I thank the members very much for their remarks. Both of them touched on the practical elements of this bill. In fact, I’m also glad that the member from Niagara West touched on the acreage issue because this is one where numbers are thrown out. I think that they’re—yes, let’s get some updated numbers. I thank the member for doing that.

I also appreciate the member’s perspective on the length of time it has taken housing to be developed in our province. I can only imagine how young this young member would have been when some of these projects first started, but I think it’s all the more relevant for, as he noted, the young folks in the gallery. This bill is intended to support young homeowners—again, unlike myself. But I want to understand the member’s perspective and what the key drivers are to enhancing home building that are contained in this bill.

I thank the speaker for her remarks—very comprehensive, and she covered many issues in her remarks today, which is a lot like the housing market itself: It’s complex. There are many elements to it and it’s not straightforward. That’s why we’re bringing forth this bill—in fact, our 13th red tape bill, which is quite extraordinary in and of itself. There’s got to be some record there. Red tape bills are not glamorous—as I said earlier, much like myself.

But I heard her say many times that there are a number of areas in this bill that she would support, and I appreciated that. Reflecting on the complexity of the subject and the measures required, would these positive elements of the bill allow you to support the legislation?

I thank the speaker very much for your remarks on this bill; it’s an important one.

There are a number of elements to this bill that I think are so supportive for post-secondary institutions: the sustainability fund, which provides underlying support for the sector, working with universities and post-secondary institutions—to work with them on their operations to make them work toward long-term sustainability; the tuition freeze, such a benefit for students; and, of course, the work on the mental health element for student support.

My question to the member is, isn’t this a wide range of measures that you could see supporting through this bill?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for his remarks. I always appreciate listening to him. In fact, his area makes me draw back to earlier in my life when I was a rebar bender at the Stoney Creek plant of Harris Steel back when—so a connection on labour and one very small part for me.

Anyway, I noted his remarks on the tolls and I noted his reaction that—observing there was very strong, positive press from that announcement, and we were pleased with that. And that shows that the folks out there who—pleased to hear confirmation there are no tolls on—whether it’s the QEW down to Niagara, Don Valley Parkway or other highways.

So won’t the member support us in this confirmation of no new tolls on these—

I thank the member for her remarks. She touched on a couple of subjects.

Before I start, I want to say the words “climate change” for the member from Beaches–East York, just to put it on the record.

I noted the speaker’s comments on housing and, in particular, the topic of intensification. I’d just like to make it very clear that of the 1.5 million homes that will be built over the next 10 years, the vast, vast majority of them will be intensification within existing municipal boundaries. In fact, I hope she would acknowledge that the new housing policy passed by the city of Toronto last fall was a direct result, frankly, of the work this government has done. Would she agree that that intensification is the right approach for housing in our province?

I thank the member for her remarks on the fall economic statement. It’s much appreciated.

The member was talking a lot about affordability throughout, and I just wanted to offer three points to have her and her party consider:

(1) We’re extending the removal of the gas tax to mid-June to keep the cost for Ontarians low. That’s an affordability measure.

(2) We’re removing the HST from rental construction projects, which will enhance the affordability of rental properties throughout Ontario.

(3) Overall program spending is $193 billion expected versus $173 billion, which is an increase of 11% over the year—well in excess of inflation.

Does that not cause the member to consider supporting this bill?

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.

Thank you to the members opposite for their comments. A question to the member from Don Valley West: I was listening to her remarks, and I think I heard “uninspiring” and “mediocre” in describing the budget. I just wanted to run a few numbers by her, Madam Speaker, through you: infrastructure investments of $184.4 billion, including $70 billion for transit, the biggest in the history of the province; health care infrastructure, $56 billion; highways, $28 billion; education, $22 billion; economic development, $17 billion of investment in electric vehicle and battery plants; $8 billion of cost reductions for businesses which, by the way, will enhance productivity, which I know is an important issue for the member.

I don’t know about you, but those numbers, to me, actually seem very inspiring. Would the member not agree and support us in this budget?