentions. It is increasingly clear that the member is unwilling to apologize because it was meant to be hurtful.

No one questions the inappropriateness of the statement made by the member of Hamilton Centre. The member’s statement received almost immediate condemnation from the people of Ontario, and I believe it is beneficial to review some of the condemnation so that members of the House can be fully aware of how the member has brought into disrepute the reputation of this House.

Andrea Freedman, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa, says:

“It is appalling that that particular MPP is choosing to blame the victims in all of this. Hamas is a terrorist entity, labelled a terrorist entity by our government. They conducted a massacre of civilians. They went into people’s homes, murdered and slaughtered entire families. They took babies captive. They took senior citizens, ill people, captive to the Gaza Strip. This MPP should be ashamed, and she should be censured by her party.”

Hershl D. Berman, 40-year-old member of the NDP, former federal and provincial NDP candidate:

“This week” the member “caused great harm to the Jewish community in Ontario. While Hamas was attacking our friends and family, she posted remarks on her ‘X’ page that were inappropriate and deeply hurtful. She was asked to withdraw them but she did not, and her subsequent statements were inadequate and unacceptable.

“This is the latest incident in a pattern of anti-Semitic behaviour that predates her election to the Ontario NDP caucus. Her actions demonstrate that she is neither fit to speak for the New Democratic Party nor to hold elected office.”

Now, Mr. Speaker—Madam Speaker, sorry—ultimately, that is what this motion before us would have us do. It would recognize that in Ontario’s parliament we are held to a higher standard. As public servants, we must clearly and without hesitation condemn this hatred, and we must continue to draw on our shared values—our freedom, democracy, human rights and the true rule of law—to send a clear message that we will not be divided.

We are fortunate to live in a nation that values these ideas. But freedom of religion is not just simply a Canadian Western value; it is a fundamental human right, and people should be free to worship without fear of violent persecution. Here in Canada, we don’t just tolerate differences—we celebrate them. Every day we celebrate them.

We recognize that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths; that no matter the colour of your skin or which part of the world you come from, what language you speak, whether you attend mosque on Friday, synagogue on Saturday, church on Sunday, every distinct element of who we are as people comes together to form that mosaic that is Canada.

As elected representatives of the province of Ontario, our voice has influence. Your voice has influence. Further still, in our democratic system, when one member speaks and offers a public position, it is a de facto position of the entire party and all of its elected caucus members and electoral candidates. So, not seeing the leader of the NDP take control and tell the member from Hamilton Centre, “If you’re going to have this hate-filled opinion, and because that hate-filled opinion is out there for the world to see, you cannot be part of our party, because we’re supposed to be a party that represents all people in Canada”—but clearly, as my eyes see and my eyes work, the member from Hamilton Centre still sits amongst the benches of the official opposition after a whole week of condemnation from all corners of the province, and the party still counts amongst its caucus a member that has marched in rallies where anti-Semitic and hateful language is at the forefront and leaves pinned to her profile with the emblem of the province a statement that ultimately supports the objectives of terrorists and the terrible outcomes they have.

That the New Democrat Party continues to take part in proceedings shoulder to shoulder with the member of Hamilton Centre is disappointing. The member for Hamilton Centre and her hurtful comments need to be universally condemned.

To that member: You are a representative of our great Canadian democracy. You took an oath and it has weight. When you support or choose the side of terrorists, you are supporting war.

What about the hostages?

Thirteen days ago, I called for an immediate ceasefire and de-escalation over the horrific siege which had begun on the Palestinians in Gaza, and I would like to share some thoughts today about the censure vote.

Since I made that statement, Israel has only escalated its assault on millions of Gazans. The Israeli Defence Forces have killed thousands of Palestinians, destroyed residential areas and ordered the evacuation of at least 20 hospitals in northern Gaza. Israel is telling people who are already injured, sick and dying in hospitals in Gaza to leave. Since I made my statement, Israel has bombed refugee camps, United Nations schools, hospitals, airports and the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. The unspeakable destruction continues and represents collective punishment against all Gazans in retaliation for attacks by Hamas.

The Ford government has done nothing meaningful to say about these atrocities and has now targeted me to distract from its own scandals. Those of us committed to Palestinian life refuse to be distracted. I restate my call for an immediate ceasefire by Israeli forces and for the immediate restoration of food, water, fuel and electricity in Gaza.

I applaud the many elected officials in Canada who have joined this call in recent days and I hope even more of you will speak out. I ground my words in the reality of the Israeli apartheid and Israel’s ongoing domination and occupation of Palestinian lands.

Governments and institutions in Canada are trying to use their voice and weight to silence us—to silence workers, students, educators and peace-loving people who dare to support Palestine. To every person who is taking a risk to speak up for Palestinian dignity and safety, I see you and I hear you and I am with you. They try hard to silence us, but we know that our words are powerful. And we must continue to speak up, no matter the cost.

When my parents immigrated to Canada in 1986, I was a year old. The reason that they immigrated to Canada from Iran is because in 1979 there was an Islamic revolution, and our once free and democratic country was taken over by radical Islamists, was taken over by terrorists and was taken over by fascists, who actually executed over 40,000 Communists in the late 1980s. So my parents escaped in 1986 because they wanted to live in a free and democratic society.

