I rise today as the House leader for the official opposition to participate in the debate on the time allocation motion on Bill 51, which is the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act.

Speaker, I did want to start with a reflection on the process for these recent changes to the Legislative Assembly Act versus a previous set of changes to the Legislative Assembly Act that were debated in this Legislature. In 2020, we had Bill 167, which introduced a number of changes to the Legislative Assembly Act to help us do the work that people elected us to do. Those changes were provided in advance by the government House leader to the official opposition so that we could have a chance to review the changes, to have a discussion about the changes, to provide input on the changes as to whether we agreed that they would enable more efficient, improved functioning in this Legislature. That was a very different process, Speaker, than what we see with Bill 51.

This is a bill that was introduced last Wednesday and it was debated on Thursday. And today we are discussing a time allocation motion that would see the bill move immediately to a third reading vote and passage without any opportunity to have a debate at third reading, much less have a discussion of this bill at committee. In many ways, Speaker, it’s not a surprise. This is what we have seen time after time from this government. They introduce a bill one day, they start debate the next day, they close off debate the following day, and then they limit the opportunity for the public to provide input on the legislation in the committee process.

We’ve seen it as well with the standing order changes that this government House leader has introduced. I don’t think that there has ever been a government that has changed the standing orders as frequently as this one. The standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act are two very important pieces that provide the scaffolding for how we conduct ourselves in this place, how we do the business of the people. This government has changed the standing orders 10 times in a period of just four years. That is a stark contrast to the previous Liberal government that had changed the standing orders, I believe it was, four times over a period of 15 years.

Just on its own, changing the standing orders may be required from time to time. As things change, amending the Legislative Assembly Act may be required from time to time. But these tools are here for the use of all members in this place. They are not tools for the government only. They are here to provide the basis for our democracy.

And we know that this government has shown its contempt for democracy. We see that right now with Bill 39. They’re rewriting the rules of democracy. They’re all of a sudden making it possible for one third of a duly elected council to make decisions, to move ahead with actions that two thirds of council are opposed to.

We saw it with the government’s use of the “notwithstanding” clause to introduce legislation to impose collective agreements on CUPE education workers. They knew that it was unconstitutional. They knew that it was contrary to the rights and freedoms that Canadians enjoy, and that’s why they chose to proceed using the “notwithstanding” clause. So what we’re debating here today, as I said, it just follows the pattern that we have seen from this government.

When you look at the different pieces of legislation that we have dealt with since the election in June, there have been 10 bills that have been debated in this place—sorry; there’s been 11 bills. I’m going to put aside Bill 35, the repeal of the government’s use of the “notwithstanding” clause to impose collective agreements on CUPE education workers. But of the other 10 bills that we have dealt with, six of those bills began second reading debate the day after they were introduced. And what’s the problem with debating a bill the day after it’s been introduced? It doesn’t provide the time required to do the analysis, to do the due diligence, to get input from stakeholders as to what the impact of the legislation will be.

As I said, six of those bills began second reading debate the day after they were introduced. The remaining four were tabled on a Thursday and they started debate on the following Monday. So, yes, we had a couple of days there between the tabling of the bill and the debate on the bill, but it was over a weekend. And you know, Speaker, how difficult it is to reach stakeholder organizations over a weekend. And that implies that those stakeholder organizations will have the capacity to do the quick analysis of the legislation that the government is bringing forward and be able to provide meaningful feedback to all members who want to understand what that legislation will mean to the people of this province.

Then, of course, when we have seen debate start, we’ve seen the government shut down debate on seven of those 10 bills, either through time allocation motions, as we have today, or closures. And the average debate time for the legislation that we have dealt with is two sessional days per bill. I don’t think, Speaker, that that is doing justice to the people of this province, who deserve MPPs, deserve representatives who will come to this place and share the challenges that they’re experiencing and the solutions that they expect, that they deserve from this government.

Three of the government’s 10 bills have bypassed committee altogether. They have gone straight to third reading without any opportunity for the public to come and provide input on the implications of that bill.

