I’m just rising on standing order number 59, outlining the status of business for next week, and to thank colleagues for a productive week.

As you announced earlier, Mr. Speaker, we will be returning Monday morning at 9 a.m. and we will be seized with government order number 39, which, of course, is the censure motion for the member for Hamilton Centre. In the afternoon, we will have an opposition day debate, opposition day number 3, and Bill 135, which is the Convenient Care at Home Act.

In the morning of Tuesday, October 24, we will move to Bill 135 again, the Convenient Care at Home Act, and in the afternoon, we will be moving to Bill 65, standing in the name of the member for Whitby, which is the Honouring Our Veterans Act. In the evening, we will have private member’s motion number 65.

On Wednesday, October 25, in the morning, we will continue with the Honouring Our Veterans Act in the name of the member for Whitby. In the afternoon, we will be seized with the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington’s private member’s motion number 69, which is a “carbon tax on groceries” motion. In the evening, we will be debating Bill 38.

On Thursday, October 26, in the morning and in the afternoon, we will be debating a government bill which will be introduced later on today, and in the evening, we will be on private member’s motion number 66.

I will be rising as well in the House to speak in favour of this motion. I thought, to start my remarks, I would quote from the motion and read it to frame my thinking on this subject:

“That this House expresses its disapproval of, and disassociates itself from, continued disreputable conduct by the member for Hamilton Centre, most specifically her use of social media to make anti-Semitic and discriminatory statements related to the existence of the State of Israel and its defence against Hamas terrorists; and

“That this House demands the member desist from further conduct that is inappropriate and unbecoming of a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

“That the Speaker is authorized to not recognize the member for Hamilton Centre in the House until the member retracts and deletes her statements on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.”

This motion is probably the most challenging topic I have seen us talk about here in my time as MPP for the last 16 months. It has caused me to step back and reflect on that, the role we all have and where and how we do it. Because at the root of it, being a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is a great privilege that we all share. It’s hard work, and our motive is to get things done, but it is a great privilege.

I begin by reflecting on the place where we conduct our work, this beautiful building that we’re in today. Every day when I come in—the grounds around here, statues that reflect on history of this place and of our province. I come in the east door and past the statue there of Agnes Macphail, the first elected woman in Canada in the House of Commons in 1921. It happens to be that she grew up about 20 minutes from where I live in Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound—a marvellous, amazing lady. All the challenges she would have had to face in getting elected are just extraordinary. And some other beautiful pictures of so many of the first women elected to this chamber: Rae Luckock, Margaret Birch, Margaret Scrivener, Andrea Horwath, Kathleen Wynne. Over the years, it’s now equality, effectively, but that history causes me to reflect. The names on the walls and being sworn-in as one of 2,000 or so members is quite extraordinary.

I was also a page back a few years ago. Yes, that’s right: 1972; yes, 51 years ago. It was a while. Bill Davis was Premier—Darcy McKeough, Bob Nixon, Bette Stephenson. I reflect on that with this motion just because it sets the scene of where we all do our work and emphasize that it is a great privilege to serve in this House and that our actions and words should reflect that privilege.

Most of the time, the discourse in the House does reflect that. Yes, question period can be divisive at times—maybe almost all the time—but the roots of the issues are sincere. When speeches are made and bills are introduced and tributes are made and motions, do we always agree? No. But we share the passion and the commitment for getting things done in what we believe in. I saw that the other night in the private member’s motion debate that we had. I was so grateful for that kind of co-operative atmosphere that we saw. To me that was probably the highlight of my time here, and it also caused me to reflect a little bit on before I was elected.

I’ve climbed a few mountains, done four of the world’s seven summits—who knows whether I’m going to do any more. But my first mountain, approaching the summit caused me to reflect. I stopped and I was looking around and down to my right, it was about 1,000 feet straight down. I said, “Byers, take your next step and make sure it’s the best one you can take.” Happily, I did, and I got down, but that moment caused me to reflect on life as well, and it brings it back to what we do in this place. Let’s be motivated to take the best next step that we can.

That brings me back to this motion because it’s so unfortunate that the words and actions of the MPP from Hamilton Centre are, in fact, instead of a step forward, a real step back. We need to stay focused on making those steps forward.

