The member is absolutely right. Our government has prioritized affordability by putting more money back into the pockets of transit riders.

In contrast to the previous Liberal government, with its transit hikes for six straight years, our government has provided a reimbursement for applicable GO Transit riders. We have also eliminated double fares for many GO train riders in the GTA. For youth aged 13 to 19, we have expanded the Presto fare card discounts.

Speaker, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, our government is making transit more affordable and accessible for every rider across this province. That’s why we have also made a record and historic investment: $70 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to—

Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé.

Ontario is facing a health human resources crisis, whether we look at emergency room closures, at the 2.2 million Ontarians who don’t have access to primary care or at the long wait-list for surgery.

Does the minister believe that nursing agencies are part of the solutions to Ontario’s health human resources crisis?

Back to the minister: It’s great to see how our government is providing transit riders with more choices to make it easier to travel. However, it’s essential that our government continues to remove barriers to ridership and make life more affordable. Life is already expensive for the hard-working individuals and families across our great province. For many of them, transit fares add on to the financial burdens that they’re already experiencing.

The previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, failed the people of Ontario when it came to addressing important transit issues. Speaker, the people of Ontario deserve better. Can the minister please explain how our government is offering Ontarians cost-effective ways to travel?

Speaker, I’m not sure if the member opposite has read the news article that says, “Ontario had the highest percentage of people with a regular health care provider at 90.6%, suggesting better health care accessibility.” That, of course, came out of Health Matrix today.

We can do more and we are doing more, whether it is directing the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the College of Nurses of Ontario to quickly expedite, review and ultimately license nurses and doctors who are internationally trained and want to practise in the province of Ontario, or whether, of course, it is expanding the number of residency positions that are available in every single Ontario health care system schooling. We have made those investments; we continue to make those investments.

We have a plan and it is working, and I wish the member opposite would share some of that with her colleagues so that when these investments come forward in fall economic statements or budgets, you actually support those investments instead of—

We are seeing individuals who want to practise, who want to train, who want to work in the province of Ontario continuously adding to our health human resources, whether it’s in our education, through our colleges and universities, or a higher percentage of individuals, internationally trained, who are actually practising in the province of Ontario.

I have no intention of removing a tool that has been a very important tool for hospitals, for long-term care and for home and community care to make sure that they have the staff that they need to appropriately serve the people of Ontario.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Just midway through question period, my uncle Frank and his amazing partner, Virginia, joined us here from BC. My uncle is a wonderful language instructor and an actor, and I want to welcome him to the worst theatre in the city of Toronto.

Thank you. The supplementary question.

The Minister of Education has a point of order.

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

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

On October 18, 2023, Mr. Calandra moved government notice of motion number 19, relating to the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre. Mr. Jones, Chatham-Kent–Leamington, moved an amendment to the motion. Mr. McCarthy moved an amendment to the amendment to the motion.

On October 23, 2023, Mr. Jordan moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Mr. Jordan’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

I am now required to put the question on the main motion to the House. Mr. Calandra has moved government notice of motion number 19 relating to the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre. 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.

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

The division bells rang from 1147 to 1152.

On October 18, 2023, Mr. Calanda moved government notice of motion number 19, relating to the censure of the member for Hamilton Centre.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Motion agreed to.

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

The House recessed from 1155 to 1300.

After taking some time to understand the members’ comments and the procedural authorities, I am prepared to rule on this matter.

The crux of the argument made by the deputy government House leader is that the motion is out of order on the grounds that it violates the sub judice convention as well as standing order 25(g), which provides that a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she:

“(g) Refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding,

“(i) that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination; or

“(ii) that is before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of an Act of the Legislature,

“where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Speaker that further reference would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding.”

In brief, this is a restriction on the part of the House to refrain from discussing certain matters that are before a judicial or quasi-judicial body. In other words, it is a self-imposed restriction that the Legislative Assembly places upon itself so as to avoid prejudice to a judicial case. At its core is the principle that the separation between legislative and judicial bodies is to be respected. It applies to statements, debate and question period, and as the member correctly points out, it has also been applied to the text of motions.

