Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 18, 2022, on the motion regarding the appointment of presiding officers and revisions to committee membership.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to this motion. At the outset, let me just say that I believe that all of the individuals put forward as potential presiding officers are exceptional individuals, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of thought went into the decisions that were made. One of the overriding principles, of course, as was highlighted, in part, in a debate over a ruling which you subsequently made, was ensuring that the presiding officers reflect the makeup of Parliament. And I think that we’ve been successful in doing so, Mr. Speaker.

Another principle, of course, as you will know, was ensuring that the presiding officers also had, amongst their ranks, a French-speaking member of provincial Parliament. I think that we have done that. And, again, let me just say that for the officers that have been put forward, they are all people of exceptional calibre. They will do a service to this place. It will be a positive service to this place. They are more than equipped to handle the duties of presiding officers should this House, in fact, vote for them. Let me just also say at the outset that I’ll be splitting my time with the member for Ajax. I am very confident they will have the ability to do so.

I wanted to address some of the other parts in the motion, Speaker, because the motion isn’t just about presiding officers, as you know; it is also about adding people to committees. We have heard from the opposition anger and frustration about committees—people being put on committees that they didn’t ask for and how terrible that is. But let’s back up, Speaker, let’s back up. On the election, the NDP were reduced to a much smaller contingent than they are now, so by virtue of that, by virtue of how this place works—the standing orders—the NDP were only entitled to have two people serve on each of the standing committees of this Parliament, and they, in fact, lost the chairmanship of one of the other standing committees, which reverted back to the government. And, of course, the independents had to request to be put on to committees.

Now, in order to ensure a vibrant Parliament with oversight, I believe, Mr. Speaker—and I still believe, and the NDP can vote against this because they’re obviously extraordinarily upset by this—that additional members serving on committee would actually be better for Parliament, better for ensuring the quality of debate on committees and, ultimately, for accountability.

So what does this motion do besides the presiding officers, Speaker? It adds a third member to committees for the NDP, and it adds every single independent member to a committee in a field that is consistent with their critic role. I think that’s a very, very important concession from the government in order to do that. It would have been easier, frankly, not to bring this motion forward and just take two members and that be the end of it, and then we could steamroll along as we wanted. But everything that we have done since we have come into office, whether it be the standing order changes or this motion itself, has been about making this Parliament work better for the people of the province of Ontario.

I’m gratified that we have heard in some of the speeches from the opposition that, in fact, they embrace some of the changes that have been made. Let’s just go over, if we can, some of the changes that we made to committee—because it’s against their will and they didn’t want them. Well, half the NDP caucus, of course, was left off of committee. By virtue of their poor election results, half of them were left off of committee, and we keep hearing how important committees are. In fact, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said that this is where the rubber hits the fan, that where the government is held accountable is on committee. I agree, and that’s why we’ve added them.

Let’s look at what we’ve done, the horror of what we are proposing: the member from St. Paul’s, critic for heritage, appointed to that committee—the request was for no committee, but we appointed to that committee.

The member for London–Fanshawe—no committee requested; we have actually honoured that.

The member for Scarborough Southwest—government agencies requested. The member has been put onto government agencies.

The member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay—no committee requested. The member has been put on a committee.

The member for Niagara Centre: no committee requested, and that has been honoured.

The member for Waterloo, the finance critic: We heard this prominent in the member’s speech, that we put the member for Waterloo, the finance critic, on a committee that she didn’t want to be on. We’re forcing her. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, again, says, in his words—he talks about how people have better ability to do things, and when he was the finance critic, he wasn’t the best finance critic, but there’s somebody with better skills able to do it—presumably, the member for Waterloo. What do we do? We put her on the finance committee. Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker: If the member for Waterloo is not able to do the work on the finance committee, if she’s not the best person, then perhaps they should appoint a different finance critic. It is not my job to decide who is the best critic over there; they can make that decision. In his own words, he undermines his own argument. So imagine that: We’ve put the finance critic for the NDP on the finance committee—my gosh, colleagues, the horror of it, the savagery of such a decision.

But let’s go on. The member for Oshawa was put on procedure and House affairs. The committee request was none. We didn’t have room, but we made room on procedure and House affairs. My understanding is that the member has actually been elected the Chair of procedure and House affairs.

The member for Nickel Belt is on the policy committee that she’s a critic for—request made, request honoured.

The member for Spadina–Fort York requested no committee, and we provided no committee for that person.

The member for Windsor West: mental health and addictions committee was requested, committee honoured.

The member for Ottawa Centre—committee requested, committee honoured.

The member for Parkdale–High Park: The request was to make the member for Parkdale–High Park a presiding officer. The motion reflects that.

The member for London North Centre, critic, economic development and job creation, asked to be on finance and economic affairs—request made, request honoured.

Kitchener Centre—request made, request honoured.

The member for Kiiwetinoong: request made, and, if I’m not mistaken, the member is on the justice committee—and congratulations for being elected the Vice-Chair of that committee, something that in the last Parliament would actually not have happened had it not been for our standing order changes. Colleagues in the last Parliament will remember that when we made this change, the NDP voted against it. They voted against it because they thought we were being too good to the opposition and we were being too bipartisan, and that’s not the way a Parliament is supposed to work. But we said that is the way it’s supposed to work; that’s what makes a Parliament better.