This motion of censure is rare, but it has been done before. In fact, it has been done by us, our party, to one of our own members in the past. As the government House leader commented, it was in early 2022 when the past member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston made the derogatory and racist remarks about a federal cabinet minister and used social media to post messages inciting violence. The House swiftly came together to unanimously censure him in much the same words as the motion we’re debating today does.

At the time, the House ordered apologies be made by the member. It asked the Speaker to assess the sincerity of such apologies, and it ordered the member to desist from further contact. In other words, this has been done before. It’s not easy, and we’ve done it ourselves. I think that’s a very important thought to have here as we consider this motion.

Reflecting again on our thoughts from the House leader, fundamental to our system of government is the ability of a Parliament to maintain institutional respect and dignity so it can fulfill its constitutional duty. That’s why, since the foundation of our Westminster system of Parliament, the two most significant rights which Parliaments have maintained are the collective rights to discipline and to regulate their own internal affairs.

It is expected that members will hold varied and sometimes unpopular opinions. They may even compromise their own personal dignity at times, but what can not be compromised is the public respect for the institution itself. That’s why, over the course of history, when faced with a conduct so unbecoming that it reflects on the entire institution, Parliaments have sparingly but swiftly exercised their disciplinary powers to protect the institution from the actions of any individual, whether a member of the public or a member of that Parliament. That, again, reflects on why we are discussing this motion.

I’ve been listening to the remarks from other members—really excellent thoughts. The member from Essex talked about—I’ve never been to Israel myself, but his reflection on going there, seeing what he saw and making the comment as others have, that on the Holocaust—in what happened on October 7, more people in Israel were killed than any time since the Holocaust, just an unbelievable notion.

The member from Cambridge mentioned his trip to the Dachau concentration camp and what an impactful event that was. He also mentioned the six Canadians who have been killed in this conflict.

The member from Whitby talked about the events in his community and reflections on the recent difficult days.

The member from Ottawa South, I acknowledge, said we need to come together and build trust. I agree. We should move towards that.

Beautiful remarks from the member from York Centre—his passion in choosing the harder right, he called it.

The member from Oakville North–Burlington told stories about her family coming to Canada and the links between Greece and the Holocaust.

The member from Barrie–Innisfil’s passionate remarks in reference to constitutions were very good.

Of course, our member from Thornhill: beautiful remarks and so passionate about the activities in her community—I believe the largest Jewish community in all of Canada, or even North America, so quite extraordinary. Thank you so much for sharing those.

These remarks all cause me to reflect on our role here and this motion. This matter strikes the very heart of the principles on which our democratic institution was founded. It’s an issue that demands our undivided attention, not merely as representatives of our diverse constituencies, but as representatives of our great province.

The motion before us pertains to a member’s use of social media, a powerful tool in our age, to disseminate opinions and perspectives that have been perceived as both anti-Semitic and discriminatory. Ontario is an interconnected collection of cultures, faiths and histories, and stands as a testament to the world that diversity is our strength. Regardless of background, every individual contributes to the unique tapestry of our shared identity. Therefore, when any member of this House bestowed with public trust chooses to use their platform to threaten this harmony, it’s our collective responsibility to address it and rectify.

It causes me to think again of Agnes Macphail and all the work she went into to go to the House of Commons and to this chamber. I can only imagine what she would be thinking in hearing about the comments from the member from Hamilton Centre and how disrespectful it is of the institution of our Legislature.

Free speech is a fundamental right in many democratic societies. It ensures that individuals have the liberty to express their thoughts, ideas and opinions without facing retribution. However, like many rights, it’s not absolute and does not exist in a vacuum. When one exercises the right to free speech, especially in a public or shared space, there are inherent responsibilities that come with it. These obligations aren’t necessarily legal but are based on societal norms, mutual respect and the preservation of a harmonious community.

While individuals can hold personal beliefs, intentionally spreading false information can be harmful. In the context of anti-Semitic comments, it’s essential to differentiate between holding a view and perpetrating harmful stereotypes and falsehoods.

Today’s debate transcends the motion at hand. It delves into the essence of our roles. That’s why I was reflecting on the place where we do our work and how we do that work. It is a great privilege, and our actions both here and elsewhere need to reflect that privilege. As we chart our path forward, let us be guided by wisdom, understanding and an unwavering commitment to the principles that define us, for the strength of Ontario lies not just in the voices of its representatives but in its people’s unity, harmony and shared vision. Let’s champion this unity today and always. That is why I will be supporting this motion.

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.