And, of course, for the other seven bills that went to committee, the government’s track record there has not been anything to be proud of either. We have seen the government use its majority to limit how long the committee is going to hear input, to make arbitrary decisions about where the committee went. We’ve seen the government use its majority to regularly go in camera during committee, so that MPPs are discussing the process of the committee in closed session, which the public doesn’t have access to. The public has no opportunity to watch how MPPs are making decisions about the length of time the committee is going to accept deputations and hear from the people of this province.

We have seen the government routinely ignore deputants who do get an opportunity to appear before the committee. One of the bills that we have dealt with this fall, Bill 39, had 18 witnesses registered to speak to committee members; 14 of those witnesses were opposed to the government’s legislation. They very clearly stated their opposition to what the government is doing, and yet the government proceeded to pass that legislation without any amendments whatsoever, and without any regard to the input that was provided to committee members.

On Bill 23, there were two witness deadlines. People followed the rules and met the deadlines that were set for that committee, but when the committee was oversubscribed—because, of course, Bill 23, as you will know, Speaker, has launched an avalanche of emails to our offices. It has launched an avalanche of public outcry over the government’s plans to carve up the greenbelt, its claims that they need the greenbelt in order to meet housing targets, when their own housing task force has been very clear that there is enough land in this province without the greenbelt. Anyway, on Bill 23, not surprisingly, there were more people and organizations that wanted to appear before that committee than the committee had time to hear from, but the government used its majority to block opposition requests to add additional time to hear from concerned citizens.

Then, what we have seen from this government when a bill comes back to the House is further shutting down of time for debate. Yesterday we had a bill that the government moved a closure motion on after only six hours of debate at third reading. I think that that does not provide the kind of debate that the people of Ontario expect to hear on the important matters that are being addressed here in this Legislature.

I mentioned the 10 packages of standing order changes this government has introduced in just a short four-year period, but one of those standing order changes is to allow report stage debate. When a bill is reported back from the committee, comes back to the Legislature for third reading, the government has put in place an option for members to stand and indicate that they would like a debate on the report from the committee. And we’ve heard the government House leader talk about how he’s democratizing this place, he’s empowering members, but let’s think about what a report stage debate is. It is the debate on a bill that has come back from committee, often without amendments, without the changes deputants wanted to see, that deputants pressed for when they appeared before the committee. It’s a very limited period: It’s 18 minutes—18 minutes that members can rise and indicate they want a debate on a bill that’s reported back from committee.

When you have bills like Bill 23, the bill that carves up the greenbelt; when you have bills like Bill 39, the bill that rewrites the rules of democracy to allow one third of council to make decisions on behalf of a municipality—when you have those kinds of bills, and when they are reported back with no amendments, no attempt by the government to address the concerns that were provided to the committee, an 18-minute debate is hardly sufficient to address the concerns that are raised at these committees.

As I mentioned, we had a third reading debate last night where the government moved closure after only six hours, and, of the six bills that have come back to the House for third reading, four of them have been shut down or truncated by the government either through time allocation or closure motions, and we expect that with this bill, Bill 51, which will be voted on when it comes for third reading; Bill 36, which will be voted on later today; and Bill 39.

We’ve heard the government talk about the way that they have empowered committees, and we know from the experience of sitting on those standing committees that the government has actually put restrictions on the ability of MPPs to participate in committees. I’ve mentioned already that we now see committees move to go in camera regularly, and we know committees are structured in the same proportion as the parties in the House. That means that, just as the government has a majority here in this Legislature, they also have a majority on every standing committee of the Legislature, and so when a government member moves a motion to go in camera, to go into closed session, they automatically have the numbers to pass that motion.

We have also seen the government use its majority on committees to block opposition requests to review government appointments to government agencies. We just saw yesterday, I think it was, that a former MPP and a former well-known Conservative staff person were appointed to plum government positions without any opportunity for the committee on government agencies to review those appointments.