But anyway, they can argue previous decisions to their hearts’ content.

The member for London West is the House leader, and she talks about all these secret meetings we have. I can tell you that there is no secret meeting with the member for London West. Every single House leader meeting we have had, we have a bet in our office of how long it will take for the member to go upstairs and speak to the media. I’ve got to admit, in the last one, I was wrong. I will give it to my assistant Patrick Kelly. He said, “They will go straight up to the third floor.” I said, “No, they’ll go up to their office first. They’ll craft something and then go.” But we were able to watch as they made that slow descent up.

There is never an opportunity where you have a secret meeting with the NDP, because their secret meeting is always a public meeting, right? That’s just it.

Interjection.

I just want to inform the House: I’d like to be involved in the conversation as well. Okay? Thank you.

They don’t even ask the caucus, right? They just do as they like.

Now, the member for Hamilton West asked to be on the interior committee. It’s a new committee.

Interjections.

The member for Davenport was not going to be on a committee—not by my request, but by the request of the Leader of the Opposition, that we not put the member for Davenport on a committee. One could only assume that he’s a bit nervous that she might be running for the leadership and he didn’t want to do that. But either way, the people of Davenport deserve to have a member serve on the committee in this Legislature, and we made that happen by putting the member on the interior committee.

The member for Hamilton Mountain requested no committee, and we gave the member no committee. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane says his skill set really isn’t, in a number of ways—so he requested no committee, and we gave him no committee.

The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, Speaker—

Interjection: A brand new member.

The member for Sudbury—again, it seems like they want to ignore the north entirely. The member for Sudbury: not requested to be on a committee. We put the member on a committee. The member for Toronto Centre, a brand new member in this place, asked to be on the justice committee and is serving on the justice committee, Mr. Speaker.

And here you have the NDP arguing against adding an additional member to committee. This isn’t about presiding officers. It’s not about anything. It’s about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to exclude half of his caucus from serving on a committee. Again, it’s easy for us just to say, “Yes, no problem. We’ll let you only have two. We’ll take seven of the seats. Forget about it.” You know? It’s a lot easier for a Parliament when you have a 7 to 2 advantage. But we said no, because obviously the changes that we made in the last Parliament were reflective of making Parliament work better. This motion adds a third member, and it adds an independent to every single committee in this House.

Now, the offence goes even further, Speaker, because the opposition then said, in their speeches, they didn’t even know. They didn’t even know. The independents had no idea what committees they were going on. They had no idea. But the reality was, yes, because you know what they did? They reached out and said, “If we could, we would like to serve on a committee.” And what did we do? We said, “Okay, what is your critic role? That’s the committee you’re going to be serving on.” Makes sense to me. And then, when we reached out to the NDP, that was their list, leaving half of their critics off, leaving the northern members no opportunity to participate. We said, “No, that’s not good enough. It’s not good enough for the people of the north. We’re going to do better and we’re going to give up our seats and we’re going to ensure that the opposition have an opportunity to serve.”

Now, Speaker, they’re going to vote against this. They’re going to vote against this motion, right? Because they have some obscure thought that it’s, I don’t know, punishing their members by not allowing them to serve in this place, which I don’t get when the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane specifically says how important committees are to the process. Well, if they’re that important to the process, then surely the member would want members to serve on committee? So to the members of the NDP who were excluded by your leadership: Again, this side of the House will stand up for you; this side of the House will make sure that your constituents have the opportunity to be represented on committees, have the opportunity to talk about legislation, bring motions forward, make amendments when bills go to committee, even if your own leadership won’t.

Honestly, I don’t know what has happened to this NDP. I don’t know what has happened. They have become such an insignificant force in Canadian politics. And it’s not just here, right? It’s not just here. We’re seeing this nationally—federally insignificant. The party that once people called the conscience of the House now is nothing more than an angry group of people fighting amongst themselves. It’s not about saying no, Speaker. It’s not about saying no. It’s about tearing down, isn’t it, colleagues? It’s about tearing down, right? When you build things up, the NDP want to tear it down. That’s what they do. They have no options.

When you make Parliament better, they all of a sudden want to tear it down. It’s not even about saying no anymore; it’s about tearing it down because that’s what they’re about. They’re not about policy. They’re not driven by ideology. They’re driven by this crazy belief that if you make things worse, it helps them. So when we talk about Parliament being better, they vote against every single motion. But then, colleagues, outside of the House, or back there, they say, “Oh, thank God you did that. It was terrible, you know? We didn’t like the way it was working before. It was terrible.”

As the long-term care minister, let me digress for a moment. They tell me, “Oh, you can’t build for-profit,” but then what do they do? They come across and say, “Can you approve this home in my riding?” And then, when we approve it, they go on TV and complain that it got approved, because it’s a for-profit home. It’s not about regulation; it’s about tearing down.

I want to briefly finish off, Mr. Speaker, by talking about the Speakers again. I can’t tell you how the presiding officers—excuse me. I’m very proud of the fact that the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook will be the Deputy Speaker if this motion is passed. I think she—and I know you will agree—is a very qualified, quality individual who has years of experience holding politicians accountable as a newscaster, years of experience serving in municipal politics.

I look at the member from Ottawa–Vanier, I believe it is: a Franco-Ontarian, served on Ottawa council, a strong, independent woman.