I was a year old at the time. We were blessed to be able to come to Canada to escape that hatred, to escape that radical, fundamentalist, Islamo-fascist ideology. That’s the same regime, Madam Speaker, that denies the Holocaust. That’s the same regime that spreads anti-Semitic information and propaganda, not just inside the Islamic regime of Iran but around the world and through its proxies, like Hamas, Hezbollah and others.

When we came to Canada, my parents raised myself and my younger sister always telling us how blessed we are to be Canadian and we should always put Canada first: “Never forget your heritage. Never forget your culture. Never forget your background, but always remember that you are first and foremost a proud Canadian.” What that means, Madam Speaker, is that you come here to embrace culture and diversity and accept people for who they are, and you leave the problems of your home country behind.

Now, it doesn’t mean you can’t speak up. It doesn’t mean you can’t attend rallies and protests. I do it all the time, in support of the people of Iran who are fighting for freedom and democracy against the brutal and terrorist Islamic regime in Iran. But what I don’t do: I don’t go to protests calling for genocide. I don’t attend protests where I say, “From the river to the sea”—I can’t even finish that sentence because it is abhorrent and vile.

To anyone who says these are peace rallies, it’s appalling that I have to put this in Hansard, but it needs to be done so that the world will always remember what these hate rallies were about. This is a message from the Palestinian Youth Movement one day after the horrific October 7 genocidal massacre of 1,400 innocent Jewish people. It says:

“Toronto: All out for Palestine.

“Join us Monday, October 9th at 2 p.m.

“An unprecedented series of events has taken place by our heroic resistance in Gaza—with over 30 Zionist hostages captured, the fall of settlements surrounding Gaza, and the prison break that destroyed the fence that has been entrapping Gazans for over 17 years. The resistance’s offensive attack has shaped a new precedent for our national liberation struggle and we remain steadfast in our right to resist by any means necessary.

“We call on our people in the far diaspora in Toronto to uplift and honour our resistance and our martyrs. Join us this Monday, October 9 at 2 p.m. at Nathan Phillips Square and celebrate our steps closer to liberation.” Shameful.

I was in Toronto on Monday, because Monday was Thanksgiving. I was walking my dog and I happened to come across this pro-Hamas celebration, this pro-Hamas rally. It was the first time in my life that I had ever felt uncomfortable as a Canadian. The hate, the anger, the way they were marching, the chants they were making—that’s something you see in the Islamic regime in Iran. You do not see that in Canada. That’s the kind of behaviour you see in radical fundamentalist countries, not in Canada. That is not the Canada that my parents immigrated to. That is not the Canada that we were raised in. That hate does not belong in Canada.

What was even more shocking to me—and I didn’t realize this until a few days later—is that the member from Hamilton Centre marched in that parade, participated in that very same parade, rally, celebration, whatever you want to call it. The pro-Hamas rally that supported the genocide—the member from Hamilton Centre marched in that. She can try to explain away her statement, she can try to say whatever it is she wants to say, but silence is louder than words.

Even prior to this, when I had the unfortunate opportunity of having to hear her voice in this Legislature again, she spread misinformation. She accused the State of Israel of bombing a hospital, even though it was debunked right away. It was the Palestinian jihad organization, and Hamas was using it to spread propaganda, to fuel more hate rallies around the world. She also failed to mention anything about the 1,400 innocent civilians. She failed to mention that the Hamas terrorists must release the hostages.

You cannot negotiate with terrorists, Madam Speaker. You cannot. As someone who comes from a country that is ruled by Islamic regime terrorists, we know you cannot negotiate with them. They have no problem killing people.

There’s someone who is named Mosab Hassan Yousef, and I encourage everyone to look him up. Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of a Hamas leader. He defected. He knows what happens on the inside, and he has some fascinating interviews. He even wrote a book called Son of Hamas. In that book and in his interviews, he writes, “Hamas does not care if you are Israeli or Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Bedouin. They do not care. They will execute everyone. They do not care about the people. They use Palestinians as human shields.”

He said that every few years what the Palestinian Authority does, the Palestinian leadership, is they will just create a war because they know what’s going to happen is that Israel will retaliate, and then the world will be outraged and then they will get money through donations. That’s what he says. This is someone who was born and raised in Hamas, and he defected.

Another thing that was very shocking for me, and I can’t fail—I have to mention this. The hate and the violence at these pro-Hamas rallies are getting worse. Yesterday—I believe it was yesterday, or possibly the day before—Cafe Landwer in Toronto was surrounded by pro-Hamas supporters who were at the rally, and they all started chanting, “Boycott. Boycott this Zionist cafe.”

Madam Speaker, what does a Jewish-owned cafe in Toronto have to do with the conflict in Israel and Palestine? We are being faced with full-on hatred, full-on anti-Semitism. This is not 1933; this is 2023. And what’s horrifying is that, in 1933, Cafe Landwer fled Berlin because of the anti-Semitism they were experiencing then, and now, 90 years later, they’re experiencing it once again in Ontario, in Canada. It is horrifying. And this is what the member from Hamilton Centre supports. This is exactly what she supports.

