I am glad to be able to again take my place in this House and add, hopefully, some thoughtful comments as we’re again debating Bill 75, which is the Queen’s Park Restoration Act. I’m going to take a bit of liberty during this debate to—I’m going to stay focused on the title. I’m going to talk about the restoration side, recognizing, though, that this bill is actually quite specific in what it set out to achieve and we hope will be successful in achieving the creation of a specific secretariat that will—I’ll use the term loosely—oversee the next steps for this Legislature in terms of that restoration, rehabilitation of parts of it. I’m going to focus a bit on the restoration side and what comes after this bill, as I think many members are interested in.

As Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I can’t go anywhere without running into someone who has a suggestion about the future of the building, whether that is an accessibility technology—“Oh, you and the committee need to talk about this; this is something Queen’s Park should have”—or it’s something about solar panels and about a sustainable future for the building or what that looks like. Everyone, I think, is quite interested in the what could be, what should be or the emotional side or the—not to diminish when I say sentimental side, but the meaningful aspects that folks want to either see protected or highlighted. It is my privilege to work with the committee on this project and others. I think it’s an interesting opportunity for the committee to figure out what its roles and responsibilities are going to be, because it’s a significant umbrella, when its Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—things that have to do with the workings of this space, or that precinct properties may come before the committee, which is why we are talking about, broadly, the restoration.

Specifically, this bill came before committee—we didn’t have a lot of community interest in this part. I think we anticipated we were going to have a long line out the door of people wanting to come to committee to present about this bill, but I think folks watching are maybe more tuned into what will come next, the story that unfolds, where this building will go, what future parliamentarians will do once it’s decanted—decant, pouring off the wine into another space—how the operations will go, what it will cost, what it will look like, if it will be changed, all of that sort of thing. But the specifics of this bill, with people coming and weighing in—we didn’t have a lot of that. The government put forward a few amendments that the committee discussed. We had briefings. And we have an understanding that there are a few things that we’re hearing from the operations side of the building. Those who keep us safe and secure wanted to make sure that there were accommodations but factored in when we have a future precinct, an existing precinct, that transition—what that looks like and all of that. The public—we didn’t hear from them; we didn’t have folks signing up for that part of committee. I would guess that the next part, as the committee continues to undertake the work of the study, is when we’re going to have that kind of enthusiastic and invested engagement.

I think in the first speech that I gave about this, I went through the first interim report on the study of the rehabilitation and restoration of the legislative precinct that the committee had done. If you look through that report, you’re going to see a lot of pictures, behind the scenes, with wiring technology challenges, the potential for system breakdowns and whatnot, and the nuts and bolts of the space. But there are a lot of things that aren’t in those pictures about why this work is going to be undertaken. It’s going to be a big project.

We did hear, though, from one group—and I’ll share that as I stay focused on Bill 75. It was a brief submitted to our standing committee by Equal Voice, an organization that works to elect more women at all levels of government. Their recommendation to the committee and, broadly, to the House, “We recommend Ontario develop physical spaces that support requirements for hybrid participation and family-friendly considerations to increase the diversity of parliamentary participation.”

They have said this “is an excellent opportunity for the Ontario Legislature to take full advantage of restoration in a physical and functional sense that promotes inclusivity and full participation.... The physical building can impact how work is carried out, and we encourage restoration considerations that promote hybrid participation and family-friendly infrastructures....

“Hybrid proceedings are part of gender-sensitive Legislatures,” as they recommended.

They said, “Physical modernizations and updates are needed to accommodate family realities of MPPs....

“Hybrid proceedings and family considerations have the potential to attract more women to politics.”

And they’ve given stats and all sorts of—well, I’m not meaning to cut it short, but this is the kind of thing that I think we anticipated at this stage but we know is going to move forward as the committee continues to do its work, that we’re going to hear from people on different issues and, I’ll say, through different lenses.

