I’m just so disappointed to be rising today with a motion like this. I’m disappointed because I’m very proud to be here as an MPP.

I would like to cite, to start, the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. He has published on his website that “MPPs are expected to perform their duties of office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member, maintains the Legislative Assembly’s dignity and justifies the respect in which society holds the assembly and its members.” It was through this lens that I sought to answer the question as to whether the continued actions—not just the recent actions, but the continued actions—of the member for Hamilton Centre were unbecoming of a member and reflective of censure.

I don’t think it escapes any one of us that—just take a look at Reddit or other social media forums to be reminded that no matter what our political stripe is and no matter what we say or do, there are individuals who will denounce us and our motivations as an MPP simply for being a member of our particular political party. I get that too. My community has not historically supported Progressive Conservative members. It’s tough to take. I’ve been in the public eye back home for the better part of the last 15 years. Eight days from now, actually, it will be nine continuous years that I will have served as an elected official.

I ask out loud, Speaker, why do we as members seek to serve as elected officials? Are we to truly interpret that when we achieve an election result, it’s an endorsement of our individual personal views? Or are we here in spite of those views? Are we here because of our party? Or are we here because we’re the least of the worst options? Are we here to be of service to our community members? Are we here to engage respectfully with those who disagree with us?

Speaker, one memory I’ll never forget, and it has to do with our party, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. We had a convention about five years ago. It took place just a few weeks after the election of the then-government. There were new faces who arrived and new voices, and they decided to use their voices and their votes to escalate a previously rejected resolution that insulted Ontario’s gender identities. This vote was widely reported in the media and reflected poorly on all of us as PC members who were in attendance at that convention. It was truly a difficult wake-up call that if you don’t use your voice, someone else will use it for you.

In this case, I put in a call to the Premier. Despite the criticism we heard this morning, I think it’s terrific that the Premier gives his phone number to constituents all across Ontario. At the time, I was nobody special. I picked up the phone and I called him. I left a voicemail. I said in that message that I entered public life because I wanted to help people, and I could not understand how this resolution that was brought forward at our convention and being now considered by the party could actually help to make someone’s life better. Well, a few minutes later, the Premier returned that call, and later that day, the Premier announced that this resolution would never be adopted in a provincial government that he leads.

The Premier’s actions demonstrated a moral clarity. His heart is rooted in helping people. As I said, I was a nobody, and he returned my call. The contrast in the approaches that we’ve seen in this House since that time has not been lost on me.

Speaker, we live in a world today where very little can be or is attempted to be hidden. That’s why, in the early morning of October 7, relayed to the entire world was the outright celebration of the killing of civilians, with images circulated by those having been proud to have committed those crimes. That image of the young woman, dead, paraded as a trophy in the back of a pickup truck, is one that I will certainly never forget, and I doubt anyone else will either. How could anybody possibly celebrate this?

In light of these events, the member for Hamilton Centre attended a rally on October 8. It was dubbed as a celebration of the heroic Palestinian resistance. The same rally was incidentally decried by Toronto mayor Olivia Chow. This event occurred the day after the Hamas terrorist organization had killed an estimated 800 Israelis and taken at least 100 hostages, including mothers, children and the elderly. Mayor Chow noted, “Glorifying this weekend’s indiscriminate violence, including murder and kidnapping of women and children by Hamas against Israeli civilians is deplorable.” Our Prime Minister also noted, “I strongly condemn the demonstrations that have taken place, and are taking place, across the country in support of Hamas’s attacks on Israel.”

Days later, on October 10, the member for Hamilton Centre posted to her social media feed, armed with our provincial crest and her title as MPP, with a statement that cited that the “violence and retaliation” was “rooted in settler colonialism.” It lacked any empathy for the victims of the senseless murders and atrocities of Israeli civilians that should have been owed. The member’s statement was prefaced with, “I’m reflecting on my role as a politician who is participating in this settler colonial system, and I ask that all politicians do the same.”

Later, on October 10, the Leader of the Opposition published that she had asked the MPP, the member for Hamilton Centre, to retract her statement, noting, “The terrorist attacks by Hamas on thousands of innocent Israeli citizens are unjustifiable and must be condemned unequivocally.” I thank the Leader of the Opposition for making that clear statement at the time.