We all—we all—our hearts bleed for all the innocent lives lost, including Palestinians, but if you cannot call out terrorism, if you cannot have the moral clarity to understand that the root cause of this is terrorism that’s funded by the terrorist and illegitimate Islamic regime in Iran, if you are out there spreading a message of divisiveness instead of caring for people, then you should not be in this Legislature.

War has casualties. Innocent lives are taken. Death and destruction become commonplace.

Madam Speaker, I’m stopping because I know how difficult it is for many of us to be in this House, to get to the point of being in this House. So I will keep going. I just feel like our words have so much weight, and our words, when we do not speak in a position of peace and support of all, it endangers our ability to do this humanitarian work effectively.

Clearly, the NDP are not fit to lead on the world stage or on our stage, and the member from Hamilton Centre should not be afforded the opportunity to speak in this House until an official, proper apology is issued. If the leader of the NDP will not have her member sit as an independent and leave her party, then clearly she supports the opinions of the member from Hamilton Centre.

So where is the accountability and the integrity now? We have been back in this House for a whole week, and the member is still allowed to be in this official position with these statements. Well, we will do what she won’t, which is to ensure that the member doesn’t get to speak in this House again.

We cannot jeopardize Ontario’s position as the largest contributor to Canada’s economy, our diverse and multicultural mosaic, with hostile and hateful remarks. That is the language that drives away jobs and economic prosperity.

Again, your voice has weight, and what you say can cause harm and can destabilize countries. Madam Speaker, inflammatory remarks, insensitive sentiments and attending marches of hate do nothing to advance the cause of peace, and peace should be the chief aim, chief pursuit and objective of all parties affected by this conflict.

As elected officials, we have a duty and responsibility to weigh our words and be held accountable when we fall short of that standard. That’s why, Madam Speaker, I will be voting in favour of today’s motion to censure the member from Hamilton Centre.

Comments through the Chair.

I always appreciate the opportunity and privilege to speak in this House. It’s an honour. But today I am troubled by the need to speak on a motion to censure another member. But there is a need, and I rise to speak in support of motion 39, the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre.

We are all aware that on October 7 the terrorist organization Hamas launched a massive and unprecedented unprovoked attack against Israel. The images we have seen are both shocking and horrifying. Young people scrambling for safety, not knowing what was going on—that is one image that is stuck in my head. We all agree that these actions were horrific and can only imagine the terror and pain suffered by the Israeli Jewish people. There was a lot of emotion in this chamber last week. And we know that pain went around the world and was felt by all Jewish people.

That is why when there is a statement put out that attempts to justify this terrorist attack, we need to act. That is why we have this motion before us to censure the member for Hamilton Centre. All members hold varied and sometimes unpopular opinions. We’re all capable and do make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes we are misinformed, sometimes misunderstood. But when we make a mistake, even if we are just misunderstood, we must do our very best to correct that mistake and mitigate any damage that may have resulted.

To censure a member of provincial Parliament is a strong action and is not taken lightly. As the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, I know this only too well. It reflects poorly on the Parliament, it reflects poorly on the member, it reflects poorly on the riding—but, as a last resort, necessary. It could have been avoided: Take the statement down, retract, apologize.

This government must act. To not act would only further the pain inflicted on our Jewish community. Parliaments have a responsibility to swiftly exercise their disciplinary powers to protect this Parliament and maintain the respect it commands and deserves. To serve in this Parliament is a privilege; it’s not a right. It is not an opportunity to move personal agendas forward. When I heard of the terrorist attack by Hamas, I was shocked and, like many of you, glued to the TV in disbelief. When I heard that a member of this Parliament put out a statement in defence of this action, I was confused. With my limited Parliament experience, I thought: What’s going to happen? What are we going to do?

So I thank the government House leader for his leadership in bringing forward this motion. Having listened to all of the debate, I fully support this motion.

Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

Further debate?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Go ahead.

On a point of order, please.

Speaker, I submit that the motion itself is actually out of order and that any relevant debate of such a motion would also be out of order. A decision to permit this motion to be considered would be unprecedented and set a dangerous new standard for the conduct of future business of the House as it intersects with the judicial branch of government and will negatively affect the delicate balance that is the constitutional separation of powers. With your indulgence, Speaker, I do have several points for your consideration.

The unamendable motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition includes a significant amount of preamble related to various government policies and initiatives, and alone, that subject matter would be in order for consideration. However, the thrust and crux of the motion, the resolution itself, seeks to have the House adopt a position which would directly insert itself into a matter presently before the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which is a quasi-judicial body constituted under the authority of an act of the Legislature.

Further, adoption of the motion, and the requisite references to the subject matter in debate, would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings presently before the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The subject matter of the opposition leader’s motion is an appeal presently being considered by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an officer of the Assembly and an office established under section 4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act passed by this Legislature.

While I acknowledge that the Speaker cannot be aware of every proceeding before every court or every quasi-judicial body or its status, in the case before us the Leader of the Official Opposition has set out the fact that there is a pending proceeding before the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s adjudicative division directly and clearly within the text of the motion. I quote the motion’s last line: “Therefore, the Legislative Assembly calls on the Premier to cease his access-to-information appeal and disclose the contents of his personal phone and email accounts to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.”