Some of the work that we are currently undertaking is reaching out to Indigenous partners, to First Nations, to start that process, a bit of an introduction to the work of the committee and then a more formal process inviting input. But what I’ve already heard from some of the calls that I’ve been making is such an interest in walking these halls, in feeling this space, in touring to actually see what is here, not behind the scenes in the wiring, but experiencing this building and grounds as-is now—because I think we’re going to find, with any group that is interested in giving us feedback, they’re going to want to know what’s already here, and they’re going to experience it in a way that I don’t, that you might not, Speaker, that others of us don’t, and have considerations and have thoughts to share with us, and I think the committee is looking forward to doing the work of gathering that information, maybe making recommendations, maybe reporting it back to this House. So if members of this House have good ideas about what they would like the committee to consider, send it our way. I think we’re at the very early stages of what is going to be a very big and hopefully meaningful project, frankly.

But when it comes to accessibility, as Equal Voice had referenced—well, my colleague from Hamilton Centre experiences this space in a very different way than I do. We have seen some modifications of the physical chamber and the building broadly to ensure that she can access the work that she does in this building. We want to ensure that people can work here in the future with different accessibility needs. It’s about entering the space, using the space, hearing the space, being heard.

One of our colleagues has raised the issues around French-language translation and how people can watch the Legislature, and that is something that we are facing currently, but what are going to be challenges that we face in the future? And, also, what does accessibility mean? It isn’t only a matter of getting into the building or getting around the building; it’s also who feels welcome here, who is welcome here, how is this building designed and for whom.

I know that I have colleagues in this room—this is not a partisan comment: There are MPPs on both sides of this House who may have hidden disabilities who know that they access this space slightly differently; there are people who have been elected and are not welcome and never were. A long time ago, women were a new thing in this place, and they were not welcome. Who else has not been welcome, historically? But I will say that anybody who isn’t welcome in this space, who takes their seats, whether because of their family story or their cultural background or their ideology or understanding or beliefs or any of that, this building is going to be carving their names into the wall. This building will forever have their names, and that is something that I think is the power of this space, that each person who is elected here has earned being here. What they do with it is up to them, but their name will be carved into the wall.

That’s a heck of a fight just to get here. We want more people to run for public office; we want more people to imagine that they can. Equal Voice mentioned family-friendly. I have met some of the members’ children, and I cannot get over how fast they grow. I’ve seen some pretty tiny ducklings that all of a sudden now look to be teenagers, and I think: What just happened? That’s a special part of being here, getting to know each other a little bit and some of the family pieces. But there are a lot of folks who never put up their hand to run for office because they might have—whether it’s child care needs or balancing things. That will always be true, that people will always have their own individual decisions to make, but what are we doing about it here in terms of child care, in terms of accommodations that might be raised as they come up?

Every single one of us in this House is elected to do the same job, but we do it all so differently. There are some people who keep a day of the weekend kind of sacrosanct, that that’s family time, and others of us work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, or somewhere in the middle. What will future parliamentarians look like? Who are they going to be? Can they get here? And when they get here, how will they experience the space? All of this is sort of pie-in-the-sky stuff, and a little bit like, “Oh, that would be neat,” but one of the things that the committee learned when we went to Ottawa was that we’re not designing the space for what we wish had: “It sure would be great to have a charging port in the desk”—well, for what technology? What is that charging port going to look like? It’s not about future-proofing this space for the foreseeable future; it is making sure that this building can continue to change as needed.

We’ve talked about the heritage, we’ve talked about the grandeur of this space, but I have been proud to stand here and say, “Yes, there is beauty and there is grandeur, but there is oppression and there is some pretty ugly stuff up on the walls.” Until it’s pointed out to you, you might be like, “Oh, that’s a fun carving,” and then you have someone else explain to you what that message is, what that means not just in Latin, but what the story tells. Maybe we preserve, or maybe we explain, or maybe we change, and that’s for not just the committee, that’s for the future to decide with this work.