We saw the government use its majority to block opposition requests for the committees to meet, during the extended break that we had in September and October, to consider estimates. The government House leader talks about the generosity that he has provided in the changes to the standing orders to allow committee members to request that a committee meet when the House is in recess. Yes, here on this side, we have attempted to use that new ability to request that a committee meet. We did it with estimates and the government said that they weren’t interested.

When you consider the change to the estimates process that was included in the most recent set of standing orders changes, I think it was, the change to the estimates process has severely, severely limited the ability of the opposition to review the government’s spending plans, to ask those pointed questions of the bureaucrats from the ministries who come before committee to talk about ministry spending plans. This year, because we weren’t sitting in September and most of October, we saw a very, very truncated estimates process. Because it has to be wrapped up in November, there was virtually no opportunity to provide the kind of oversight and due diligence that is required of the government’s spending plans.

I have to say, with regard to this legislation, although on the surface the changes that are proposed seem straightforward, there are big reservations about why the government didn’t come and talk to us first. If they believed so strongly that these changes are necessary to improve the functioning of this Legislature, surely they would have wanted to engage with us to get our input on whether we agree with these changes or not.

The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, when he was speaking to the bill—and he has done an exemplary job, I have to say, as our representative on the Board of Internal Economy. This bill does transfer a lot of authority to the Board of Internal Economy, a lot of responsibility to the Board of Internal Economy that that body did not previously have. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane pointed out that one of our concerns is the composition of the Board of Internal Economy. So right now, the government says, “Oh, there are safeguards because the Board of Internal Economy operates by consensus, and so putting these new responsibilities under the power of the Board of Internal Economy will ensure that there is consensus decision-making about the hiring and dismissal of Legislative Assembly staff, about the roles and job descriptions of Legislative Assembly staff.” And that may be true, given the current composition of the Board of Internal Economy, but the government can, at the stroke of a pen, make changes to the composition of the Board of Internal Economy.

When you have seen a government move forward with so many changes—as I said, 10 sets of changes to the standing orders. This is the second set of changes to the Legislative Assembly Act in just three years. So when you see a government that is so quick to rewrite the scaffolding that enables us to do the work in this place, we have concerns. We have concerns that changes to the Board of Internal Economy will be made that will further centralize the power of the government to do whatever they want.

I have a message on behalf of the people of Ontario to this government: Winning an election is not a blank cheque. It is not a mandate for government to do whatever it wants, to run roughshod over the priorities of the people that we represent. We often refer to the carvings on the walls in this place. The government should be looking at the wise owl, because the government’s responsibility is to be wise; it is to listen; it is to weigh the feedback that is provided by Ontarians as to what they feel needs to happen in this province to address the concerns that they’re facing.

Health care, for example: This government has been completely ineffective on dealing with the health care crisis. All of us continue to hear from people in our communities how concerned, how frightened they are by the state of our health care system. If there’s one thing that people expect the government to get right, it is health care. People want to know that if they call an ambulance, an ambulance will come for them; that if their child is running a fever in the middle of the night and has to go to emergency, they won’t have to wait hours in a pediatric emergency room to have their child seen by the doctor. People want to know that if they need life-saving surgery, they will be able to have that surgery scheduled in a timely way. People don’t have that sense of confidence anymore. They don’t have the sense that the government has a handle on the crisis in our health care.

We heard the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health talk about, “Crisis? What crisis?”—as if this is all a fabrication of the official opposition. But this is the reality that people are experiencing in their communities. Our health care system is in a crisis.

Imagine parents when they read the news about the overwhelming of pediatric ICUs. They read about teenagers being moved from pediatric ICU beds into adult ICU beds without the specialized nursing care that they would have received if they had been admitted to a pediatric ICU, because the equipment in adult ICU rooms is different from the equipment in pediatric ICU rooms, and the skills of adult ICU nurses are different from the skills of pediatric ICU nurses. So that is a concern, and yet we have not seen this government put forward any meaningful solutions to help address the health care crisis.