The text of the opposition day motion includes a preamble that raises a number of questions about various government actions and outstanding inquiries into those actions that the member suggests are being conducted. The motion includes a statement that the Premier “has admitted that he regularly uses his personal phone to conduct government business and those communications might be relevant to these inquiries....” The motion culminates in a proposed call 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.”

The deputy government House leader argues that this is a reference to a request for information made to the government which was denied and is currently being appealed in accordance with the Ontario access-to-information regime. Such appeals are made through the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The deputy government House leader identifies the Information and Privacy Commissioner as a quasi-judicial body—an assertion with which I agree—and correctly observes that standing order 25(g) is applicable to matters which are the subject of proceedings before any quasi-judicial body.

I have taken some time to review our relevant body of precedents and to assess the text of the motion in question. The question I must consider is whether a debate and subsequent House decision on the motion would create a real and substantial danger to a proceeding.

In his submission, the deputy government House leader noted that the request for information and subsequent appeal were made by Global News, while the motion standing in the name of the leader of the official opposition “calls on the Premier to cease his access-to-information appeal....” It is unclear to me at present whether the motion is referring to the appeal described by the deputy government House leader, but it is not the role of the Speaker to make this determination.

In any case, I am not satisfied that the House simply calling upon the Premier to withdraw an appeal would create a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the quasi-judicial proceeding.

In a statement made on May 8, 2008, Speaker Peters quoted a 1976 report by a special committee of the Canadian House of Commons which was set up to review the rights and immunities of members. The committee considered the sub judice convention and recommended that, “When there is doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention.”

Consequently, I find that the motion is in order and that debate can proceed this afternoon.

I want to thank the members for their submissions.

The ayes are 63; the nays are 22.

I want to welcome to the assembly this afternoon my chief of staff from my ministry, Michelle Stock, and her team, and the excellent, dedicated, professional public service staff who have also joined us this afternoon. Welcome to the Legislature of Ontario.

Merci, monsieur le Président. J’aimerais remercier M. Girard de Kapuskasing d’avoir signé la pétition intitulée « Appuyez l’Université de Sudbury.

« À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« Attendu que les Franco-Ontarien(ne)s du Nord ont travaillé pendant un siècle pour la création d’un institut d’enseignement supérieur francophone pour, par et avec les Franco-Ontarien(ne)s à travers l’Université de Sudbury; et

« Attendu que 65,9 % des Franco-Ontarien(ne)s croient que la province devrait financer l’Université de Sudbury pour la mise en place » à travers le programme « d’enseignement supérieur en français; et

« Attendu que les Franco-Ontariens se battent toujours pour leur droit d’obtenir la même qualité d’enseignement donné dans la langue minoritaire française que dans la langue majoritaire tel que garanti par la Charte; et

« Attendu que » les étudiants « ont démontré qu’à terme l’Université de Sudbury générerait 89,3 millions de dollars pour la région; et

« Attendu qu’il y aura 8 500 Franco-Ontarien(ne)s âgés entre 10 et 19 ans qui auraient l’option d’intégrer un établissement d’études supérieures en français » dans les « prochaines années;

« Nous, soussignés, pétition l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« De garantir le financement nécessaire de 10 millions de dollars par année tel que demandé par l’Université de Sudbury pour assurer l’avenir de l’Université de Sudbury, un établissement d’enseignement supérieur fait pour, par et avec les Franco-Ontariens, et ce dès maintenant. »

Je supporte cette pétition. Je vais la signer et la donner à Clara pour qu’elle l’amène à la table des greffiers.

I move that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet during the winter 2023-24 adjournment of the House at the call of the Chair.

Consumer protection in the province of Ontario is of vital importance across our great province. The Better for Consumers, Better for Businesses Act, 2023, would, if passed, enact a new Consumer Protection Act, 2023, to replace the existing Consumer Protection Act, 2002. Amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act are also included in this bill.

The new Consumer Protection Act would be divided into parts that address definitions and general rules; fair marketplace rules; rules respecting various consumer contracts, credit agreements, leases and prepaid purchase cards; rules respecting consumer remedies; and powers and duties of the minister, the director, inspectors and investigators; as well as compliance and enforcement; and authorities for the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the minister to make regulations.

