Again, I will reiterate: Ontarians continue to have access to the care they need when they need it. That is our priority as a government. Frankly, I’m surprised that the member opposite isn’t talking about the great investments that we are making in the Niagara region with the Niagara hospital. We are making the investments that, frankly, the Liberals and the NDP never did. We’re making the investments because we understand that, in order to keep Ontario strong, we need to build Ontario, and we are doing that. We are doing that economically, in our school system and in our health care system, and we will continue to do that. Why, Speaker? Because we want Ontario to continue to be the best place to live, raise a family and stay healthy. We’ll do that.

The opposition can fight and talk about issues that, frankly, we have already acted on. We are already building in Niagara a world-class health care system. Come join us.

I do appreciate the question from the member, because it is actually a very serious one, despite the catcalling from the opposition.

I want to thank broadcasting services. Trying to keep a building this old running each and every day is truly amazing, and they do extraordinary work.

Just yesterday when you saw the speech from the throne—I’m sure as members were coming here they saw wires all over the place. That’s what it takes to keep a building this old operating. That is why the Premier has made the decision, working together with members on all sides of the House, that it is time for us to look at different options to renovate this building, bring it back to the stature it was when it first opened, to provide the people of the province of Ontario a Legislative Assembly that can be here for the next 150 years.

We are going to work very closely with members on all sides of this House to make sure that we give Ontarians the best possible Legislative Assembly, one that they can be proud of. We’re well on our way to making that happen.

Interjections.

The reality is, the Leader of the Opposition isn’t sitting in his traditional seat, not because the place is too small but because the NDP caucus is small. But we’re going to fix that. We’re going to fix that, because this place needs to be here for the next generation of parliamentarians who sit in this place. Regardless of how they feel about it, this side feels that this place needs to reflect the importance of the province of Ontario.

Again, I want to thank broadcasting services for the work that they do each and every day to keep a building 150 years old operating—

My question is to the Minister of Health. Our public health care system is in crisis because this government refuses to respect and protect our front-line health care workers, like Ashley and Laureen right in St. Paul’s—and the Ashleys and Laureens across Ontario. Our nurses are run off their feet. Their mental and physical health is crumbling. The official opposition; ONA, here today; RNAO; nurses in my riding; patients have sent this government solutions, and we have been ignored.

My question is to the minister: Will this Conservative government repeal Bill 124 and help save our public health care system and the lives of our nurses and their patients once and for all? Will you?

My question is back to the minister: Will you stop the privatization—yes, the privatization—of health care by investing in public sector workers, patients and families and repealing Bill 124? It’s what we’re all asking for. Forget about the official opposition; ONA is asking for it, nurses and patients. Yes or no, will you repeal Bill 124?

This bill would amend the City of Toronto Act, the Municipal Act and other legislation.

The bill and the proposed regulations would give new powers to the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to support our commitment to build 1.5 million new homes to address the housing supply crisis over the next 10 years, and to help advance other priority projects.

The bill would support efficient local decision-making to help our municipal partners cut through red tape and speed up development timelines.

Thank you, Speaker, for giving me this opportunity.

Ms. Sattler moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 with respect to paid leave / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne les congés payés.

I’m very proud, on behalf of the NDP, to bring forward, for the third time, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act—legislation that provides all Ontario workers with the paid sick days they need and deserve, not just during the COVID-19 pandemic, but on a permanent, ongoing basis.

The bill requires employers to provide 10 days of paid personal emergency leave that can be used for illness, injury and urgent matters, including caring for family members, and also prohibits requirements for a doctor’s note. It gives Ontario workers access to 14 paid infectious disease emergency leave days, an increase from the paltry three that are currently available to cover workers affected by a pandemic now in its third year.

Finally, the bill includes a temporary program of financial assistance to help struggling small businesses in the transition to providing paid leave.

Mr. Blais moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 5, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to workplace violence and harassment policies in codes of conduct for councillors and members of local boards / Projet de loi 5, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les politiques en matière de violence et de harcèlement au travail prévues dans les codes de déontologie des conseillers et des membres des conseils locaux.

My question is for the Minister of Legislative Affairs. We have a lot of people who came to watch question period today, and I want to thank you for coming, but many of you may wonder why we had a delay in question period today. I wanted to ask the Minister of Legislative Affairs if he can explain to us that delay that happened today.

Interjections.

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs: Mr. Hardeman, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Byers, Mr. Dowie, Ms. Triantafilopoulos, Mr. Anand, Mr. Smith (Scarborough Centre), Mr. Cuzzetto, Mr. Kernaghan, Ms. Fife, Ms. Bowman, Ms. Brady.

The Standing Committee on Government Agencies: Mr. Bouma, Mr. Coe, Mr. Jones (Chatham-Kent–Leamington), Mr. Pang, Mr. Sabawy, Mr. Sandhu, Mr. Harris, Ms. Gallagher Murphy, Ms. Begum, Ms. Pasma, Mr. Fraser.

The Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy: Ms. Scott, Mr. Thanigasalam, Ms. Smith (Thornhill), Mr. McGregor, Mr. Grewal, Mr. Holland, Mr. Sabawy, Mr. Pang, Ms. Lindo, Mr. Harden, Ms. McMahon.

