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.

Further debate?

The member for London West will continue.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Further debate?

Debate deemed adjourned.

I’ve been hearing from health care professionals in my riding of Hamilton Mountain about the devastation happening to our local hospitals. A local nurse reached out to my office to share her concerns. Her message, sadly, was not surprising. She told me that our health care system is falling apart before our very eyes. Our province has abandoned all health care workers. They are constantly short-staffed, working long hours with a high patient-to-staff ratio. Patient care is being put at risk due to this government’s lack of respect, and underfunding of our health care system. She asked me to call on this government to repeal Bill 124 to ensure health care workers are paid accordingly. Health care workers should be allowed to negotiate fair wages for their work, but Bill 124 is keeping them from doing that.

I’m calling on the Premier and his government to immediately repeal Bill 124. Health care workers have been the backbone of this pandemic. They have put themselves, their own safety, the health of their families all at risk. They deserve fair compensation for their work. The Premier needs to do the right thing and repeal Bill 124 immediately.

I am grateful to stand in the Legislature today as the returning member for Niagara West. I wish to thank, once again, the voters of Niagara West for placing their trust in me to represent their concerns, priorities and values in the halls of Queen’s Park.

Throughout the campaign I listened very closely to the priorities of the people of Niagara West, and I want to ensure that those are the priorities I’m advocating for here.

Rebuilding the economy: Across Niagara West, job creators, families and workers spoke about the need to reduce taxes, invest in manufacturing and cut red tape for businesses in our communities to create good jobs in Niagara West.

Keeping Ontario open: Constituents I spoke with emphasized the need to build up our health care system, hire more nurses, invest in home care and therapeutics to support patients and their families, and keep Ontario open for good.

Keeping costs down: Across Niagara West, constituents spoke about looking forward to seeing measures such as cutting the gas tax, keeping licence plate sticker fees off their vehicles and scrapping road tolls to make life more affordable.

Building key infrastructure: From building our new hospital to new roads and bridges in Pelham and West Lincoln, to the construction of a GO station in Grimsby, new schools in Lincoln and a renovated community centre in Wainfleet, I heard about the need for continued investment in key infrastructure projects.

I look forward to continuing to work to ensure that the priorities, needs and values of the people of Niagara West are brought here. I’m thankful to work on their behalf for another four years.

It’s an honour and a privilege to speak in this House for the first time today. I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election, and I know you will serve this House very capably in your important role. I also want to congratulate all members on both sides of the aisle on their election success on June 2. It is said that the voters are always right, and from this side of the House I say the voters absolutely got it right on election day.

I particularly want to thank the hard-working voters of Simcoe–Grey for their overwhelming support. Simcoe–Grey has a long and proud history of being Progressive Conservative, and I want to acknowledge my predecessor, Jim Wilson, who represented the residents in this House with distinction for 32 years. Jim was a committed, determined and effective champion for our residents, and I can tell you that as I knocked on thousands of doors in the election, I heard time and time again how much Jim had represented our constituents. He has set the bar for effective representation in Simcoe–Grey very high. To the residents of Simcoe–Grey and to the residents of our province, I pledge to continue that tradition of committed and determined representation that Jim Wilson and, before him, George McCague and Wally Downer have established in this great riding.

Speaker, Simcoe–Grey has a population of over 152,000 and consists of seven municipalities: six in Simcoe county and one in Grey county. It stretches from Thornton in the south to Thornbury in the north, from Alliston in the west to Angus in the east. It is a growing, dynamic and diverse region that has incredible opportunities and is facing some significant challenges.

Geographically, Simcoe–Grey is blessed with an abundance of green space and natural features, as well as miles of shoreline along the southern shores of Georgian Bay. From the longest freshwater beach in the world and the UNESCO Georgian Bay Biosphere to the Niagara escarpment and the greenbelt, the low-lying hills and ridges of Canadian Shield bedrock support a rich mosaic of forests, wetlands and habitat with an incredible abundance of biodiversity.

Simcoe–Grey boasts a diverse and dynamic economy. There is a long-standing and robust farming sector in the south that goes back to the early 1800s and was one of the region’s original economic engines—

Yesterday, I coached my nine-year-old son’s soccer team, the Soo City Junior United, in the finals of the Grand Rapids Cup, where we were trailing 3-0 at halftime against the BC Fire of Saginaw.

After my best Vince Lombardi impression at halftime, our boys took to the field and within minutes had managed to score our first goal, bringing the game to within two. A new-found sense of resilience, they overtook us even after Saginaw responded with a goal of their own to restore their three-goal lead. Over the next 30 minutes, we played a full court press like you’ve never seen before. We scored four straight goals and took the lead 5-4 and, then, with just over a minute left to play, on Saginaw’s first shot in what seemed like an eternity, they scored and once again the game was tied.

Teams started prepping for penalty shots. I heard the referee’s alarm go off, and as he checked his watch and brought the whistle to his mouth in what seemed like the most harmless of plays, one of my boys kicked the balls out for a corner kick. The ref decided to let them take that corner kick even though time had expired—and you can probably guess what happened? A weird bounce and the ball was in the net. The ref blew the whistle, the game was over. We lost 6-5. We were all in disbelief. Our boys played their hearts out. They gave it their all but came short.

My favourite part of coaching kids is that there are so many life lessons that come out of it. This past weekend’s lesson is that sometimes in life, regardless of how hard you work, you just fall short, and that’s okay because you truly cannot win them all and nothing is perfect.

But as Lombardi himself said, “Chase perfection ... catch excellence.” My boys were excellent this weekend, and I’m beaming with pride because of it.

Thank you very much.

I would like to update the House on a potential environmental issue that’s happening right now in the township of Armstrong in Timiskaming district. Last year, a sewage lagoon for raw human sewage was approved on a former dairy farm, in the former dairy lagoon. A company from Quebec is importing that sewage. Why the neighbours found out? When the trucks started coming.

Part of the process is consultation. Many of the neighbours were not consulted at all. Had they been consulted, the ministry would have known that there was a well on the property because it was a former dairy farm. When we asked the ministry if they had looked for that well and if the consultant had looked for that well, the response was that there was no well on that property. We are still waiting for answers from the ministry, because the ministry also said it wasn’t a former dairy lagoon. Yet in the plans of the site, the lagoon was enlarged. Also, there is no actual proof that the piping that came from the barn to the lagoon was ever removed.

We are quickly losing faith, not in the consultants but in the ministry to actually protect the health and welfare of people in northern Ontario. And if they can’t do it on little projects, God knows what they’re going to do on big projects. We need their help right now to assure people that things are going to be safe.

It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of my constituency in Scarborough–Guildwood, yet today my heart hurts. Gun violence is a public health issue that leaves long-term impacts on our communities. It touches all of us.

As provincial leaders, this is our problem and we must do more to break cycles of violence and help communities to heal. We know that exposure to gun violence has mental and physical health impacts that extend far beyond the victims. We know gun violence traumatizes people and leaves a trail of sorrow in its wake, and we know without access to long-term supports, it leads to generational trauma.

This past April, I was deeply concerned and saddened by a drive-by shooting that took place in Scarborough. After midnight prayers, a group was heading back to their vehicles when shots rang out and five young men were struck by bullets in a brazen attack. Fortunately, no lives were lost. However, I know from speaking with the victims and their families that the aftermath of this random act of violence still affects them and our community today.

It’s a problem that Bill 9, the Safe and Healthy Communities Act, would bridge. By declaring gun violence a public health issue, my private member’s bill would allow for trauma-informed counselling and supports for survivors. Speaker, I urge all members of this House, on September 7, to make the change that we so desperately need by supporting Bill 9.