Final supplementary.

Supplementary question.

Supplementary question.

I apologize to the member for London West. She has the floor. Start the clock.

The supplementary question: the member from Sudbury.

Restart the clock. The next question.

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.