Further, I will table a Global News article written by Colin D’Mello, Global’s Queen’s Park bureau chief and member of the Queen’s Park press gallery, and Isaac Callan dated August 15, 2023. This article sets out that a Global News access-to-information request on the subject had been denied and makes clear they are pursuing an ongoing FOI, or freedom-of-information, appeal. As FIPPA sets out, such appeals are to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Part IV of the act sets out an appeal process to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in cases of disputes between members of the public and heads of branches of government over the disclosure of information. This part of the act establishes the quasi-judicial nature of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and parts of his or her office by establishing an adjudicative process for the resolution of appeals. The IPC is empowered, under section 52 of the act, to conduct inquiries and hearings related to appeals, to examine records, to summon persons, to examine them under oath, to apply rules of evidence and make orders to resolve appeals, which clearly establishes the commissioner’s quasi-judicial nature.

Further, the IPC’s own materials acknowledge the commissioner to have “quasi-judicial duties and powers” and the commissioner maintains a tribunal and dispute resolution division. I will table a number of references for your review.

Now, I will address the application of the sub judice convention and our own codification of it within our standing orders. House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes the convention “is first and foremost a voluntary exercise of restraint on the part of the House in which restrictions are placed on the freedom of members to make reference in debate to matters which are sub judice, that is, awaiting judicial decisions.” It goes on to say, “It is also understood that matters before the courts are also prohibited as subjects of motions, petitions or questions in the House” but not to legislation or the rights of Parliament to legislate.

Speaker, I’m sure you recall, you ruled to this effect related to the sub judice nature of content of the bill back on September 17, 2018, as several Speakers have before you. What we have before us now is not a piece of legislation. It’s a motion. Its adoption or defeat cannot alter the state of the law in Ontario, but it can serve to prejudice the ongoing appeal before the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice goes on to note that “no distinction has ever been made in Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying the sub judice convention. It has also been applied with respect to certain tribunals other than courts of law” but that “the precedents are not as consistent where civil cases are concerned. The convention has been applied on some occasions and not on others” and that “although nothing resembling a settled practice has developed in relation to civil cases, the Chair has warned on various occasions of the need for caution in referring to matters pending judicial decisions whatever the nature of the court.”

When discussing the sub judice convention, these procedural authorities must be considered carefully and the House of Commons context distinguished from our assembly.

Itis important to note that the House of Commons, from which the procedural authorities I have referenced originate, has never made any attempt to codify the convention within its standing orders, while this assembly partially has. While the uncodified convention is acknowledged to apply beyond criminal courts to tribunals, which have status as courts of record, our House, under standing order 25, which has existed in some form since 1970, has chosen to go further and specify that matters that are the subject of a proceeding before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of an act of the Legislature are considered sub judice and must be avoided. It is true that standing order 25 respects matters which are out of order in debate. You noted this, Speaker, in your September 2018 ruling, but you noted it to distinguish debate on legislation from the effect of the legislation itself.

You correctly noted that the convention and our standing orders do not and cannot “operate to limit the superior and pre-eminent right of the Legislature to legislate in the first instance.”

It is critical, however, to note that this situation is not precisely the one which was before you in 2018. The NDP leader has not put forth legislation, but a motion, a motion seeking to establish a position of this House directly respecting a matter that is sub judice. In this particular matter, it is also clear that the wording of the motion necessitates that any substantive debate of it would have to discuss the matters which are sub judice.

Certainly, it would be an absurd interpretation of our standing orders that they could allow for a situation in which a motion may address matters which are sub judice when the very debate on that motion would be out of order.

If this House were to adopt this motion, especially in an area where the assembly has, in statute, delegated a specific authority to an officer of Parliament, it would create an extremely dangerous precedent.

If allowed, would it then be permissible in the future for the assembly to consider and adopt motions which sought to take a position in a case before Ontario’s Landlord and Tenant Board? Would it be permissible to take a position in a case before the Human Rights Tribunal? What would distinguish any of these scenarios from a minor criminal case or a civil trial? In any of these cases, permissibility aside, would it be advisable or will we have firmly charged that through the constitutional separation of powers into the domain of the courts?

This motion before us does not seek to assert the assembly’s legislative superiority or pre-eminence, it seeks only to insert the House politically into the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s statutory sphere of competence.

There is another important distinction from the House of Commons. In June 1987, Speaker Fraser considered a similar point of order to the one I am raising today: an opposition day motion respecting a civil matter that was before the courts. The Speaker also noted that there was no settled practice respecting matters of the subject of civil cases and referenced Beauchesne in noting that the convention has historically applied after the matter has reached the trial stage.

The Speaker ruled allowing the opposition day motion to stand as that case had not yet reached the trial stage and further referenced Beauchesne, pointing out that “the opposition prerogative is very board to use the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.”

The case before us today is different than the one before Speaker Fraser for several reasons: one being that the House of Commons had not codified any part of the sub judice convention, as we have; a second being that this is not strictly a civil case before a court, it is an appeal before a quasi-judicial body, which is clearly sufficient under our standing order to make its consideration problematic.

