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.