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 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.