On housing, another huge priority for the people in this province, the government continues to insist that the only way that they are going to be able to meet the housing targets is to build on the greenbelt, but Ontarians have lots of questions about how those changes to the greenbelt came about, and whether there was some knowledge about those proposed changes in advance. When you look at the developers who took out enormous loans at 21% interest to purchase land that was undevelopable at the time, just weeks prior to the changes proposed to the greenbelt, and then all of a sudden that land that was not available for development suddenly becomes available to development, there are a lot of questions. That speculator who bought that land at a bargain-basement price—because it was in the greenbelt; it was protected—all of a sudden stands to rake in significant profits now that that land is available for development.

So you do have to wonder whether the government is really concerned about addressing the housing crisis or whether they are more interested in providing those windfall profits for people who have connections to the Conservative Party. If they were interested in dealing with the housing crisis in Ontario, we would see the government investing in affordable housing, investing in deeply affordable housing, introducing rent controls so that people aren’t economically and financially evicted from their apartments that were built after 2018 because landlords have been allowed to increase the rent to whatever level they want. We have called time after time on this government to expand rent control to include all buildings in this province and not just those built before 2018, because tenants deserve to have security in their homes and not have to fear that they are going to have to move every year because they get a rent increase that is unaffordable.

And so, I have to again say that we don’t support this time allocation motion. We have huge reservations about the amendments that are proposed in Bill 51 because of the pattern that we’ve seen from this government and making further amendments that will further concentrate their power and their ability to rush through whatever legislation they want to see.

With that, Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 50 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 51, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

That the order of the House referring the bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be discharged and the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That when the order for third reading of the bill is called, the Speaker shall immediately put every question necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

I just want to quickly review the changes that are before us, in case folks have forgotten since the last time we debated this. This legislation, if passed, will further democratize our Parliament by returning responsibility for various matters directly to members. All of us are democratically elected, so that’s fairly clear. The legislation proposes an all-party, consensus-based process for the Sergeant-at-Arms, as exists for the Clerk and various officers of the assembly. It also proposes that authority and control for the legislative precinct, with the exception of security-related authority, be transferred to an all-party Board of Internal Economy—again, a board that has members from both parties—very democratic.

It also sets out a duty of the board to provide legislative space for all members who are not ministers to accommodate as many as possible in the precinct, which I know some members spoke very passionately about.

It also transfers human resource authorities for employees of the assembly to the all-party Board of Internal Economy.

Finally, Speaker, it would allow us to appropriately recognize the former Clerks of our assembly by giving the Lieutenant Governor in Council the ability to give them the right to use the title of “Honourable” for life, which I think is very respectful.

Speaking of respect in this Legislature, I just wanted to ask my colleagues—I know it’s very early—to join me in a round of applause for everyone who makes this legislative precinct incredible, from our Clerks to our Hansard to our amazing Sergeant-at-Arms, who has done a lot to secure this Legislature and has really moved the pendulum quite quickly. In fact, this week, we saw that even accessibility changes are moving forward as the back has changed. I encourage members to walk back there and see the latest little additions to make this place more accessible. And, of course, the lovely folks who keep the mikes on—because what would a politician be without a live mike? I’m very thankful—and the folks who decided to come join us and view our debates today. And this is the last week for our lovely pages, so thank you for the great work you do. On behalf of everyone in this Legislature, thank you very much.

Further debate?

Every year, my family and I join the people of Oxford in celebrating the festive season. We can’t help but feel the excitement and the cheer. Recently, I got to see that glee as I joined my constituents in the Santa Claus parades in Ingersoll, Tillsonburg and Woodstock. I saw thousands of smiling families getting into the Christmas spirit.

This is also a time to spend with family and friends. Even though it’s cold outside, the joy of eating good food and sitting around the fireplace with the people we love warms our hearts and homes.