I look at the member for Ajax: served as a school trustee for about 10 years; has done so much work in her community; won a seat in this place; is fierce, tough and will do a remarkable job in that chair, Mr. Speaker.

I also look at the member for Parkdale–High Park, who I believe is one of the best MPPs in this place, Mr. Speaker—a very, very tough riding, works very, very hard and I think is a credit to all of us. It doesn’t matter that she’s the first Tibetan. It doesn’t matter who is the first of what who serves in that chair, Mr. Speaker. What matters is, can they do the job and can they elevate this place by the fact that they’re sitting in that chair? That is the ultimate responsibility of a holder of that chair: to make sure that we elevate this place. And what did we hear from the opposition?

Then they go to the ribbon-cutting.

What committee is the member on?

It certainly has been an interesting start to the 43rd Parliament, I have to say. And I also have to say that it has been a very interesting experience for me to serve in the position of House leader for the official opposition in the previous government and continuing in this government. It has been an “interesting” experience, and I use that word carefully, because it puts me in a position of trying to work with a government House leader who has absolutely no interest in ensuring that the processes of democracy function as they are supposed to in this place. I remind—

Like many members in this place and, I expect, many of the new members, in particular—many of us were sworn in in July and brought family members and volunteers to this chamber to watch this very powerful and significant moment, as we swear in to serve our constituents in the betterment of the people of the province of Ontario.

I joined the group that had come to attend my swearing-in, the volunteers who had participated on my campaign, in a tour, the official tour, of this assembly. We came into this chamber, and the tour guide pointed to two carvings on each side of this chamber. There is the carving of the eagle that faces the official opposition. The eagle represents the official opposition’s duty to hold the government to account, to make sure that the decisions that are being made by the government are actually in the best interest of the people of Ontario.

The government side looks at the carving of the owl, and that is a constant reminder to the government to make decisions that are thoughtful, that are wise, that are informed, that take into account all of the diversity of this province, the needs of the people of this province, and make good on its responsibility to do the best for the people that we serve.

I want to quote from the throne speech that opened this Parliament, Speaker, the throne speech that sets out the agenda for this government that is supposed to set the tone for how we are going to proceed in the 43rd Parliament. In that throne speech, the Lieutenant Governor, reading from the speech, said, “Now is not the time for partisanship and ideology to trump the virtues of partnership and collaboration.” I thank the Lieutenant Governor for that comment. I thank the government for including that statement in the speech from the throne. I am saddened, however, that these are mere words, and that is shown by the actions of this government, this government House leader, in terms of the non-collaboration, the non-partnership that we have seen right from the very moment we came together in this place.

I was reading the Hansard of the debate that occurred on this motion on Thursday afternoon, and I do want to thank you, Speaker, for your very measured and thoughtful ruling on the point of order that was raised by my colleague the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane as the official opposition whip. You pointed out, you confirmed exactly what the point of order had raised, that “a review of the history of the appointment of presiding officers” in this place “reveals that from 1989 to 2018”—a period of 30 years—“the House has appointed members of recognized opposition parties to the maximum allowable number of presiding officer positions. Between 1989 and 2008, where the standing orders provided that up to two opposition members be appointed, the House appointed two. And from 2008 to 2018, when the standing orders provided for up to three opposition members to be appointed, the House appointed three.”

You also noted that this motion that is before us today “represents the first time that less than the maximum number of members from a recognized opposition party has been proposed to fill presiding officer roles, the first time that an independent member has been included in the motion and the first time that the Speaker has been asked to interpret this standing order.”

I don’t envy you or the position that you are in, Speaker, as you are faced with weighing 30 years of tradition, 30 years of productive conversations between the government and the recognized opposition parties on the appointment of presiding officers. I should also say, typically, those motions to appoint presiding officers, the motions to appoint committee members are worked out in advance, through the collaboration and partnership that the throne speech highlighted, the urgency of working in collaboration and in partnership. Through that process of discussion and collaboration and engagement, the wording of those motions is agreed upon in advance, and those motions typically pass by unanimous consent because there is no need to debate, because the government listens to the advice of the leaders of the recognized opposition parties on the appointment of presiding officers. The government includes the names that the recognized opposition parties put forward for the presiding officer positions, for the committee appointments, and the government puts those names in their motion. But what we have seen in the first week that we were back and in this motion that is now before us today is the government completely disregarding the input that was received.

Now, I should not say “completely disregarding.” The official opposition put forward names of the three members of our caucus who were interested in serving as presiding officers, who would have been amazing presiding officers, Speaker. One of them you served with, the member from Oshawa, who always went above and beyond—to be fair, often to the consternation of people in our caucus when we were called out by the member from Oshawa as she served in that chair. She was an exemplary Acting Speaker or Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House. She was one of the names that was put forward, and her name does not appear in the motion that is before us today.

My colleague the member for—Jill Andrew.

Point of order.

Condemnation.

We heard condemnation of these appointments. We heard the member for Oshawa suggest that they didn’t even know that their names were being put forward as Speakers, that they were being used, and that, as women, they shouldn’t be used. Forget the fact that that’s completely and absolutely wrong, that all of the members who were put forward in this motion had the opportunity to decline or accept well in advance, including the member for Ottawa–Vanier. Forget that that is wrong. We then heard speeches about how somehow a decision was made to stop people from being in the chair.