Also distinguishing is that the IPC appeal process does not include a formal trial stage; instead the adjudicative part may include an inquiry and hearings which may not be open to the public. Thus, this House has no way to know if they are occurring until a resolution has actually been reached. In such a case, the House ought to show restraint in the spirit of the convention and restrict its deliberations until such a time as an IPC appeal has been settled. It’s even more problematic that the quasi-judicial body responsible for this matter at hand is headed by an officer of this Parliament, unlike a court, which exists entirely outside the jurisdiction of the Legislature, the Information and Privacy Commissioner is hired on the recommendation of an all-party panel of members of this assembly followed by the adoption of a motion in this House.

Despite the statutory powers granted by this Legislature to the commissioner to adjudicate certain matters, the commissioner is independent of only the government but is not independent of this assembly. If this House were to adopt the NDP leader’s motion, is there not a real risk that the commissioner and the commissioner’s office could take such an act of the assembly as a signal from us of a desired outcome in this particular appeal?

We, as an assembly, maintain the ability to remove the commissioner, and even reduce or eliminate the office’s funding. This intersection of authorities is exactly why the member’s motion is out of order and why it would be so dangerous to set the precedent that the House should consider any such motions.

By considering this motion, this House creates a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding before the IPC, the outcome of which would not be risk to an initiative of government, but potentially significant invasion of the Premier’s personal privacy.

I submit that the NDP leader could possibly have rephrased the motion to make it more orderly and achieve her political objective. With matters sub judice, I admit there has typically been a balance between the legitimate objectives of a Parliament and the need to respect the constitutional separation of powers.

I have mentioned the right to legislate cannot be subverted. Looking to the Laurentian University Speaker’s warrants which were issued by this House in the last Parliament, I can imagine a situation in which further action of the House was warranted while the matter remained before another court. In that case, I believe several motions and debate would have been justified despite the sub judice convention and standing order because the Speaker was, in fact, party to those matters on behalf of this House.

In preparing these documents, I have reviewed all of the opposition day motions considered by this House since 1989. In some cases, the House has come quite close to crossing the boundary set by the convention and our standing orders but has not crossed it.

In June 1997, the House considered a motion calling for an independent inquiry into the events at Ipperwash and mentioned the death of Dudley George; however, the House waited to consider this until after the criminal matter was settled at the trial stage and concluded consideration before the matter was appealed.

Another motion related to the very same matter was considered in May 2001 prior to the resolution of a pending civil case. However, that motion did not refer to the civil case in any way and called only for a public inquiry, not action of this House in the lawsuit or desired action of any parties to it.

In May 2002, the House considered a motion with respect to the sale of Hydro One. While there was an appeal in a civil case pending from April to June of that year, the government had simultaneously tabled legislation. The motion called on the government only to withdraw its legislation or to call a general election on the issue. It did not mention the civil case. In this case, it was certainly within the jurisdiction of the House to consider its position on a piece of legislation before it.

Other similar examples exist, and it is to some regret that, on occasion, the House treaded as close as it has to the fundamental constitutional boundary between Parliament and the courts; but of key importance is that it has not made a practice of crossing the boundary as this motion does. Even if the House had crossed this boundary in the past, the intentional or unintentional disregard for a rule does not forever abrogate it.

Where the subject of opposition day motions has treaded near the judicial sphere, the record shows that the thrust of such motions have dealt with a more general public policy position and that members have generally shown restraint during debate when departing the policy discussions and approaching the case-specific subject matter. However, no motion has so directly sought to improperly enter the judicial sphere as this does by specifically calling on this House to take a direct position in a pending case.

If the sub judice rule does not apply to the thrust of the motions when they are so clearly offensive to it, then this rule may as well be entirely disregarded as we will have confirmed it to be a mere platitude which, when challenged directly, is swiftly dispensed with. This is not only the opposite of restraint described in Bosc and Gagnon, but it invites the courts to gradually make such similar incursions into the parliamentary sphere of competence.

I would also submit that there is nothing exceptional about the proposed debate which justifies a change to precedent, a departure from the application of the standing orders or the risk of sending a signal to one of our own parliamentary officers that the assembly as a whole desires any particular decision in the case before him or her.

Speaker, the arguments I have made have demonstrated the following:

Our codification of the sub judice convention in standing order 25 clarifies that the subject matter of this motion is clearly sub judice as it remains before the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s adjudicative division.

Any consideration of the motion would require or encourage members to reflect upon the matter, which is sub judice.

Given the nature of the quasi-judicial body which is responsible for the matter as an officer of this Parliament, it is certain that the motion and consideration of it “would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding.”

The House of Commons procedural authorities are insufficient alone to provide complete guidance on the matter because the House of Commons has not codified the sub judice convention as our House has.

The most relevant Speakers’ rulings from this place and the House of Commons are not sufficiently analogous to the situation before us to serve as precedent.

The overwhelming practice of this House has not been to directly test the boundaries of the sub judice convention.

Finally, I would like to address the application of standing order 1 to this matter. That standing order states that the purpose of the standing orders is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of all members to do several things.

The first is to submit motions, resolutions and bills for consideration. We know that right is not unlimited by the simple fact that a motion must be in order to be submitted for consideration and determined by vote. Similarly, not all members are entitled to submit all types of motions for consideration. The opposition cannot submit substantive government motions nor routine motions, and similarly the government cannot submit motions for consideration on opposition days. As well, the subject matter and phrasing of motions follows very specific rules, as you know.