Steve Paikin, writing for the Trillium, noted, “But is that a smart thing to tweet right now, as the corpses of 1,000 dead Israelis are still being collected and taken to graveyards, and when her leader, Marit Stiles, has asked her to take the message down? There are two synagogues within 10 minutes’ drive of”—the member’s—“constituency office. I wonder how their members feel about that statement?”

So 24 hours later was the next action taken, but it wasn’t the member for Hamilton Centre who retracted their statement; it was the Leader of the Opposition who retracted hers. The original statement from the member for Hamilton Centre remains intact, published for maximum exposure as a pinned post. It’s meant to be seen. It is there to be as visible as possible to anyone who visits that feed. Yes, the words “I apologize” were appended in the comments and were, together with moderated concern for the Hamas violence with reference to historical actions in Gaza.

Speaker, I recall having been here for the first statement in this House by the member for Hamilton Centre. It was on April 3; it was my brother’s birthday. She said at the time in her opening statement: “The issues I care a lot about are health care, housing and climate and making sure to tackle the disabling conditions caused by harmful legislation in the House. I’m not here to be preoccupied by the strange rituals or this colonial building. I’m here because Hamilton Centre knows that I am a fighter and I’m going to make sure that people are protected, that we’re fighting for health care, housing and the issues that people need to live, because people are dying, Mr. Speaker, because of harm caused in this House.”

As noted earlier, most of our first statements are celebratory in nature and full of optimism. This is a denigration of the work that we do. In referring to our legislative affairs as being a settler-colonial system, strange rituals, a colonial building and disabling conditions caused by harmful legislation in this House, the member’s statements back then demonstrated a disrespect for the work carried out here over and above the disrespect demonstrated toward her own constituents of the Jewish faith in her statement.

Speaker, there is truly room for respectful dialogue in this House. Members can raise legitimate grievances on behalf of Palestinians, including opposing settlement expansion in the West Bank, humanitarian concerns for Gazans living under the terrorist government of Hamas and grievances relating to the resettlement of Palestinians at the founding of the modern state of Israel. Similarly, people of the Jewish faith have a legitimate grievance on the account of the 3,000-year history in Israel and attempts to harm them and remove them from these lands throughout history.

The rhetoric of colonialism, settlers and apartheid as invoked by the member for Hamilton Centre is hardly collaborative, respectful or empathetic to all who have opinions in our communities. There are legitimate historical claims on all sides. As MPPs, we are truly responsible to respond to those opinions with compassion, with empathy, dignity and respect for the position being articulated, whether we agree with it or not.

Speaker, I’d like to cite some posts made on X by a constituent of mine. His name is Noah Tepperman. Mr. Tepperman is a long-standing activist, a truly incredible canvasser, fundraiser and organizer for the NDP riding association of Windsor–Tecumseh. Certainly, he was on my predecessor’s campaign over and over again and does a heck of a job. He is a household name, truly well-respected, and he possesses a moral clarity in his own right that most of us can only hope to achieve. Mr. Tepperman published this on X: “As we wrestle with the news that ‘dozens of babies were reportedly found dead, including some that had been beheaded’ in a kibbutz stormed by Hamas”—the member for Hamilton Centre—“who has already alienated and written off the majority of her constituent Jewish community—stands in solidarity with Hamas.”

But Mr. Tepperman also put forward a very interesting statement with respect to something completely different, a different response—another individual who is critical of the situation at hand. His response to her was this: “This is a great example of an opportunity to practise diversity, equity and inclusion. Someone received what you said as being problematic. The response should be to pause, express regret for that impact, acknowledge the disconnect between your intent and impact, bring curiosity, and ask for help understanding.”

The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Hamilton Centre would have done very well to heed Mr. Tepperman’s wise counsel, but neither appear to have chosen that path.

It appears that the concerns expressed back in March by Michael Mostyn, B’nai Brith Canada’s chief executive officer, have fallen on deaf ears. Back at that time he noted, “There should be no room in the Legislature for a member whose demonizing of the Jewish state will only lead to more hate aimed at Jews in Ontario.”

Marvin Rotrand, national director of the League of Human Rights, noted the member for Hamilton Centre’s “candidacy reinforces the perception that there’s an anti-Semitism problem in the Ontario NDP and an unwillingness to seriously confront it.... It doesn’t take much research to discover the member’s animus towards the Jewish state.” Speaker, even if the thoughts were well intentioned and true, who can truly sit here and feel comfortable to be referenced in this way?