This bill being presented today for first reading would not be possible without the dedication of my chief of staff and her team—that’s Michelle Stock—and the great dedicated members of the public service with the ministry.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

It is an absolute pleasure to introduce Anup Singh, an internationally renowned writer, film director and teacher of cinema, whose feature Qissa: The Tale of a Lonely Ghost was awarded at IFFSA, the largest South Asian film festival in North America. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. McCarthy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 142, An Act to enact the Consumer Protection Act, 2023, to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and to amend or repeal various other Acts / Projet de loi 142, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 2023 sur la protection du consommateur, à modifier la Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur et à modifier ou abroger diverses autres lois.

This petition is entitled “Pass Anti-Scab Labour Legislation.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the use of replacement workers undermines workers’ collective power, unnecessarily prolongs labour disputes, and removes the essential power that the withdrawal of labour is supposed to give workers to help end a dispute, that is, the ability to apply economic pressure;

“Whereas the use of scab labour contributes to higher-conflict picket lines, jeopardizes workplace safety, destabilizes normalized labour relations between workers and their employers and removes the employer incentive to negotiate and settle fair contracts; and

“Whereas strong and fair anti-scab legislation will help lead to shorter labour disputes, safer workplaces, and less hostile picket lines;

“Whereas similar legislation has been introduced in British Columbia and Quebec with no increases to the number of strike or lockout days;

“Whereas Ontario had anti-scab legislation under an NDP government, that was unfortunately ripped away from workers by the Harris Conservatives;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To prohibit employers from using replacement labour for the duration of any legal strike or lockout;

“To prohibit employers from using both external and internal replacement workers;

“To include significant financial penalties for employers who defy the anti-scab legislation; and

“To support Ontario’s workers and pass anti-scab labour legislation, like the Ontario NDP Bill 90, Anti-Scab Labour Act, 2023.”

I support this petition and will give it to page Owen to give to the table.

Today I have a petition entitled “Health Care: Not for Sale.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas Premier Ford and Health Minister Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining, and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—10 employer-paid sick days;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors, and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and give it to page Ananya to take to the Clerks.

It’s my pleasure to rise to present a petition entitled “Support the Gender Affirming Health Care Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse, and intersex communities face significant challenges to accessing health care services that are friendly, competent, and affirming in Ontario;

“Whereas everyone deserves access to health care, and they shouldn’t have to fight for it, shouldn’t have to wait for it, and should never receive less care or support because of who they are;

“Whereas gender-affirming care is life-saving care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support ... the Gender Affirming Health Care Advisory Committee Act, to improve access to and coverage for gender-affirming health care in Ontario.”

I wholeheartedly endorse this petition. I will add my name to it and send it to the table with page Caesar.

I move the following motion: 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 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.

This petition is titled “Clean Up Mimico Creek and Humber Creek” and it reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas an industrial fire at Brenntag Canada caused a chemical sludge to spill and spread rapidly into Mimico Creek and Humber Creek in Etobicoke;

“Whereas countless local wildlife have been killed or had their habitats contaminated as a result;

“Whereas local residents and visitors have been impacted and need clearer information;

“Whereas this dangerous sludge has begun spreading into Lake Ontario;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks must be transparent with the public about which chemicals were spilled and the risks they pose;

“That the minister provides Ontarians with a clear timeline and expectations for the cleanup operations;

“That the government provides emergency funding to the Toronto Wildlife Centre to ensure they can undertake effective and timely cleanup operations.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

This petition is entitled “Support Bill 21, the Till Death Do Us Part Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are 38,000 people on the wait-list for long-term care; and

“Whereas the median wait time for a long-term-care bed has risen from 99 days in 2011-12 to 171 days in 2020-21; and

“Whereas according to Home Care Ontario, the cost of a hospital bed is $842 a day, while the cost of a long-term-care bed is $126 a day; and

“Whereas couples should have the right to live together as they age; and

“Whereas Ontario seniors have worked hard to build this province and deserve dignity in care; and

“Whereas Bill 21 amends the Residents’ Bill of Rights in the Fixing Long-Term Care Act to provide the resident with the right upon admission to continue to live with their spouse or partner;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Minister of Long-Term Care to pass Bill 21 and provide seniors with the right to live together as they age.”

Of course, it’s my pleasure to affix my signature and pass this petition along to Caesar.