The Standing Committee on the Interior: Mr. Babikian, Mr. Yakabuski, Mr. Flack, Mr. Smith (Peterborough–Kawartha), Mr. Bresee, Mr. Leardi, Ms. Dixon, Mr. Sarrazin, Ms. Shaw, Ms. Stiles, Mr. Schreiner, Ms. Hunter.

The Standing Committee on Justice Policy: Mr. Coe, Ms. Hogarth, Mr. Saunderson, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Kusendova, Mr. Riddell, Mr. Ke, Mr. Jones (Chatham-Kent–Leamington), Mr. Mamakwa, MPP Wong-Tam, Mr. Blais.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Mr. Rae, Mr. Harris, Mr. Sandhu, Ms. Gallagher Murphy, Mr. Sarrazin, Mr. McGregor, Ms. Hogarth, Mr. Oosterhoff, Mr. West, Ms. French, Mr. Hsu.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Ms. Skelly, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Cuzzetto, Mr. Byers, Mr. Kanapathi, Mr. Crawford, Ms. Smith (Thornhill), Mr. Bouma, Mr. Rakocevic, Madame Gélinas, Madame Collard.

The Standing Committee on Social Policy: Ms. Ghamari, Mrs. Martin, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Barnes, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Wai, Mr. Rae, Madame Gélinas, Mrs. Gretzky, Mr. Shamji; and

That these committees be authorized to meet on the following days when the House is scheduled to meet:

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs may meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays;

Standing Committee on Government Agencies may meet on Thursdays from 9 a.m. until 10:15 a.m.;

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy may meet on Wednesdays and Thursdays;

Standing Committee on the Interior may meet on Mondays and on Tuesdays from 1 p.m.;

Standing Committee on Justice Policy may meet on Wednesdays and Thursdays;

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may meet on Tuesdays from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and on Thursdays from 1 p.m.;

Standing Committee on Public Accounts may meet on Mondays;

Standing Committee on Social Policy may meet on Mondays and Tuesdays; and

That on the committee’s motion, the following committees are authorized to meet from Monday to Friday when the House is scheduled to meet and during adjournments of the House specified in standing order 7(b) or other adjournments of the House which do not exceed one week:

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs;

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy;

Standing Committee on the Interior;

Standing Committee on Justice Policy;

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; and

Standing Committee on Social Policy.

Thank you, Speaker. I’ll give a copy to page Benjamin to take to you.

We look forward to continuing to work with our health care professionals across this province and continue to be incredibly grateful for all the work that they have been doing. That is why this government has made record and historic investments to support health human resources across this province. Since March of 2020, we have added over 10,500 health care professionals across this province. We are also introducing and building across this province over 52 new capital projects to support further health care capacity, including new hospitals in cities like Brampton that were ignored and neglected by the previous Liberal government, building in cities like Windsor, Ottawa and Mississauga. We will continue to invest in health care and health care workers across this province.

On this side of the House, in our government, we continue to look to solutions to support the health care system. The members opposite have voted against each and every single one of those measures, including adding an additional 10,500 health care support workers since March 2020.

We look forward to working with the members opposite and building hospitals across the province, building health care capacity across this province to ensure that people get the care they need—

It gives me great pleasure to introduce my son, Mike Harris, with two of his children, Maddox and Anika, as well as a friend of Anika, McKinley Fox. Welcome to Queen’s Park, guys.

Hi, Damien.

I would like to thank my friend Kim Madore, as well as Kim Pyke, as well as Blake Kohler, for being here today. I have many others here today for my inaugural speech, but I don’t see that they’re in the House yet. But I do thank them in advance.

Mr. Clark moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 3, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to special powers and duties of heads of council / Projet de loi 3, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les pouvoirs et fonctions spéciaux des présidents du conseil.

Mr. Speaker, it’s Mr. Jordan. Thank you.

Looking at the written version of the motion in comparison to what the member said, the Standing Committee on Social Policy—I believe it’s Mr. Jordan who is to be appointed to that committee, not Mr. Jones.

Interjection.

Point of order.

Standing order 1(a) sets out that the business of the chamber and committees shall be regulated through the standing orders.

Standing order 1(b) outlines that the purpose of these provisions is “to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of members....”

Standing order 1(c) calls on the Speaker to provide guidance on where the standing orders are unclear.

I am requesting your guidance to navigate what we perceive to be a conflict between standing order 110 and standing order 115(a). The intent of standing order 115(a) is to ensure that the distribution of committee memberships is done in a fair and impartial manner that respects the outcome of elections by allocating committee seats to the respective recognized parties in proportion to their representation in the House. By setting aside committee seats explicitly for a recognized party, surely the principles of democracy require that that recognized party be able to determine which members fill those seats.

Instead, with this motion, the government has given itself de facto control over which MPPs are appointed to committees. The motion ignores the official opposition appointments that were communicated by me, on behalf of the NDP caucus, in a letter to the government House leader on July 19. In some cases, this motion actually removes the members we intended to nominate as chairs or vice-chairs—information that was also communicated to the government—from their respective committees.