On March 15 of this year, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center met the Leader of the Opposition for what the centre described as “a frank discussion on anti-Semitism linked to” the now member for Hamilton Centre. During the meeting, President and CEO Michael Levitt brought up two incidents that had already occurred involving the member and expressed disappointment over the failure by both individuals—both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Hamilton Centre—to publicly acknowledge the harm done, to apologize and communicate a commitment to confront anti-Semitism. The FSWC added that it had “proposed a constructive road forward” by “offering anti-Semitism education to the Ontario NDP” caucus. We haven’t heard of further action on the part of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to these actions for the member for Hamilton Centre.

On May 2, the Ontario NDP proceeded to publish on today’s X, formerly Twitter, that the MPP for Hamilton Centre retweeted a tweet by American academic Noura Erakat concerning the death of Khader Adnan and later un-retweeted it: “The content of the tweet does not reflect the views of the member or the Ontario NDP.”

B’nai Brith responded, “Khader Adnan was not a martyr for freedom. He was a convicted terrorist and member of PIJ: a listed entity in Canada. Endorsing such a narrative is an affront to his innocent victims and is unbecoming of an elected official.”

Speaker, this House is governed by decorum and procedures as published. As a candidate for the NDP and as an MPP proper, it is your role and responsibility to not only represent and maintain the credibility required to support your community, but to not consciously and deliberately undertake actions that leave your own standing, that of your caucus and that of your leader in disrepute. I entered politics because I wanted to help people. How many residents of Hamilton Centre are being helped by the member’s statement, by her participation in the rally, by the words that she speaks and by the repeated condemnation of the words that she publishes?

In closing, I’m unable to consider the repeated actions of the member for Hamilton Centre as being consistent with the standard of duty expected of members of provincial Parliament, and I will be supporting the motion as presented.

Further debate?

It’s an honour to be able to speak today, as it always is, in this Legislative Assembly of Ontario. But it is with a heavy heart that I do have to speak about this particular issue and it’s not an issue I think anybody in the assembly wants to discuss because we don’t want to be in the position where we even have to discuss it.

Having said that, I’m here to represent the people of Oakville, all people of Oakville, to address the matter that not only deeply concerns my community but reflects upon the integrity and standards we uphold in this assembly.

I’m sure everybody here in this assembly, everyone watching on TV or watching today’s proceedings will remember where they were when they first heard what happened on October 7. I know I was getting ready in the early morning, waking up with my family at my cottage to celebrate Thanksgiving, and having just seen the news, having to talk to my family members about what I had just heard. I will never forget having to talk to them and discuss what I was seeing happen halfway around the world, just like many of us will not forget what happened and where we were on 9/11. I’m sure everybody in this particular Legislature will remember where they were and what they thought when 9/11 occurred.

Unfortunately, 1,200 or more people were massacred that morning by an extreme genocidal terrorist organization. Now, those people were not only Israeli Jews, they were foreign nationals: Canadians, Americans, Filipinos, Thai and also, I might add, Arabs. And from what I understand, what the terrorists did to the Arabs they found, of which there were quite a few, is something that could not even be thought of in this House.

I want to certainly say that I am saddened by the events and I’m saddened by the widespread impact that prejudice and hate have in our world. We are in an age of connection, but yet we still grapple with biases that divide us. And my heart goes out to everybody that’s been hurt by these injustices, here and globally. So to all of those affected by these events, I offer my sincere condolences.

It’s unfortunate that we as elected officials have to even take time from our mandate to serve the people of Ontario to address the unsavoury remarks and behaviour from the member from Hamilton Centre. I would also like to say I think it’s important in this House to have discussion, debate, and I would hope that there are some issues which bring everybody in this House together. There are some issues that are so critical to our democracy and our humanity that should bring us together. And I think this issue is one of them, and I’m sad to see the opposition not even discussing or talking about this particular issue.

The matter at hand pertains to the member from Hamilton Centre. The House, the assembly, which represents the people, is concerned about the disreputable conduct, particularly the use of social media to express anti-Semitic sentiments and statements concerning the State of Israel and its defence against the terrorist group Hamas. We unequivocally express our disapproval of such actions.