The second, to debate, speak to and vote, is also not unlimited given that we maintain rules which limit the subject matter of debate such as those listed under standing order 25.

The third, to hold the government accountable for its policies, does not apply in this case given the thrust of the motion relates to a quasi-judicial matter of a personal nature for the Premier.

The fourth, to collectively decide matters, is limited by the need for such matters to be proposed within the confines of the rules of this place.

I would also urge you, Speaker, in considering the democratic rights of all members to consider the democratic rights of our Premier, in this case, but of any member of Parliament or member of the public who in the future might have a pending matter before a court or quasi-judicial body and ought to expect fair and impartial consideration of that matter without the undue influence of this House outside its jurisdiction.

Given these conclusions, I submit that the opposition day motion violates the sub judice convention and standing order 25 and does so, in the words of Beauchesne, on the “clearest and most certain procedural grounds.” As such, the motion must be ruled out of order and the debate set aside.

Speaker, thank you for consideration.

Thank you. I will reserve my ruling. Orders of the day—

Speaker, point of order: The member opposite is arguing the merits of the motion, not the actual point of order.

Speaker, I would like to respond.

First, the government is saying that this motion shouldn’t be allowed under section 25. We submitted the motion, I believe, on Wednesday. It was ruled in order by the Clerks’ table. We are now several days later.

But before we go further, I would like to read the motion into the record:

“Whereas the government is under criminal investigation by the RCMP for their removal of lands from the greenbelt; and

“Whereas the Auditor General is in the process of reviewing whether there has been mismanagement and abuse of ministerial zoning orders; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about an inappropriate relationship between a former government minister and a land speculator, and incorrect information provided to the Integrity Commissioner about this relationship; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about whether there was preferential treatment given to a foreign company to build a private spa on public land at Ontario Place; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about preferential treatment given to government donors and personal friends of the Premier with respect to the building of Highway 413; and

“Whereas there are outstanding questions about unqualified patronage appointments to public agencies, boards, and commissions; and

“Whereas the Premier has admitted that he regularly uses his personal phone to conduct government business and those communications might be relevant to these inquiries;

“Therefore the Legislative Assembly calls on the Premier to cease his access to information appeal and disclose the contents of his personal phone and email accounts to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.”

Let’s be very clear: The Premier made this the realm of the Parliament when he said his personal phone number, gave it to Ontarians. He basically told people to call him and that he would fix their problems. The government House leader responded several times that that’s what people expect. Then, when he said that, it stands to reason—and I will back up a second: I’m not a lawyer or a standing orders expert. Perhaps I should be to be making this argument, but I’m not. But when you give your personal phone number and say, “I’m doing business on the personal phone number, and it is the business of the public,” then it stands to reason that those phone records should also be public. Are we talking about the courts? No. But the Premier, in the Legislature, gave his phone number and made no bones about it that he was doing public business on his personal phone—public business, taxpayers’ dollars, on his personal phone—in this room.

A motion is a serious thing, but it’s not a binding motion. It doesn’t direct the courts and nor does it direct the integrity and privacy commissioner. It doesn’t direct the commissioner. We are trying to get information to be made public, that should be made public so that the public can find out what happened, right or wrong.

Interjection.

Actually, the merits of the motion—the point of order is that the motion shouldn’t be brought forward. So I think it is part of the argument that you have to debate the merit of the motion.

Just from the public perspective, this is the House of the people. So we brought a motion forward that the Premier’s phone records—which do include public business; that is not under dispute here. The Premier said it. The government House leader said it. That’s not under dispute at all. We, in this opposition motion, are trying to convince the government and the Premier to release those records, to be open and accountable to the people of Ontario.

Your point is that this motion shouldn’t be discussed here, that public business and public dollars on the Premier’s personal phone shouldn’t be part of the public record. We very strongly disagree. If the government feels that this motion shouldn’t be—I’m going back up for a second. If this motion goes forward, the government has every opportunity to make their argument that this motion shouldn’t go forward.

Also, because it’s a majority government, you can also vote this motion down. You have a majority. There is no question that, if the government decides that they don’t want this motion to pass, this motion will fail. You have a majority, one which you use—rightfully so—on a regular basis. The last opposition day motion, you chose not to vote; you chose to ring the bells to eliminate the vote. With this motion, your motion, you’re basically trying to eliminate debate. You can use all the legal terminology you want, but at the end of the day, that is what you’re trying to do.

And, quite frankly, Ontarians should be even more interested, right now, in what’s on the Premier’s personal phone—even more. They should be, because had you just let this motion go through, made your argument—but now you’re using procedural tactics to try and prevent information from coming to the floor.

We will provide more information once we’ve had time to actually study your long-winded legal arguments—and I get along great with the member personally, so he’s not taking this personally. But for the government to have had this motion on Wednesday and waiting until the morning of the day it’s going to be debated, that also puts out some red flags that the government is doing whatever it can not to be put on record regarding the Premier’s personal phone.

Now the people are realizing that those records should be part of the public record, need to be part of the public record, have to be part of the public record. And eventually, they will become part of the government record, regardless of what this government is trying to pull. Thank you.

