Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 18, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 149, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 149, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

Mr. Piccini has moved third reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The House recessed from 0903 to 1015.

I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

That concludes our member’s statements for this morning.

I’ll recognize the member for Ottawa South on a point of order.

It is my great pleasure to introduce this group of legislative pages: from the riding of Sarnia–Lambton, Ahmed Arif; from the riding of Etobicoke North, Krishna Bhargava; from the riding of Essex, Parker Booth; from Barrie–Innisfil, Anne Bowman; from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Julian Chapin-Ker; from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Emily Charbonneau; from Markham–Unionville, Tyler Chow; from Ottawa Centre, Christopher Falkner; from Chatham-Kent–Leamington, Alyssa Geene; from Simcoe–Grey, Korel Gogceloglu; from Guelph, Chase Hipel; from Parkdale–High Park, Olivia Jeens; from London West, Bhavneet Kaur; from Mississauga–Lakeshore, Noah Lakhani; from Eglinton–Lawrence, Ella Lau; from Ottawa–Vanier, Emma Taylor Lee; from Brampton North, Reyan Naseem; from the riding of Windsor–Tecumseh, Sarah Penner; from the riding of Humber River–Black Creek, Bhavna Prashar; from the riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, Farah Sharmin; from Windsor West, Jack Xu; and from the riding of Oakville, Owen Zeng.

Please join me in welcoming this group of Legislative pages.

Applause.

Before I ask for oral questions, I want to inform the members that they have an important memo on their desks with respect to the lower galleries and the upper galleries, as to how we’ll accommodate guests in the future. I’ll ask you to take a look at it. If you have any questions, get back to our office. Thank you very much.

To reply, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Minister of Health.

The supplementary question.

Thank you.

Supplementary question?

I’m going to ask the independent members and the government front bench to stop pointing fingers at each other and heckling while the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Please start the clock. Minister of Health.

Minister of Health.

Minister of Health.

Supplementary question?

I’m going to caution the member on his use of language. “Baloney” is pretty close to the line—especially before lunch.

Start the clock.

The Minister of Health.

The next question.

Supplementary?

Minister of Health.

Minister of Health.

To respond, once again, the Minister of Finance.

There being no further business this morning, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1500.

Mr. Shamji moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 175, An Act to amend the Planning Act with respect to official plans and by-laws / Projet de loi 175, Loi visant à modifier la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire à l’égard des plans officiels et des règlements municipaux.

First reading agreed to.

The official opposition House leader, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

It has been a long-standing practice of this House to allow members to summarize their petitions or read them in full, but not both. My predecessors in this chair have affirmed this on many occasions. For example, on December 7, 2010, at page 4024 of the debates, the Speaker stated as follows:

“When presenting petitions, it is in order to either read the petition or give a brief synopsis of the content. Members may want to give the latter option some consideration if their petition is particularly lengthy or if it contains language that might otherwise not be permitted in debate.”

I return to the member for Nickel Belt to read her petition—or summarize it, if she wishes to do so.

In respect of the matter of certification, members are indeed required by standing order 42(c) to have their petitions certified prior to presenting them in the House, and I would remind all members to please submit their petitions to the table in advance of their preparation.

Has the member certified his petition or not?

Petitions? I recognize the member for Nickel Belt.

I will ask the member for Nickel Belt: Has she taken the petition to the table and had it certified prior to its presentation?

Interjection.

Further debate?