It is our collective responsibility to mandate and uphold the values of unity, understanding and fairness. It is paramount that we confront biases and racism, especially when they are in our esteemed institutions. And we as elected officials have even more responsibility. Our words are powerful. Our words are in Hansard forever. Our words are in the media and they’re magnified. So it’s even more important that people of this assembly think about what they’re going to say.

Our resolution today is clear: We demand that the member from Hamilton Centre refrains from further unbecoming and inappropriate conduct, and in recognizing the gravity of her actions, we propose that the Speaker is authorized to not recognize her until she retracts her statements and offers a formal apology in the House.

Diving into the core issue, the recent tragic events in Israel and Gaza have impacted all of us. The profound scale of devastation, with women and children and older adults being subject to the violence, is heart-wrenching. The Israeli response to the assault by Hamas, where many civilians, including those in the safety of their own homes, lost their lives, showcases the high intensity of this region.

The events of October 7, where terrorists from Gaza launched rockets towards Israeli towns and breached the Israeli border, resulting in the tragic loss of over 1,400 lives and the hostage-taking of at least 200 individuals, are a stark reminder of the inhumanity of these terrorists.

We need to remember an important point as well: that the actions of this brutal terrorist organization need to be separated from the innocent people of Gaza and Palestine. The Hamas terrorists also terrorize their own population. There are no free elections; there’s no democracy. Back in 2007, when they took control of Gaza, opposition members were liquidated, exterminated, executed. There’s no democratic free press in Gaza. There’s no human and minority rights. You don’t have a choice whether you wear a hijab or not. There are no openly gay Gazans. It is a dictatorship, a theocracy.

God forbid if you call out the Hamas leaders for corruption or mismanagement or, even worse, their terror tactics. It is a total and complete terrorist dictatorship. The Palestinian people are also held hostage to the Hamas terrorist organization. Many countries around the world, including Arab countries, call Hamas a terrorist organization.

My heart goes out to all of those affected by the events in Israel and subsequently in Gaza and the innocent citizens from both regions. It’s a sombre reality that in our world, innocent women, children and elderly are not spared from conflict.

Israel faced a horrifying assault, with an overwhelming number of civilian casualties and many taken as hostages by the terrorist group Hamas. Unfortunately, the magnitude of this terror attack is unparalleled in recent history, with Israelis not having experienced this scale since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Addressing these issues is hard but vital. History has shown the harm caused by hatred like anti-Semitism. Here in Ontario, we need to stand united against such prejudices. Being silent is not an option; it goes against our values. Prejudice leaves real scars affecting people, here and globally. We must understand that anti-Semitism’s impact is in our past as well as present.

Canada is home to the fourth-largest Jewish community globally, a vibrant group of over 390,000 individuals. Our Jewish community is diverse and deeply rooted in both European and Middle Eastern traditions. Yet even in a country known for its commitment to tolerance, the sinister spectre of anti-Semitism looms large.

From the streets of our cities and to the vast expanse of the digital world, anti-Semitism manifests in Canada in various forms: vandalism and hate-filled graffiti; disturbing propaganda and hate propaganda; racist and intolerant language on platforms such as X, comment sections, web forums and blogs; bomb threats aimed at Jewish schools and community centres, creating an atmosphere of fear and insecurity; intimidation faced by Jewish students at universities; and a growing trend to delegitimize the state of Israel through movements like BDS.

On the global scale, the situation remains grim. Hate crimes, especially those affecting Jewish people and Jewish communities, have exploded recently. Historically, escalations in Middle Eastern conflicts, like those we’ve witnessed recently, were correlated with a rise in anti-Semitic incidents, not just in Canada but around the globe. The importance of addressing this issue transcends national borders. It’s a global call to action, a reminder that the fight against prejudice and discrimination is one we must all partake in for the sake of all Canadians and all of humanity throughout the world. To really understand anti-Semitism, we need to look at its long history. It’s not a recent issue; it’s been with us for ages, affecting countless lives.

Anti-Semitism can trace its roots back thousands of years, from the ancient world with the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem by the Romans, to the Middle Ages in Europe where Jews faced persecution, expulsions and forced conversions. The narrative is one of persistent bias and animosity. The bias was often rooted in religious differences, but later it evolved into economic, social and political factors.