So the government, as I understand, in this bill—well, they move very quickly, so it’s hard to sometimes understand everything they want to do with this bill. But I want to begin on a charitable note and assume that the government, like the members of this opposition, care about the people who raised us; that we assume that every single part of this building, every single facet of this province, exists because elders have paid their taxes, they have gotten up in the morning and they have put one foot in front of the other and they have built our communities; and when the time comes that they get an opportunity to retire, they want to live with dignity.

And every single person I talk to from our community who talks about home care—it is not just a frill. Home care should be one of the most important things that the province of Ontario funds and cares about on a regular basis. And why? Because people want to live in the homes they have built for themselves and their families for as long as possible—that’s why. They deserve the right to live in the homes they have built for themselves and their families.

But what are we currently doing in the province of Ontario with home care? Absolutely clear, it’s on the record; the Auditor General previous to the current Auditor General issued two reports on the problems in home care in Ontario. We are losing, depending upon the agency hired by the Ministry of Health, between 27% to 32% of every taxpayer dollar we invest in home care to for-profit operators that care more about investors and the bottom line than the well-being of seniors and persons with disabilities.

It’s why it’s so hard for so many families to find appropriate home care. It’s why when persons with disabilities and seniors have some kind of a critical incident in their home—it could be a fall; it could be an injury of some kind—and they get admitted to hospital, they cannot be brought back to their home. Why? Because it’s unsafe for them to be there. So they get trapped in this awful cycle of emergency room admissions, being put into beds which emergency room staff need to deal with emergencies. But they get trapped into this cycle, and they get trapped into that cycle after a lifetime of caring for children, paying taxes, doing what everybody in this province says you have to do to lead a decent and meaningful life.

I’ve always thought, as someone middle-aged—I’m 51 now—that part of that social contract I have with elders in this province is to stand by them when they want to live in their own homes for as long as possible. But that’s not the case. We line the pockets of ParaMed, of CarePartners, of Bayshore. Linda Knight, a fantastic example of this: $140 million of contracts currently—CarePartners—with the Ministry of Health and the province of Ontario. We are losing 30% of every one of that $140 million we invest in CarePartners to profit, to investors.

There was a time in this province when there was an NDP government. We had a Minister of Health, and her name was Evelyn Gigantes, member of provincial Parliament for Ottawa Centre, someone I’m very proud to call a friend. Evelyn told me that when she stood in this esteemed House as the Minister of Health, 81% of the contracts signed with the Minister of Health for home care were with non-profit entities, by and large the Victorian Order of Nurses, a historic agency which now is called Carefor. Carefor still exists in Ottawa. It still plays a critical role in looking after people with disabilities and seniors, not just in my community. I see the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell over there, my friend east of where I serve. I know many seniors who benefit from home care services provided well outside of downtown Ottawa thanks to Carefor.

But what has happened over time when the Victorian Order of Nurses and non-profit care was 81% of home care? What has happened over time is the Conservative government of the mid-1990s introduced a market model for a competition for contracts for home care. That has driven down working conditions and it has driven down the standards of care, so seniors, people with disabilities and families cannot get the care they need.

Let me switch to the other critical part of this puzzle, and that is the largely women and men who work in this sector. If you can believe it, Speaker, their travel is not compensated when they work for a big company like Bayshore or ParaMed or CarePartners. Their travel is not compensated, so when they head out to Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and when they head out to Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke or when they head out to one of the rural areas of eastern Ontario, my neighbours, they are not compensated between destinations. Their compensation is between clients.

Just recently when I was at the grocery store, I had occasion to talk to a rural community care PSW who works for different agencies, piecing together a full-time employment. This gentleman called the care coordinator at Bayshore and said, “Do you know I’m being given 30 minutes to look in on somebody in Smiths Falls? I know the senior has not had a bath in a week, and I want to give that senior a bath, a very personal process—older lady.” The Bayshore care coordinator said back to the com-munity PSW, “Well, what can you do in half an hour, Paul?”

How revolting is that? Not only do you not pay Paul for his travel to Smiths Falls from Ottawa—he’s an Ottawa Centre resident; proud to call Paul a friend—you put the senior in the situation where they’re not bathed for a week—what is going to be, two weeks? Three weeks?

This government has a close relationship with for-profit home care agencies. They believe and they’ve said in this House for the five years that I have served here that they have to work with Linda Knight, with Bayshore, with ParaMed. We are losing 30% of investments in home care to for-profit agencies, and nowhere in Bill 135 is there a provision to deal with that—nowhere. People keep putting their Mercedes in the driveways and people keep dishing out dividends to shareholders, and people with disabilities and seniors continue to suffer. It’s not right.

Do you know what’s coming up soon? I’m proud to stand beside my friend from St. Catharines here. Remembrance Day is coming very soon. Everybody in this House is going to be putting on a red poppy because we honour the service of our veterans. But what about the veterans right now who need home care? What about them? Do we care about them when we get up and we hold our hand over our hearts, and we remember epic moments like D-Day or Vimy Ridge, or the sacrifices or the PTSD that veterans come home with after serving in the field in places like Afghanistan or elsewhere?

I know those celebrations by members in this House are heartfelt. I know we all share them, and we believe them. But it can’t end after Remembrance Day. We have to remember that the elders who built this province deserve every single cent that we can put in their hands to ensure dignified home care.