Perhaps most importantly, the Christmas season is also a time to help those who are less fortunate. Oxford has always been a community that helps those in need, and it’s during Christmas where it really shows. Not everyone has a family to celebrate with or a place to call home, so the people of Oxford are stepping up to provide shelters and emergency housing. There are local food banks and free hot meals for those who cannot afford to put a Christmas meal on their table, and there are toy drives for parents who can’t afford to purchase gifts for their children.

Madam Speaker, I wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to everyone in Oxford and all of Ontario.

Millions of Ontarians rely on local libraries in their daily lives. Libraries are far more than books and computers; they are also a critical lifeline for Ontario’s most vulnerable people. Libraries confront many difficult challenges facing Ontarians: mental health, homelessness, equity for Indigenous and racialized communities, newcomer integration, and child and youth poverty.

I want to highlight three priorities that the Toronto Public Library, the Ontario Library Association and the Federation of Ontario Public Libraries are calling on the government to act on:

(1) Implementation of a sustainable funding model for public libraries on First Nations reserves, to ensure that these important local hubs are fully funded and viable.

(2) Increased investments in mental health and addiction crisis intervention services available to the community. Public libraries recognize that they are places of refuge for the homeless, and staff need training so they can provide support in an empathetic and equitable way.

(3) The creation of an Ontario digital public library. By leveraging the province’s significant purchasing power, libraries will be able to provide all Ontarians access to a common core set of high-quality e-learning and online resources.

Speaker, I know first-hand the value of public libraries. When I came to Canada, my local public library, the Parkdale library, was my go-to place. I borrowed books, but I also worked on my university applications and accessed many resources that helped a new immigrant like me get settled. This helped me get to where I am today.

Investing in public libraries means giving everyone a chance to succeed.

Today marks the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On December 6, 1989, 14 young women were killed at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. The shooter entered a mechanical engineering classroom, separated the men from the women, and opened fire on the women. These 14 promising young students were murdered in an act of violent misogyny.

Today, as we pause and remember 33 years later, violence against women and girls remains the most widespread and pervasive human rights violation in Canada and worldwide, affecting an estimated one in three women.

In Ottawa this year, six women and one 15-year-old girl have been murdered. All of these murders involved allegations of intimate partner violence, stalking or obsession. This is consistent with a Statistics Canada report that revealed seven out of 10 female homicide victims last year were killed by spouses, partners or family members.

The report from the Renfrew county inquest into femicides that took place in 2015 included a recommendation to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic. Sadly, the government has yet to follow through on this and the other recommendations in the report.

We have a problem. We need to act now. We cannot lose any more of our mothers and sisters and daughters and friends. The Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women and similar organizations across this province are all working towards the same goal: eliminating gender-based violence. But they can’t do this work alone. We all need to work together to end violence against women so that no more women in this country need to die simply for being women.

The ayes are 0; the nays are 74.

Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m pleased to continue the debate on the motion that is before us today for time allocation on Bill 51, the Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, 2022.

Now, anybody who is tuning in may wonder: What is a time allocation motion? A time allocation motion is a motion that the government introduces to curtail the normal legislative process to see a bill move through the regular stages that are set out in our standing orders as to how a bill becomes law.

The time allocation motion that the government has brought forward today calls for a very limited two-hour debate on this motion, and then it specifies that when the bill is next called—

Interjections.

And just to recap what is actually in the bill: The bill makes changes to the Board of Internal Economy. Most of the bill deals with some new responsibilities for the Board of Internal Economy. And again, to anyone who’s watching today, they may not know what the Board of Internal Economy is. It is a body that operates on a consensus basis in this House. It includes a member of the government, a member of each of the recognized parties—if there are two recognized parties, because, of course, the Liberals didn’t elect enough members to be a recognized party. But if there were two recognized parties, there would be two government members so that it is balanced. The Speaker also participates on that committee as a non-voting member. The structure of the Board of Internal Economy is unique in this Legislature because every other committee of this Legislative Assembly operates in the same proportion as we see in this House, which means that the government has a majority.