Fast-forward to modern history and we encounter one of humanity’s darkest periods: the Holocaust. The systematic extermination of six million Jews by Nazi Germany was the culmination of deeply entrenched anti-Semitic views. This tragedy was not an isolated event but was the result of centuries of discrimination and injustice. The echoes of the Holocaust still reverberate today, serving as a chilling reminder of where unchecked hatred can lead.

In the post-Holocaust era, while there has been a global acknowledgement of the atrocities, anti-Semitism neither disappeared nor diminished. From the Soviet Union’s discrimination against Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism to the current tragic events in Israel and Gaza, the thread of bias continues. Recalling this history tells us we must always be alert and fight against these biases, not just anti-Semitism. It’s up to us to make sure history does not repeat itself and to give further generations a world without these burdens from the past.

However, while we currently confront the dark chapters of anti-Semitism, we are also reminded of the immense power of strong and effective leadership. Throughout history, and even in recent times, leaders who have chosen to stand firm against prejudice have showcased the profound impact of taking a stand. Their action serves as a testament to the significance of leadership in guiding societies towards unity and away from division.

Democracy thrives on open conversation and differing views. But when these views become prejudiced or intolerant, they challenge our democratic values. We must ask, how often have these biases surfaced right here in our democratic core?

Now, some of the members of this Legislature were here in the previous Parliament, where I’m reminded of incidents with the former MPP from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. That member, during his tenure, made comments that were considered by many as inappropriate, insensitive and even racist. Whether it was his divisive remarks on certain communities or racist comments directed even to a federal cabinet minister or the controversies stirred by his public statements, these incidents became focal points of heated debates in this very assembly. This conduct was unbecoming of a member of this assembly. He was censured unanimously by this Legislature.

As representatives of the people, we carry the responsibility of upholding the principles of democracy, but also setting an example to the citizens we represent. We must strive every day to ensure the Ontario Legislature remains a beacon of unity, understanding and respect. As public figures and members of this House, our influence reaches far and wide. With such influence comes great responsibility.

To the matter at hand to which I’m talking about, the remarks made by the member for Hamilton Centre on social media are not just troubling, but deeply concerning. Using a platform of influence to preach anti-Semitic and discriminatory views related to the State of Israel and its predominantly Jewish population is neither constructive nor becoming of a member of this House. The member has leveraged her power to foster division. Her official remarks are counterproductive, especially in matters as sensitive and complicated as the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Such statements don’t just remain words on a screen; they ripple out, gaining momentum, influencing perceptions and further polarizing communities. At a time when we should be building bridges and fostering dialogue, such remarks threaten to widen divides, adding fuel to existing tensions. It’s not only hurting Ontarians, but more specifically, the community of Hamilton Centre which she represents.

My colleague from Oakville North–Burlington discussed earlier about former residents of her riding that were now living in Hamilton Centre and reaching out to her because they didn’t know who else to reach.

This incident has cast a shadow on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It’s denting the reputation we’ve worked so hard to maintain. Government motion number 19 is not just about the actions of one member, but it stands as a testament to the standards and principles we as a collective body choose to uphold. It is our duty as representatives of the people of Ontario to denounce any form of bigotry or intolerance. By supporting this motion, we send a clear message: There is no room for hate in this assembly, period.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our democracy, but there’s a crucial difference between sharing views that are hateful. Our roles in this House amplify our words, making their impact even greater. Beyond the immediate circumstances, by adopting government motion number 19, we signal to present and future members of this House and to the broader public that the assembly is committed to safeguarding the principles of unity, understanding and respect. This motion serves as a deterrent and clear message that any form of bigotry, discrimination or hate will not be tolerated.

We are affirming that in this assembly, we prioritize the well-being of all Ontarians above all else. This motion and the importance of this motion cannot be understated. It is a reflection of our commitment to upholding the highest standards of conduct, championing the values that bind us as Ontarians and ensuring that this House remains a beacon to respect, inclusivity and unity.

Our assembly has clearly articulated its stance. The actions and statements of the member for Hamilton Centre on social media were inflammatory and discriminatory, and not reflective of what this House stands for. It’s imperative that the members recognize the magnitude of her actions and the discord that they have sewn.

Final point I would like to highlight: This motion is directed at fighting discrimination and hate. We stand united against the terror organization Hamas. We are standing with the Jewish community, but we are also with the Muslim community who has at times faced discrimination and terror even right here. The horrible circumstances in London, Ontario where an innocent Muslim family who was murdered in a terror attack comes to mind.