This is where it gets ugly, because this is what the NDP does: You can’t win an election, so you try to tear down the people who beat you, try to tear down the people of the province of Ontario. Well, at some point you have to say no—and you can’t on one hand say, “I’m just a farmer who doesn’t even know where the emergency button is,” and then get in this House and say the words that the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said, say the things that they did in a press release, say the things that the member for Oshawa and the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s were saying to try to stop us from moving forward with this motion. You can’t have it both ways.

This is one of the most diverse caucuses, one of the strongest caucuses and one of the best governments in order to get things done for people, including this Parliament. And if the opposition thinks that silly games, that press releases and speeches that try to get people angry, calling people racist, is going to somehow make a change, they have not seen the new face of the Conservative Party of Ontario. And there’s not one of us who will back down from that challenge, least of all the extraordinary women being put forward in this motion today.

Further debate?

The member for London West will continue.

Toronto–St. Paul’s.

Yes. My colleague the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s was another name that was put forward.

I heard the government House leader suggest that somehow we were disparaging the members who have been named in this motion for appointment as presiding officers, and I want to say that nothing could be further from the truth.

I read the comments from the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, and she recognizes that the member from Ajax—she congratulates her on being a hard-working member and acknowledges the historic moment that is before us with a Black woman stepping up to the position of Speaker. That is a signal to Black girls, as was discussed in the debate, a signal to Black people across this province, that they too can serve in the position of Speaker. Now, I do acknowledge the Honourable Alvin Curling, who had previously served in that position, but this is the first time that a Black woman will serve in that chair.

But it’s not about the member for Ajax. It’s not even about the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s. It’s about the process, the history, the need for working across the aisle, the need for partnership and collaboration so that we can make things better for the people of this province.

I read the feedback on the point of order that was provided by the government House leader and some of his comments as to why he decided to disregard the names that were put forward by the official opposition—the only recognized party in this place—why he decided to disregard those names both in the appointment of presiding officers and also in the appointment of committee members. He quoted some percentages, somehow making the claim that the appointments that are included in this motion are more representative of the people of this province. He said the NDP are presently at about 24% of the seats in the House, the government is about 67%, the Liberals at 7%, and he somehow claimed that he’s applying these proportions to the names that are in his motion.

But if the government House leader wants to throw out percentages, I also want to remind this government—as people across the province, in the aftermath of an election that saw an historic low voter turnout—that when only 41% of 43% of eligible voters in this province vote for this government, they are sitting in those seats with the support of 18% of Ontarians.

So 18% of Ontarians have entrusted this government with the responsibility to govern fairly and wisely and responsibly, and what do we see? We see a first-past-the-post system that translates that 18% support into a government that holds 70% of the seats in this Legislature and yields 100% of its power. That’s what this government has done with this motion before us on presiding officers, with the motion last week or two weeks ago on the committee appointments. They have arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to exercise the power that first-past-the-post has given them: the power that they have gained because 18% of Ontarians of voting age have put them into office. They are exercising that power to unilaterally decide who is going to serve on committee.

I do want to respond to some of the comments that were made by the government House leader about, for example, the member for Waterloo. This government House leader suggests that appointing the member for Waterloo to the finance committee is somehow this government looking out for the interests of that member. But I want to remind the government House leader that the member for Waterloo had previously served on the public accounts committee. Again, she had been an exemplary Chair of the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee is a perfect fit for her responsibility as finance critic and that is the committee that she expressed interest in serving on. That is the committee that we notified the government that that member wished to participate in. And in this government-knows-best approach of the Conservatives across the way, this government House leader decides that’s not good enough. This government doesn’t care where the member for Waterloo wants to best exercise her skills, her talents, her duty to hold the government to account and ensure that that appropriate oversight is there. This government decided they were going to remove her from the public accounts committee and instead put her on the finance committee. They did that because they can, because they have 100% of the power. They have the ability to disregard the names that had been provided by the official opposition on those appointments and to put in place whoever they want.

Speaker, that is not a process of collaboration and negotiation that these extraordinary times demand of us. The government House leader today in his comments also pointed to the fact that they have added members to committee. They have unilaterally decided that certain members of our caucus should be added to certain standing committees of this Legislature. Again, I ask the government House leader: Wouldn’t it have been a better process of partnership, a better process of collaboration, if the government had come and had said to the official opposition, “Look, we want to add members to these standing committees. Let us know which of your caucus members would like to serve in that role”? That would have been the appropriate way to deal with the addition of seats on those committees. But, no, that is not how this government operates. And we saw that.

We saw that in the 42nd Parliament with changes to the standing orders at a pace that we have not seen before. The government House leader changed the standing orders more times over that four-year period—actually, it was three years that he was in that role. But there were more changes to the standing orders in that three-year period than there were in the entire 15 years up to the election of this government. And each time those standing orders changed, it was to concentrate power more and more in the hands of the government. It was to limit the ability of the official opposition, limit the ability of all non-government members to be able to have any influence on the legislative agenda that this government is pushing through.

Speaker, the government House leader is quite correct: We will not be supporting this motion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the names of the people who are listed in the motion; it has everything to do with respect for parliamentary tradition, with respect for the way that this place is supposed to function, the way that the government House leader is supposed to engage with the official opposition.