So what this bill does: It gives new powers to the Board of Internal Economy. It puts the Board of Internal Economy in charge of appointing or dismissing all employees of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It gives the Board of Internal Economy the authority to prescribe the duties and the functions of those employees of the Legislature. It gives the Board of Internal Economy the ability to allocate office space. It also states that members have an entitlement to office space—those members who are not part of the executive council or the cabinet. It puts the Board of Internal Economy in charge of the legislative precinct. It also makes some changes to the definition of the legislative precinct. It removes the basement of the Whitney Block, and that does raise a question. When the bill was debated at second reading, there were a number of questions that were asked by members of the official opposition about why that recently renovated basement in the Whitney Block would now be removed from the official definition of the legislative precinct. I have to say, we weren’t entirely satisfied by the response that we received from this government.

But it really goes back to what I was saying earlier this morning, Speaker, about the fact that the government, quite suddenly and without notice, tabled this bill to make these significant changes to the Board of Internal Economy, to the definition of the legislative precinct, without any discussion with the official opposition or with the independent members—with any other non-government MPPs. And surely, Speaker, when you are talking about amending legislation that—

The member for London West has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote being required, the vote will be deferred until—

Interjections.

Interjections.

The division bells rang from 0937 to 1007.

All those in favour of the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerks.

All those opposed to the motion, please rise and remain standing to be counted by the Clerks.

We will now go to further debate. Ms. Sattler?

Can I ask members to just keep it down a little bit, so that we can hear the member speaking. Thank you so much.

Debate deemed adjourned.

I would like to take this time to talk about the generosity and compassion of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario in their efforts to feed people who are less fortunate.

Last week, I had a conversation with Murray Opsteen, the chair of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. We talked about their CFO Cares program and its ongoing partnerships to tackle hunger in our communities. Murray also happens to be a chicken farmer in my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook.

CFO Cares supports various not-for-profit initiatives and organizations that provide food relief to people who need it. It includes organizations such as Feed Ontario and the United Way. The CFO assists farmers who want to donate fresh chicken to food banks within their communities. To date, nearly 600 chicken farmers have participated, with donations of 300 chickens each.

Anyone familiar with food banks, either by volunteering or donating, knows that protein, especially meat protein, is one of the most sought-after items. CFO’s annual donation target is to provide over a million fresh chicken meals.

These donations from our chicken farmers epitomize what it means to be good citizens. These farmers are making a huge contribution to feeding people who are facing financial challenges, and for that, I want to say thank you.

I rise today on the Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women to bring attention to the serial murders of four First Nations women in Winnipeg. Last week, the Winnipeg Police Service announced charges against an alleged serial killer for the murders of Morgan Harris; Marcedes Myran; and another loved one—we don’t know her name—who has been given the name Buffalo Woman; and earlier, Rebecca Contois.

I stand in solidarity with the families in Manitoba who are grieving the loss of their loved ones and with those who continue to search for their relatives, the many missing women and girls across Ontario, across Canada. Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited people have the fundamental right to life and the right to be safe. Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited people are not safe in their everyday lives.

We know that the persistent and the deliberate human rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind these staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited people. And we must address the hate, the genocide that continues to put the safety of Indigenous women at risk.

Morgan, Mercedes, Rebecca, Buffalo Woman—remember their names.

I want to acknowledge the challenges and hardships my constituents in Don Valley East have endured over the past year. Health care has become more difficult than ever before, with fewer family doctors, longer wait times, and cancelled surgeries. The growing spectre of privatization, which has made it more difficult to seek medical attention via virtual care, is the first of many examples of how this government hasn’t delivered for my constituents or for patients. Virtual care must be equitable and accessible, but as designed, it reveals the government’s profiteering agenda.

Make no mistake about it: Privatization is like a drop of poison in a well, and it contaminates the entire water supply.

Another problem: Our environment and greenbelt are under attack by Bill 23. We all need housing, but it needs to be safe and sustainable. It mustn’t raise taxes for the benefit of developers. Bill 23 will lead to the same kind of uncontrolled, runaway development that is being proposed in my riding along Wynford Drive—13 high-rise condos in that tiny space, and no community input? My constituents must be consulted and amendments made, and runaway legislation like Bill 23 must be fixed.

