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.

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.

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.

I’m very honoured to rise this afternoon to speak to government motion number 2, regarding my appointment as Deputy Speaker and the appointment of other presiding officers of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Speaker, during the past four years, I have admired the work that you do in your role as Speaker. You do an admirable job of maintaining order in this House, which at times can be impossible, because at times, emotions are running high and debate can get fairly rowdy. I want to assure you and other members of the Legislature that I truly understand the obligation of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker to maintain order and decorum in an impartial manner, in a way that rises above political affiliation. The roles of Speaker and Deputy Speaker are non-partisan apolitical roles, and I’m humbled to be considered to be appointed Deputy Speaker.

Many people in the House know that prior to becoming the MPP for Flamborough–Glanbrook, I spent 35 years as a broadcast journalist. Most of that time, or at least part of that time, I was able to cover stories that were heartfelt. I was born and raised and grew up in northern Ontario, as I’ve mentioned many times. That opportunity to live in northern Ontario as a young adult and to work right across Ontario in the broadcast media gave me a genuine understanding of the differences between communities across Ontario, their challenges, their strengths. It was a unique experience that I’m proud that I can bring to my job as MPP for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

Thirty-five years ago, social media did not exist, and most people relied on traditional journalism as the source for their news. I was really, really proud of the role that I played, reporting on the events of the day in communities right across, as I said, Ontario, telling the stories of the people who were about to shape our future. Some of those stories, as I mentioned, had happy endings and involved really good people who simply wanted to make a better life for themselves and for their families.

I want to share one story of a man and his wife, who I came to know and came to love: Ray Lewis. Back in 1932, Ray Lewis became the first Black Canadian Olympic medal winner. He finished bronze in the 4 by 400 at the Los Angeles Olympics. His story was compelling. It was tragic. I remember he was a porter for the railroad. When they would work and stop the train, he would get out and train by running beside the train. That was one of the ways he was able to improve his time and eventually compete at the 1932 Olympics. His wife, Vivienne, was absolutely beautiful. I spent hours with them, documenting their story, and it was one of the stories I was most proud that I produced in my time at CHCH-TV. I used to take her grocery shopping. In turn, she would make me this pound cake that I swear was the tastiest cake I’ve ever had. It was one of those stories that I’ll never forget—people who enter your life who you want to maintain a lifelong friendship with.

Another couple I came to know and love came into my life during the Bosnian war. I was assigned to cover one of the first couples that who came to Canada. They actually came to Hamilton, as refugees from Bosnia. When I showed up at their motel room, I recognized that they were about the same age as myself and my husband, and their children were the same age. The woman, the mother of this couple, of these children, spoke a little bit of English. So we chatted, and we chatted, and we chatted, and we chatted. I thought, “I can’t believe this. Here is a woman, her husband, her very young children, his brothers”—who all had worked for the Canadian government, by the way. One had worked for the Red Cross, one was a translator for the Canadian government, and one was a judge. The judge’s name was on a hit list, and they had to flee. I remember them telling me the story. It was so compelling. These men were six-foot-three, six-foot-four, and they had all packed into a car. When they got to the border to flee Kosovo, somebody recognized them at the border. His name, as I said, was on a hit list. The guard was actually a friend and snuck them out. They left with nothing. They came to Canada with nothing. I became really good friends with them. They would come to my house. Our kids were the same age; they played. Today this man, who came over here with his young family with absolutely nothing, is a family physician in London, Ontario. It’s just such a remarkable story.

These are the good stories, the good people in Ontario. Unfortunately, as you know, not all news is good news. I spent a lot of my time as a journalist, really, documenting the ugly side of humanity.

Back in the 1990s, again, I travelled to Doha, Qatar, as a young journalist to report on the Canadian troops at Canada Dry One. I absolutely love our military. I have such deep admiration and respect for any man or woman who will don a uniform and fight for their country. I assumed that sentiment would be prevalent in Qatar. You have to remember that back in the 1990s, this was in the height of very biased reporting when it came to the Gulf War—jingoism. As I ventured out into the streets while setting my camera aside and started talking to many of the locals, I was shocked to discover that we weren’t being embraced with open arms. There was another side to the story: people who were not happy that Canada had sent its troops to Doha, who weren’t pleased that the base was located just outside of Doha. It was just such an eye-opener because, as I’ve said, we were at the height of this patriotism, and I was realizing that, once again, as a journalist, there are two sides to every story. It was a side I had to tell—the side that, yes, we were very proud of our troops, but there were also other people who were questioning why we were there in Doha.

Being objective isn’t always easy, but I have to tell you again: I haven’t always been partisan. I spent a great deal of my time as a reporter covering all levels of government, from city hall to provincial government—one of the reasons I got into politics—to federal government. But we had to do it. We had to do it objectively. The story wouldn’t go to air if we showed any form of bias. I had a job to do. I had an opinion, but that opinion could not come through in the work that I was filing.

The most difficult part—I found, in my career as a journalist—of having to be objective was when I started to cover trials. I covered trials, actually, throughout my career, and some of the horrific trials, too. This was back in the 1990s. We had the Paul Bernardo murder and abduction of young girls Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. These were horrific stories that dominated our headlines and really captivated all of our attention. My colleagues—one of whom still works for me today—actually had to sit in those courtrooms and listen to those stories and still come out with an objective report.

One of the last stories I covered was the Tim Bosma murder trial. Again, your job is to report the facts as you sit and listen to the pain that his family went through as the evidence came forward when they were trying the two accused, Mark Smich and Dellen Millard.