For the sake of unity and integrity of this institution, we demand the member from Hamilton Centre desist, delete and apologize to this House. This includes retracting and deleting her problematic statements on social media and offering a genuine apology in this House.

As elected leaders, we have an obligation and duty to lead by example. I truly hope the member from Hamilton Centre will reflect on her words and do the right thing. It’s critically important for the sanctity of this House that the member from Hamilton Centre retract and apologize.

Further debate?

Usually when I rise in the House, I always start by thanking God for giving me an opportunity, giving me this job, thanking my family and my extended family, and thanking the residents of Mississauga–Malton. Because as we know, as the Solicitor General said earlier, there are less than 2,000 people who had this privilege to make an impactful change to our province for the better by bringing the best of ourselves here, by seeing beyond the impediments, the biases, the intolerances, and bringing hope and dreams to life.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak on a serious matter. A matter of understanding how, in this House of responsibility, our words and actions have impact. And from that impact, it leads to the consequences on those around us.

Our Solicitor General talked about the founding principles of our democracy. Democracy of the best of who we are matters. The rule of law matters. The right to live safely in our homes and communities matters. And the right to live free of hate matters. It matters a lot. Democracy matters. Tolerance matters. Respect matters. Caring for each other matters. And regardless of our faith, our culture, our religion, our individualities or exceptionalities, the love, the respect, the tolerance, the care matters.

So it is very important to talk about this motion so that we can give the joy which all Ontarians have to the next generations to come. That’s how it matters.

Before I start, I want to talk about a phrase that is engraved in my life, something which I have seen myself, something which I learned from my grandmother, from my father: When innocent people die, innocent families suffer. Starting with 1947, when the partition happened, when India and Pakistan were born—the time my father and my mother both were born in Gujranwala, Pakistan, and they had to immigrate to India. While on that journey, they lost many of their relatives. And they were not alone. During the time, there were 15 million people who were displaced. It cost two million lives, which is two million innocent people who were killed. When those two million people were killed, the families for those two million people suffered for generations. I’ll give you an example.

Even though they were safe, they came, but they had to start from scratch, they had to work hard to go back to the basics of life. I’m thankful to God for giving my parents their education. My father was a very smart man, but he could only study up to grade 10 because he could not afford to after that. Immediately, he had to go to work because he had to feed his newly married wife, who actually started a job just after they got married but couldn’t continue because they wanted to raise us. Yes, he survived, but he could not do the best for himself. That is what matters when we talk about the innocent people who died. Those who survived, those innocent families, suffered.

I was born in Punjab, India, in 1972. When we talk about the Punjab crisis, when we talk about the dark time of the Punjab from 1980 to 1993—during the crisis, I was eight years old when it started. During the dark time, many, many innocent people were killed; from the buses, from the shelters, from many places.

I’ll give you some of the examples which I’ve taken out from the newspapers, Madam Speaker. In October 1983, eight people—I would rather say eight innocents—were killed. They were killed for no fault of their own. Madam Speaker, when they were killed, when these innocent people died, their innocent families suffered. We saw, in 1984, genocide—over 3,000 innocent people died. When these 3,000 innocent people died, were killed, many, many innocent families suffered. In 1986, 13 innocent civilians were killed in fighting. July 1986: 15 bus passengers killed. November 1986: 24 innocent bus passengers gunned down. The list is endless.

Madam Speaker, during this time, many youngsters took up arms, many went missing and many of those have never returned. When those never returned—when those innocent people died—many, many of their innocent families are still suffering. While the actual number of these killings during this decade-long violence, which started at the age of eight and it got finished by the time I was age 21—and I wasn’t alone. Almost every family in Punjab and every Punjabi can never forget those dark days. As I said, many, many youths have gone missing.

This painful cycle of violence—what I see now around the world, it reminds me of the human cost of conflict. When I was looking at the media report, the death toll—1,400 people killed and 3,800 injured since October 7. They’re not outsiders, Madam Speaker. The pain for many of those here at home—six Canadians known so far. My heart races when I look at the data and the information and I’m going to try to say: Shir Georgy, age 22; Ben Mizrachi, age 22. When innocent people die, innocent families suffer—

Further debate?

Thank you, Speaker. Please continue.

I apologize to the member from Mississauga–Malton. Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on this motion. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the deputy government House leader.