But there are things to look forward to. On December 13, Ismailis around the world will celebrate the birthday of their spiritual leader and one of the world’s foremost champions of pluralism and community service, His Highness the Aga Khan. To the Ismaili community and His Highness, I wish to say happy birthday and Salgirah Khushiali Mubarak.

To the constituents of Don Valley East and the people of Ontario, I wish to share my very best wishes, from my family to yours, for happy holidays, a merry Christmas and a joyous new year.

To the members of Ontario’s Jewish community, I wish you a happy and healthy Hanukkah, and I join you in celebrating the miracle of Jewish resilience in the face of oppression. Eat some latkes for me.

Thank you.

Today, it gives me the distinct pleasure to rise in the House and to welcome to Queen’s Park two-time Paralympian and Canadian record holder Marissa Papaconstantinou, along with her parents, Bill and Kathy, and boyfriend, Justyn.

Marissa was born and raised in the riding of Scarborough Centre and trained at Scarborough’s Phoenix track club. She was born without a right foot but, at the age of 12, she fell in love with track after being fitted for her first running prosthetic blade at the Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, for whom she is currently a proud ambassador.

Marissa represented our country at numerous international competitions, including the 2016 summer Paralympic Games in Rio de Janeiro at the tender age of 16. Despite tough losses and injuries earlier in her career, her resilience, focus and hard work helped her qualify for the 2020 Paralympic Games in Tokyo, where she won a bronze medal in the women’s T64 100-metre race with a personal best and Canadian record of 13.07 seconds. In addition, she also set the Canadian record with a 27.08 second run in the 200-metre event.

Marissa, I am very proud of what you have accomplished thus far. I’m eager and hopeful to look into the future of all the great things you still have to come. Thank you very much for being here, and I look forward to meeting you at the end of—

Applause.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the 25th anniversary of the twinning of the city of Vaughan with the sister city of Baguio, Philippines, hosted by the Filipino-Canadian Association of Vaughan, also known as FCAV, in my riding of Thornhill. This event was an important milestone for the Filipino community and FCAV, who have been promoting the objectives of the friendship agreement between Vaughan and Baguio City, strengthening the cultural, social, educational and economic opportunities between the two cities since 1997.

Baguio City, known as the summer capital of the Philippines, is a major hub for education, with there being eight universities and colleges.

To honour the twinning celebration, the Philippine delegation arrived in Vaughan, led by Vice-Mayor Faustino Olowan and Councillor Fred Bagbagen, and officially accompanied by Orontes Castro, consul general of the Republic of Philippines in Toronto. The representatives for FCAV and Baguio City attended at Niagara University, also located in our riding, to sign a letter of intent to increase higher education, co-operation and commemoration of the 25th anniversary.

Erlinda Insigne, who is the president of FCAV, has been a resident of Thornhill for over 35 years and someone who has been instrumental in keeping this relationship strong between the two cities. I am proud to have such a diverse riding with individuals such as Erlinda, along with the Honourable Orontes Castro, constantly looking to help others strive, and we look forward to honouring Erlinda next year when she celebrates 30 years as president with FCAV.

Mr. Speaker, on one of the last days of the Legislature before the break, I wish to extend everyone a very warm-hearted holidays. Merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, or Maligayang Pasko.

I’d like to introduce our placement student Kaela Tenn. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d like to welcome my constituency staff here today: Saroj Gandhi and Upasna Kumar.

It’s my real pleasure to welcome and introduce my staff who are here for the first time at Queen’s Park: Nada Radi, from my constit office; and David Nightingale, who’s been working with me as my legislative assistant for the last few months. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I’d like to welcome my staff, wherever they may be in this great hall: Grace Camara, Melissa Young, Ana Maria Ruiz and Carol-Ann Breton. Thank you for coming today.