I heard the government House leader talk about the fact that nothing is secret when he meets with the official opposition. You will have read the story in the Toronto Star—all of us read that story—about the meeting that was held between me and the government House leader when he suggested that the official opposition caucus vote unanimously for the preferred candidate that he wanted to see in the chair of the Speaker or else we would not be able to get our recommended candidates for presiding officers and our recommended appointments for Vice-Chairs of committees. He suggested that somehow I was being dishonourable by going public with this threat. I don’t think that threats are a good way for this place to operate. I don’t think that that’s a good way for the government to move its agenda forward. But that is the approach that this government House leader has chosen to take, and we won’t support it.

I just want to remind the people at home who are watching what the motion is about. The motion, if adopted, would appoint four members to the presiding officer roles of Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, and First, Second and Third Deputy Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House. The appointment of these positions is governed by standing orders 5(a), 5(c) and 6, which read as follows:

“5(a) At the commencement of the first session of a Parliament, or from time to time as may be required, a member shall be appointed by the House to be Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House....

“(c) At the commencement of every Parliament, or from time to time as may be required, the House shall appoint three Deputy Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House, to be known respectively as the First, Second and Third Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, any of whom shall, in order of precedence, whenever the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House is absent or otherwise unable to act, be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, including those powers as Deputy Speaker....”

I recognize that if I am to be named, I shall very quickly need to memorize the faces and ridings of every member of this House, if I am to be one of its presiding officers. I take for granted that my own riding of Ajax is a simple one to remember, but that is my riding. I’m looking forward to recognizing, both literally and procedurally, every person in this room, no matter how many hyphens their riding may have.

Each chair in this Legislature is occupied by a politician, with the obvious exception of the chairs occupied by the Clerks, officials and the staff that keep this place running. However, each chair is occupied for the people of Ontario. These are the people whose hopes and dreams for the future of our province are personified in their elected officials. It is a sacred trust that we hold for our constituents. As the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s put in her impassioned remarks last week, to serve this House is a calling. It is a vocation.

To quote a former Speaker of the House, the late Chris Stockwell, “We are partisan by nature, we come here with political agendas, but when it comes down to decent, fair-minded individuals, I don’t think the people could have elected ... better people.”

It is my firm belief, Speaker, that we are the best group of people to legislate in this province. That is why it is important that the business conducted in this House proceeds with decorum, order and cross-partisan participation. To ensure that these aims are met, the presiding officers of this Legislature are chosen pursuant to the standing orders.

As the Speaker fairly and thoughtfully ruled last Thursday, the government motion at issue is in accordance with the standing orders. The multi-partisan representation on the slate of the presiding officers of this House reflects the neutrality, impartiality and objectivity imputed to the role of Speaker and the other officers who occupy the chair in his absence.

I would like to take a moment to address remarks made by my colleague, the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s, during the debate on this motion on August 18. To the member from Toronto–St Paul’s: I thank you for expressing the reality that people of colour face in spaces like this Legislature. That reality holds true for people of any equity-seeking group, from Indigenous peoples to members of the LGBTQSA+ community. To be a member of such a group and to hold an adjudicative position, such as that of a Deputy Speaker or presiding officer, is a complex matter.

On one hand, as I stand here, proudly joined in this House by other Black members of the PC caucus as well as across the aisle, it is amazing to represent a community that looks like me. Places of decision-making should not feel unwelcome to the people whose lives are affected by those decisions. Being the first Black MPP for the highest per-capita Black population riding in Ontario is something that was too long in the making. On the other hand, being a Black person in an adjudicative capacity creates a certain amount of pressure in one’s mind. Similar to the experience of Black police officers, Black legislators face the pressure of being a representative of their race—which is highly politicized—while remaining impartial agents of the state.

Speaker, I agree with the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s in her assertion that Black people are not interchangeable. We each bring with us a unique set of life skills, life experiences and beliefs to this Legislature. Even in the PC caucus itself, our Black members do not constitute a political monolith. The member from Scarborough Centre, the member from Brampton Centre and I are fiercely independent advocates for our constituents and for our communities. That attitude holds true for every member in this House.

It holds true for the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook, who has been a recognizable face in her community for so many years. The reputation of her decorum and fairness she developed over her years in journalism, and subsequently as an elected member, will serve this House well.

It holds true for the independent member from Ottawa–Vanier. She brings impressive legal credentials and vast public sector service to this chamber. It reflects plurality of partisan affiliation in this Legislature. Hers is an important position in the Speaker’s throne.

It holds true especially for the member from Parkdale–High Park. As a member of Tibetan heritage, a scientist and a widely recognized elected official, she is ground-breaking on a number of levels.

I appreciate that the official opposition, in their opposition to the government motion at issue here, constrained their critique to procedural elements rather than the members involved. At the end of the day, we are here to do a good job for the people who elected us.

The government motion, which seeks to constitute the Deputy Speaker and the Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House, seeks to fairly represent the many views present here. It seeks to maintain proportionality between the elected members of different parties represented here today. The composition of the presiding officer slate is in accordance with standing order 6, and will provide robust, fair and non-partisan candidates.

Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s with regard to language suggesting Black legislators are being used as pawns in this House, as well as allusions to slavery. The member is correct in her assertion that there is no quota on Black members serving as presiding officers of this House. While I have not yet had the chance to work closely with the member, having only been elected, I know that she brings a wealth of experience and would also do justice to the role.