Even walking through the halls—have you ever done a walking tour of this building and looked at the art? There’s some dark stuff up on the walls. Not to say it shouldn’t be on the walls, but there are some things that—can we not have an explanation? We as a building have a significant collection of art that is off-site, and I think that there’s an opportunity to show it or to share it or to tell the story or to find it a better home if it’s not for us. How do we make space for new art, new stories, better stories—the real stories? I think that this Legislature will have a lot of that work to do as we go forward broadly.

We’re debating Bill 75, but it is the restoration act, and I think that act of restoration is not just bringing it back to its former glory, but I would say—and I’m taking liberty, because in the seat as the Chair of the committee, I have to be non-partisan—whatever; I’m off-leash right now, saying what I want. I want us to realize that it’s not just a restoration, it is maybe an opportunity to reimagine. And I would say that we have a responsibility.

We’ve heard a bit about—and not enough, but we had a question asked earlier about equity, about colonization. We talked about or briefly mentioned how we work towards a Legislative Building that will be experienced more positively in the future. So inviting people to come through, feel the space, make recommendations—I know the committee is looking forward to gathering that information. What is done with it could be 10, 15, 20 years down the road; I don’t know. But there is a lot of important work ahead of us, I would say, not just as a committee but as a Legislature.

As you’re hearing from groups in your community, whether it’s the landscape architects who were here the other day—we have Queen’s Park and the grounds. We’re going to have an area where we decant—what do you say, decant to, decant into—where we will be working for a while. What does that space need to be? All of this, as you are hearing from people in your communities with ideas, with concerns. We’ll find ways to funnel that back so that we do shape this next chapter, I would say, in a good way, in a way that reflects the needs of Ontarians now and going forward in the future.

Something else that came up recently was the community impact. We have a building in, I’ll say, the heart of the Toronto—although every neighbourhood would say it’s the heart of Toronto. But, anyway, geographically, here we sit, and around us we’ve got neighbours who like us, neighbours who count on us, neighbours who might not love us. I cut my teeth as a young activist on the lawns of Queen’s Park, and I don’t imagine that everybody loves that part of it. I loved being on the front lawns of Queen’s Park; it was quite cathartic. But the neighbours, the businesses, the community members around us—how are we factoring them in to a massive construction project? There are a lot of unanswered questions about what’s under the front lawns—and I know, the subway, yes, but what else, in terms of wiring, in terms of all of that?

There’s a lot of information to parse through, and that’s why what we’re debating—or discussing, I guess, really—is the creation of the secretariat. That creation, that body, is going to have a lot of work ahead of itself. But like we saw in Ottawa, having it separate and apart from the Legislature but still connected to the Legislature, so that it’s not just a private company over here making decisions, where they’ve never served the people of Ontario as legislators—we do need that body to be as nimble as it can be but also to have that long-standing goal. This is a big project. We learned that in Ottawa. There are other committee members here who remember that we heard from the folks in Ottawa that you have to keep your eye on the prize. There’s a big long-term plan here, but you do have to make decisions about bulk-buying when it’s cheap or taking advantage of the opportunity to store something when you can actually buy those materials—all sorts of big pieces that are not for the committee and not for the legislators but more for the secretariat and the different people doing that work.

I want to say thank you to the folks who make the magic happen behind the scenes, the operations side of this building, whether food service, mailroom—I would do a big round of applause or bang on my desk for broadcast and recording, but I don’t want to hurt your ears—but the folks who make everything work. It’s going to be a lot of work to factor in the specifics required as we decant to a new space. How will they function? What does that transition look like? This is the beginning of that work that is not just, what art do we put on the walls—not to diminish that—but it’s also, how do we keep getting messages from this building out to the community? How do we continue to engage with community during the transition time as well as the next chapter when we’re back into—there’s the new space, and then there’s the new old space. So I look forward to doing that work with this House.