So if Bill 135 is about dignified home care, connected home care, but you are leaving intact a home care system that is bleeding out incredible amounts of money for profit, I believe you are failing seniors, persons with disabilities and caring members of families.

Speaker, I’ll never forget what it was like for me when I was a graduate student in this city and my grandparents, within five months of each other, both passed away—they went through that moment where they had to leave that family home and had to be in 24/7 assisted long-term care. They went to Maxville Manor, a wonderful, wonderful non-profit organization in Maxville with a social justice mandate that does incredible work. They looked after both of my grandparents, my grandmother who had dementia and my grandfather who had Lou Gehrig’s disease. They did the best they could to keep them together in that long-term-care facility, even though my grandma, who never met a bully she didn’t want to stare down in her entire life and wreaked fear and havoc in my town for any reason she believed was unjust—so when she was being asked to stay in the dementia ward for her own protection, she didn’t take kindly to that.

As a family caregiver, I ceased my studies and I went back home to live in Vankleek Hill with my mom for a bit and was in and out of Maxville, and I remember thinking, “How lucky is my family that there’s enough affluence in my family that I can just put my studies on hold and come down from Toronto and look after my grandparents, who spent their life looking after me?” But that’s our luck, our fortune. I was able to do that. My dad ran a very successful business. My mom was a music teacher. They both did whatever they could. But I came home. So did my brother. So did my mom’s second cousin. But not every family has that ability. Not every family can do that.

So many people in this province are struggling pay-cheque to paycheque to make ends meet today. It’s hard. Life out there is hard. So that’s where the province has to step up and offer consistent home care to every single person in this province who needs it. That’s our social contract with the elders who built this province. But instead, we’re lining the pockets of Linda Knight, we’re lining the pockets of Bayshore, we’re lining the pockets of CarePartners, and I think it’s a shame, Speaker.

I invite my friends in government to consider amending this bill to make sure we finally go back to the NDP legacy in this province where we had every or most of every dollar going directly into care and not into profit. That would be a proud day. I would love to work with this government to introduce them to organizations like Carefor, organizations back home like Hillel Lodge on the west end of the riding, a jewel in the crown of Jewish Family Services Ottawa that is there offering compassionate care—

I will reserve my ruling.

Orders of the day.

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 16, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Connecting Care Act, 2019 with respect to home and community care services and health governance and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 135, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2019 pour des soins interconnectés en ce qui concerne les services de soins à domicile et en milieu communautaire et la gouvernance de la santé et apportant des modifications connexes à d’autres lois.

I guess I’ll call this a tale of two phones. We all remember the day the Premier got up and gave his personal cellphone in the House: “If you have a problem, call me.” That’s a great marketing strategy. But everyone, especially on the government side—especially Premiers and ministers—also have government phones, and government business should be done on government phones. That’s a pretty simple concept.

But now it’s come to light that there are long periods of time where the Premier of this province did not use government phones. I don’t think the Premier of the province would not conduct any business in those periods, so there is business being conducted, it stands to reason, on his personal cellphone.

We are bringing a motion forward this afternoon to try to push the government and the Premier to release his personal cellphone records so he can be open and accountable to the people of Ontario, which he promised to be. The government has now moved a motion to try to stop that. But let’s be clear: Government business, whether it’s on a personal or a government phone, should be viewed by the people. We implore the Premier to do so.

Good morning, Speaker. This morning I would like to recognize a member of my riding. Last week, the city of Hamilton held its 28th annual Senior of the Year Awards and Flamborough–Glanbrook resident Margaret Robertson was the nominee.

The Senior of the Year Award program celebrates seniors aged 65 and older who contribute their time and their talents in service to enrich the social, cultural or civic life of those in our community.

Margaret’s commitment to the Flamborough area has been evident for years. She established and maintained Pause Awhile Tea Room for 32 years, a place enjoyed by so many in our community. She was chair of the Waterdown BIA, where she led the growth of the Victorian Festival. Margaret is also a founding member of the Rotary Club of Flamborough AM, an organization that provides so much service around our area.

Along with these various roles, Margaret has also volunteered her time to work with Flamborough Connects and the Food with Grace Waterdown Food Bank. She has truly been influential and much loved in our community.

My congratulations go out to all of the nominees, and a special thank you to Margaret for all that you have done and continue to do.

I apologize to the member for Ottawa Centre, who I have to now interrupt because it is 10:15, and it is time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Ontario government is providing over $4.9 million to help create 27 supportive housing units at The Refuge in Oshawa that will support youth experiencing homelessness. Located at 357 Simcoe Street South in Oshawa, the two-storey converted school building will include studio apartments as well as four accessible units.

I believe that affordable, accessible and suitable housing is essential for healthy communities within the region of Durham. It underpins the quality of life for people in Durham at every stage of their lives. I look forward to continued collaboration with the members of Durham regional council as together we ensure that local communities within the region continue to be safe, healthy and caring, as well as sustainable for future generations.

John Henry, the regional chair of Durham region and chief executive officer, had this to say about the new funding for The Refuge: “On behalf of the region ... I would like to extend a sincere thank you to the province ... for this investment. It signifies our shared vision of creating safe, welcoming and caring communities for all.”