As I listened to the member from Toronto–St Paul’s, I understood the hurt and the disappointment that came through in her words. This, for her, would have been an historical point in her service in the Legislature, and I empathize. Where my opinion diverges is at the suggestion of manipulation by members of my own caucus or the claim that she was stripped of this position by the government, as it was not yet hers to lose, or that I am less deserving.

I have been proud to lead anti-racism and empowering initiatives for Black and marginalized students for many years as a school board trustee; this is no secret. I’ve never been asked to leave my ethnicity or cultural identity at the door when joining the PC caucus. I have never been asked, whether explicitly or implicitly, to shy away from being Black or to fit into this government. I am proud to be a Black legislator, I am proud to represent the people of Ajax and I am proud to be part of a Parliament where a plurality of viewpoints is respected.

In my maiden speech to Parliament, I spoke about it being an unprecedented Parliament, one where more voices get a seat at the table—or in this case, in the chair. Speaker, the proposed slate of presiding officers reflects the government’s balanced approach to cross-partisanship in this Legislature. It is my hope and my fervent belief that all those who occupy that chair during this session will treat it with the respect and honour that it deserves. I appreciate the government’s point in not just looking at experience. We’ve heard that mentioned across the table. If that were the case, the previous members would not have been elected.

Thank you, Speaker, for the time.

Further debate?

I am so very honoured to stand in this House today to deliver my inaugural speech. And let me begin by congratulating you, Speaker, on your re-election. I know you will serve this Legislature well. I also wish to congratulate each of the members of this assembly. The voters have chosen you to serve. This is an awesome privilege, a tremendous honour and an incredible responsibility. I look forward to working with all of you.

As a new member in this House, I would like to express my thanks to the staff of the Ontario Legislature. From the first moment I arrived here at Queen’s Park, a little lost and not even sure where to park, the friendliness and professionalism has impressed me. I was amazed to find the security officer at the door recognized me, greeted me by name and made sure I found my way around. And I have found every member of the staff here to be absolute professionals. I must say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Clerk, that he has built a fantastic team. They are all providing exemplary service to this Legislative Assembly, its members and the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as you noted when recognizing me, I stand in this place representing the amazing riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington. At over 9,100 square kilometres, it is one of the largest electoral districts in southern Ontario. Driving from the north end starting at the edge of Algonquin Park in Hastings Highlands township down to the South Shore Road on Amherst Island in Loyalist township, it is more than a four-hour drive—and there aren’t many direct routes as you travel the rugged and picturesque Canadian Shield.

It is safe to say that Hastings–Lennox and Addington has some of the most beautiful countryside in Ontario. These are also the ancestral lands of the Haudenosaunee, Mississauga and Omámíwinini peoples. Since time immemorial, the Indigenous peoples have been and continue to be the stewards of the land. Notably, today, within this riding are the lands of the Tyendinaga Mohawk territory, and their First Nations Technical Institute, which teaches Indigenous students from across Canada. Indigenous-owned and governed, this post-secondary institution has 35 years of rich history and has produced more than 4,000 proud graduates.

HL and A, as we call it, is a beautiful space preserved for successive generations. But it also contains an abundance of amazing and vibrant communities. Our 18 municipalities and two counties harbour almost a countless number of towns, villages and hamlets. From Denbigh to Stirling, from Stella to Lake St. Peter, and in between, so many different communities, each with its own timeline, its own heartbeat, its own story.

I was recently honoured to be present at the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the town of Marmora as they unveiled a statue celebrating its history as one of the original mining towns in Canada. Deposits of iron ore were discovered, followed by deposits of gold, copper and silver, leading to the development of nearby settlements like Eldorado, Cordova Mines and Blairton.

We are an historic part of the country. In the village of Bath, in Loyalist township, is the Hawley House, built in 1785. Just three years shy of being the oldest building in the province, it is recognized as the longest continuously inhabited residential home in Ontario. That same year, 1785, mills were being built in nearby Napanee, which would then ship flour to the towns of Montreal and Toronto. There are many towns with histories dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when Ontario was still part of Upper Canada, and we are very proud of our historic contributions to building this nation.

So, yes, the region is both historic and industrious. Traditionally, the northern part of the riding has been heavily involved in mining and forestry, hunting and fishing, and all the related tourism that those activities bring. Further south, away from the granite of the Shield, we have a tremendous agricultural sector, from grains and orchards, to some of the best meat and dairy in the country. And beyond these sectors we have amazing cheese factories, and in more recent years, have become one of the best beer and winemaking regions in the world.

While Hastings–Lennox and Addington is home to traditional industries, it also has ties to modern transportation infrastructure, with large facilities for train assembly and testing, automotive tire production, and, most recently, I was pleased to stand with our Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade as he announced a new $1.5-billion manufacturing site for battery components for electric vehicles. HL and A is very much a part of the future of the automotive sector. Speaker, as beautiful, historic and industrious as our riding is, its greatest asset is its people. And it’s to those people today that I express my gratitude and my pledge to represent them in this venerable place to the very best of my ability.

I must make mention of the organizers and volunteers that worked with me through the election campaign. Their dedication and their efforts are an amazing testament to their belief in our democratic system. There are so many people involved in that for whom I have so much gratitude. I don’t wish to name some and miss others, so I will simply humbly say thank you to the entire team.