The last trial I covered, actually, before I ventured into municipal politics was that of a young man. He was only 18 years of age, and he had been out with his friends on what we call Supercrawl in Hamilton. It’s a big deal in the city of Hamilton—probably 100,000 people walking around, a lot of people on the street. He had been out with a bunch of kids. They had a few drinks, perhaps, before they went into a bar. He was underage. He went into the bar, came out, bought a girl a rose. We often see street vendors in there, encouraging the young men to buy their date a rose, which he did. He ventured a little down the street, turned around the corner, was just in front of a Tim Hortons, and a man he had encountered earlier in the evening—a man in his fifties—fatally stabbed him. And that was it. It was horrific.

This young man was Portuguese. We had translators in the courtroom. His mother sobbed throughout the entire trial. It was gut-wrenching, and it was very difficult not to portray the pain and sorrow of all of these family members because of the absolutely unnecessary death of this young man who was simply turning a corner and walking down the street—but we had to.

The man was convicted of second-degree murder. I remember, months later when I was politicking, knocking on doors, I ran into the accused’s sister, who was quite upset with the reporting because she felt we didn’t show the other side and who she claimed was the victim, who was actually the man who was accused in the murder of this young man.

Speaker, the reason I’m bringing these stories forward is because in the role of Deputy Speaker, in the role of Speaker, you have to be objective. I’ve spent 35 years covering many, many stories where it would be so easy to simply state your opinion, to include your opinion in something because that’s how you feel, because you’re emotionally invested in the story of the day, but you can’t. That’s not your job. Your job is to look at all of the facts, present all of the facts and be as objective as possible.

Speaker, I believe that my experience in broadcast journalism has really prepared me well for this role. As I’ve mentioned, journalists are obligated to be impartial. We are required to hear and to consider all opinions and views on all issues. As a reporter, I had to reach out, speak to people and listen to the views of all of those people who were involved in the story, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not. I wasn’t allowed to allow my own opinion, my viewpoint, my bias, to get in the way of a balanced report, and I’m very proud of the role I played in that.

When I was a news reporter, I covered Hamilton city council, which I eventually ran in, and I had to report on the opinions and priorities of the councillors of the day. I kept my opinions to myself. My views were not reflected in my public reporting. I could not be accused of being a biased reporter.

For members of the opposition who may not think that I can relate to the so-called ordinary working people, my father was a railroad engineer. My mother was one of only four women in an executive role, as a receptionist who worked at a mine in our local community, and I went on to become the leader of our bargaining unit at CHCH in Hamilton. I understood the issues that faced the rank-and-file workers, and I fought to protect their wages and benefits and to improve working conditions, especially for the more vulnerable employees, and I was often clashing with management. I know how to negotiate. I’ve sat at the negotiating table, advocating for members. I was a voice for my colleagues.

During the recession in 2008, Canwest Global was threatening to simply shut down CHCH-TV. More than 150 jobs were at stake, and I went to bat for the employees and for CHCH Television itself. I travelled to Ottawa to speak before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and a parliamentary committee to fight for CHCH and to fight for all other struggling independent television stations. I wanted to preserve local news.

Speaker, I’ve been here for four years now. I know how the legislative process works. I’ve served on numerous committees, and prior to being elected to represent the people in Flamborough–Glanbrook, I served on Hamilton city council. I did so with respect and decorum. I received a lot of pushback as, I would say, one of the few Conservatives on a very left-leaning council. I received a lot of pushback from other councillors and members of the public—pushback from people who wanted to protect their own agendas and their own pet projects—but I stood my ground and respectfully defended my decision.

There has been a lot of discussion in this House recently about the importance of diversity and representation, and I am truly honoured to be appointed Deputy Speaker. I believe I have the background and experience to do the job well. I’ve been recognized for my work in advocacy in my hometown of Hamilton. I was recipient of the YWCA Woman of the Year in politics. And I never miss an opportunity to encourage women to run for political office. I served on the National Advisory Board for Canadian Culture. I’ve served on many local boards, such as Banyan Community Services, a not-for-profit organization serving at-risk youth and people with disabilities.

I’m a strong voice for my community, and I’ve been there championing local causes. I’ve been promoting initiatives that offer people skilled training, because I believe it’s the path to getting a better, well-paying job. I have assisted manufacturing firms in their bid to grow their business. I’ve been a voice for job creation in Hamilton and right across Ontario.

I’m both honoured and humbled by this appointment as Deputy Speaker. I promise you I will be fair and impartial. I will respect the integrity of this House. I will respect the role of each and every member of this House. I will respect parliamentary traditions, which include the right to be heard. I understand that debate can get very emotional, and I admire my colleagues, who are passionate about the issues that are most important to them, but in my role as Deputy Speaker I will ensure that debate is conducted in a respectful, courteous and civil manner. I will do my best to treat each member fairly. I will listen to each member respectfully and objectively.

This is my second term serving the people of Flamborough–Glanbrook. I’ve been in this House now for over four years, and I understand that members have differing views on issues. We all come from differing backgrounds, cultures and experiences. I’ve been in the thick of it. When the debate turns contentious—and heated at times, in fact—you have called me out on a few occasions, Mr. Speaker, but that’s because I’m passionate about the issues that I believe are important to people across Ontario and to people in this House. But, Speaker, you were doing your job. You were maintaining decorum and order in this House.

Speaker, if this motion is passed, I will be honoured and grateful to sit in the chair to serve as Deputy Speaker of the House.