I will specify my appreciation for one of those volunteers: my predecessor, my mentor and my friend, Daryl Kramp. Daryl sat in this chamber during the last term of government, so many of you know him, and you know that he is, quite simply, legendary. He’s one of the few Canadians who have been elected to federal, provincial and municipal office. For decades, he was the guy that everybody knew, and everybody turned to, to get things done right; and alongside him for even longer, Carol Ann, the light of his life and a wonderful partner in all he has done. Daryl was well known for working collaboratively with all members across party lines to achieve the desired goals, and it was Daryl who showed me what it takes to be an effective and compassionate MPP. I will attempt to live up to that Kramp standard.

Speaker, I’d like to provide a little of my lived experience to describe what brought me to this House. Like many people, I grew up in a time when it was considered impolite to discuss politics, religion or money, but this was not the case in my childhood home. Our dinner table encouraged wide-ranging conversations about just about any topic, and, specifically, about the events and government activities of the day at all levels. It was through these conversations that I learned of taxation and unions and law enforcement and court systems, of economic development and health care, balancing rights and responsibilities and so many other topics. It certainly seemed to me that my father knew a lot about just about everything. It never dawned on me that many people would consider him uneducated because he never passed grade 10.

On the other hand, my family household was a very strong patriarchy. We could discuss, but we could not oppose my father—at least not without risking a change to his temperament that would not be good for anyone. So in my childhood while I learned about government, I also yearned for an environment that would actually be open to debate, to hearing from all sides, exploring new ideas and, hopefully, coming to positive directions to move forward.

It was with this lens that I headed out into the world, and while I enjoyed and, at times, excelled in school, ultimately my own distractibility did not blend well with the structure of academia, so I did not do very well in school—at least not until many years later when I returned to achieve my post-secondary work.

In my teens, I ventured out to work. I spent much of the next decade working as a dishwasher, a cook, a telemarketer and in an array of different jobs that allowed me to support myself. I was, what we would call today, the working poor. In fact, for a brief period I was financially strapped enough that I was unable to pay my OHIP premium—for those who remember OHIP premiums. So I was without coverage under our universal health care system for about six months.

Of course, during that time, I managed to sprain my ankle. So what did I do? I wrapped it myself, I endured the pain and stayed off it for a week or so. I lost work, and I lost wages, but I understood that that loss was cheaper than going to the hospital would have been. These are choices we should not have to make, and I’m grateful that today in Ontario our government and our health minister have repeatedly affirmed our support of universal health care so that Ontarians don’t have to make such choices.

Speaker, that story is about a minor injury and a relatively young person, but I am about to tell this assembly a much tougher story, which demonstrates even more how truly grateful I am for our health care system.

In May 1995, I was joyously blessed with the birth of my second child, my beautiful daughter, Carly Jean Bresee. She was an incredible, healthy, happy child, and if you will allow a father’s loving bias, amazingly intelligent and incredibly beautiful. Carly grew up continuing to be happy and healthy, always doing her own thing. She excelled at school, she was very social and she was very active in her preferred physical activity, competitive dance.

But then in the fall of 2011, at age 16, Carly began experiencing exhaustion and lethargy. She very uncharacteristically missed school, so we thought she might have a cold or some similar ailment, but as it persisted, we took her to the doctor who ordered bloodwork. As an indicator of her great health up to that point, that was the first time since she was born that she had required bloodwork. She visited the lab on Monday and, on Tuesday, I received a phone call that I will never forget, and I certainly hope that no other parent receives such a phone call. The doctor called me directly, instructed me to take Carly to the emergency room immediately and informed me of her likely diagnosis: leukemia.

That was mid-November. Over the next few weeks and months, we learned a whole new vocabulary: ALL, neutrophils, cytotoxicity and more. We learned about the very high rates of success with certain treatments for childhood leukemia, but then the more refined test came back and we learned that this was a rarer form of cancer that would be harder to treat. After one particular treatment that had been very damaging to her and deemed not successful, I asked the oncologist what we would do next. Her answer horrified me. She said, “I don’t know.” By March, it was clear that chemotherapy and radiation would not work. The only viable option, the only hope, was a very risky one, a bone marrow transfer.

The first good news we received, and against the odds, her brother was a good match for a bone marrow transfer, so we could do the transfer treatment. We spent months here at SickKids. It was a very dark time.

During one of those dark and scary nights, I made the mistake of googling what it would cost to perform that procedure if I lived in the United States, without a universal health care system. It showed me that if I didn’t live here in Ontario, I would have been given a choice: pay $1.2 million or watch my daughter suffer and die.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not a wealthy man, and while I would have done anything to save my daughter’s life, there was no way on God’s green earth I could write a check for $1.2 million. That would not have been a choice, it would have been a death sentence. But we do live in Ontario and our health care system is amazing. And so the treatment went ahead and it was successful. Carly would live.

But, Mr. Speaker, I must finish the story. After her successful bone marrow transfer, supplied by her heroic brother, she did thrive. For the next five years she completed high school, she went off to the University of Waterloo and she studied medicinal chemistry. She wanted to do research to make better treatment drugs for anyone that had to go through what she went through. In time, she met and fell in love with a wonderful young man named Jon.

Unfortunately, at the end of her third year of university, the cancer came back, and this time it was untreatable. We lost my beautiful baby girl in September 2017. To the end, she was, and we still are, eternally grateful for the amazing care provided to her by the wonderful people at our hospitals. I miss her every day.

I want to assure this House and all the residents of my riding and across the province that I will always support and fight for universal health care. My residents have told me that they want a great health care system. They want a system that works. They want a system that they gain access to with their health card, not their credit card.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my personal political engagement, I take you back in time a little bit to the fall of 2000. Connor and Carly were just five and seven years old. I found out that my local municipal government was going to change the format of one of our parks, change it to a manicured flower garden and community gardens—changed from the large open space, well grassed, and a place for children to play. I disagreed with that. I looked at the members of our council at the time, and realized that they were all long-time community supporters, mostly of the grandparent set, so I decided to run for a seat. It may not have been the nicest way to say it, but I started my first campaign for elected office saying that the current members had too much grey hair. I would learn to regret that choice of words. That was 22 years ago, and I was fortunate enough to be elected, and, yes, that park is still open as a play space for children.

As I started on council, I could discuss and debate many ideas, but too often I heard that we could not do this or that because the province won’t let us. So once again, I went looking for a place to express my views. For better than 20 years, I attended the AMO, the ROMA and the Good Roads conferences and signed up for all forms of committees and caucuses. I kept going back to my childhood belief that everyone wants to or should want to openly discuss new ideas, different approaches and even debate those ideas.

Now, seven elections later, I find myself here in this chamber, and honestly I am in awe and inspired by the people of all party stripes, whom I have admired. I am truly honoured to be here.

After all these years in office, I do understand that the people who vote for us expect us to speak our minds, but they also expect us to work civilly with our colleagues at the table, in the Legislature and in committee; to discuss, deliberate and debate the merits of the many ideas brought forward; and in the end, to try to get it right.

So Mr. Speaker, I pledge to speak my mind in this House, to bring to this place the comments and concerns of my constituents and to work co-operatively and collegially with all members of the assembly, regardless of the party, for the betterment of the province.

I would like to extend that spirit of co-operation to all, to encourage inclusion for our residents, especially those who have been historically excluded. We need to recognize the contributions and the voices of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, the BIPOC communities, persons with disabilities and any other disenfranchised group. Collectively, we must strive to ensure that all people are heard. For too many years, too many of our citizens have been left out.

My lived experience is that of a white male settler. I know I have a privilege bias, and I must commit to listening to people with a different lived experience and to being an ally to them. I believe we are living in the best province in the best country in the world, but like every other jurisdiction, we have our challenges, our current and historic mistakes, issues to fix. We must be open to discussion, to debate. It’s what gives us the opportunity to grow and to change, to recognize the failures of the past and to improve upon it.

This is not to degrade the difficult and tremendous actions of those who came before us, but rather it is to stand on their shoulders, to rise above, because they built the foundation on which we stand. I look forward to working with all members of this assembly, and I’m confident that we are ready to get it done.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my amazing family: my mother, Leslie; my stepmother, Barb; my children, Connor, John, Alice and Liam; my two grandchildren; and, most of all, my incredible and supportive wife, who is in the gallery today. It is because of their love and support that I can do this. They drive and motivate me. Through them and thanks to the voters of Hastings–Lennox and Addington, I have finally come to a place where we can have that open discussion and debate, and I am so looking forward to it.

Further debate?

Further debate?

Debate deemed adjourned.

Thank you, Speaker. Congratulations on the election to your role.

As this is my first time humbly rising in the chamber, I’d like to thank the residents of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for having faith in myself representing our riding and needs.

Most who know me know I am a passionate and committed advocate for mental health, both for youth and adults alike. I’d like to thank the Minister of Health, Sylvia Jones, for announcing with me last week six new safe beds in my riding for people in crisis to heal and recover in a safe environment.

As we all know, fairs and events are back and thriving in our ridings. These events help with our own and our neighbours’ mental health, to be able to socialize and gather as a community. Whether it’s Canada’s oldest fair—at 211 years—the Williamstown Fair, the Avonmore Fair or the South Mountain Fair, it takes an army of dedicated volunteers to organize these important events.

Thank you to all who help bring back this sense of normalcy in our lives. My riding, as well as many others, was successful in receiving funds from the Reconnect Festival and Event Program from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport to restart these important events in our communities, both economically and for the mental health of those we serve.

I’d like to take this opportunity to celebrate the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s ruling that landlords cannot ban air conditioning, as access to cooling during extreme heat waves is a human rights issue. It has long been a health issue, and now it is finally recognized as a human right.

As the number of extreme heat waves increases, the right to accessible and safe housing must include air conditioning. Extreme heat makes life unbearable. It is extremely dangerous, especially for seniors and those living with disabilities. Despite empty words in 2020, the Ford government has failed to deliver air conditioning for seniors in long-term care. This government has failed seniors, time and again.

The commission grimly notes, “Extreme heat caused by climate change is killing people.”

In London, tenants like the folks at Huron Gardens have been organizing to protect their most vulnerable neighbours from extreme heat.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is now calling on this government to include air conditioning as a vital service like the provision of heat.

The Ontario NDP were well ahead of the curve, fighting to protect Ontarians from extreme heat. I look forward to supporting my colleague the MPP for University–Rosedale’s motion when she re-tables it. I encourage all members to vote in support of this motion.