I should also point out that our appointments were made after extensive consultation between our interim leader and members of our caucus out of respect for the democratic rights of members. And indeed, in our quick review of past committee appointment motions, we could not find a single example where a motion appointing committee members was brought before the House in a manner that did not follow recognized party recommendations.

Speaker, that is our concern with the motion before us today, and the reason for our request for your guidance. With this motion, the government has unilaterally assigned which MPPs from the official opposition will fill the committee positions that are expressly assigned to the official opposition. One can only imagine the uproar that such a motion would have caused, the indignation and outrage that we would have heard from members across the way—even the government House leader—if this was moved when they were on this side of the floor.

And while the standing orders do not explicitly authorize the recognized opposition parties to name their own members to committee, it is important to note that, in the same fashion, the standing orders do not explicitly give the government such power, either. In fact, in instances where the standing orders intend for the government to have discretion, such discretion is unequivocally provided for. One only needs to look to the next clause, standing order 115(b), where the standing order clearly states that the committee preferences expressed by independent members are not binding on the government.

Historically, committee membership motions are done via unanimous consent because they are brought before the House through a process of collaboration and respect. The fact that I am forced to rise on this point of order shows that no such consensus or respect exists.

Given the unprecedented application of standing order 110 as contained within this motion, it is, at a minimum, incumbent upon the government to convincingly demonstrate to the House why this new interpretation supersedes generations of past practice and interpretation. Several decades of consistent application is neither accident nor coincidence, Speaker.

If this interpretation of standing order 110 is allowed to stand, what is to prevent the government from simply assigning the same two MPPs from a recognized party to every committee, if the standard is narrowed so that only the language of the specific provision matters and the intent, past practice and impact of relevant standing orders are rendered silent when the rules are used in ways they were never designed or intended to be employed?

At a minimum, standing order 110 was not designed to give the House unfettered control over the committee appointments process. It is my hope that we do not establish such a dangerous precedent today.

Before I conclude, I want to offer a brief observation about the context for the motion that was tabled. As the Speaker may know, the official opposition was pressured to support one of the candidates in the recent Speaker election over another and threatened with government interference with our committee appointments if we did not support their desired outcome. This motion follows on the heels of that interaction.

With that, Speaker, I thank you for listening, and I look forward to your ruling on this matter.

Are there any other members who wish to speak to the point of order? Government House leader.

The government House leader to wrap up his statement.

I relish the opportunity today to actually stand on this point of order because it really continues a process that we saw started in the last Parliament by the NDP, which was one that was somehow focused on the independents and how we could remove the ability of the independents to participate in committees in this place.

You will remember, colleagues, and, Mr. Speaker, you will remember, how this very same opposition House leader brought a motion to this place suggesting that I was being too bipartisan—you remember that, colleagues—that I was working too hard to make this place work better, that I was working too hard to give the opposition authority, to give opportunities for the independents to serve on committees. And what is this point of order from the member again about? It is about ensuring that the independents don’t get an opportunity to participate. It is about the NDP trying to do, through motions and points of orders, what they are incapable of doing at the ballot box, and that is increasing their seat count.

It is very, very clear—standing order 110: “Within the first 10 sessional days following the commencement of a Parliament, the membership of the following standing committees shall be appointed, on motion with notice, for the duration of the Parliament....”

Further, standing order 1(b)(i): “to submit motions, resolutions and bills for the consideration of the assembly and its committees, and to have them determined by democratic vote.”

How is that vote being taken, colleagues? By a motion that was tabled by me, that was on the order paper yesterday, that will be considered today, that the assembly as a whole will vote on—the assembly as a whole. The people who were democratically elected in this place two months ago will have the opportunity to vote on a motion that was brought forward. It’s not a unilateral motion by me; it is a motion brought forward, put on the notice paper, and allowing members to decide who will serve on the committees.

The member opposite has made some allegations with respect to being pressured. Mr. Speaker, let me be very, very clear: If the member had truly been disturbed by the meeting that we had on July 7—at that time, you were still the Speaker of this place, although the House had not been called back—she could have sent a letter to you. You were still the Speaker, and she could have outlined her concerns with the meeting. She could have done that on July 14; she could have done it the week after; she could have done it the week after. But what did the opposition House leader do? She walked out of my office and upstairs to the Toronto Star and put down on the table allegations. What was that meeting about? It was a courtesy meeting to try to explain to the NDP how this place would work following an election. Yet again, we had a situation where there was one official party outside of the governing party and there were a number of independents.

First of all, any point of privilege on this matter, I think, is long since passed.

Again, Speaker, you know very well we had a discussion ourselves. I don’t think it’s a surprise to anybody in this place that I openly supported the member for Mississauga–Streetsville to be the Speaker of this House. It was not a reflection on you as a Speaker. It was not a reflection on you and the work that you have done in your riding. I felt that this place, after 155 years, would benefit from having a female Speaker for the first time in history.

Interjections.

As a member of the crown, I am incapable of bringing that motion forward. I’m not allowed to do that as a member of the crown. But as a member of provincial Parliament—I think you will agree, Speaker—I have every right, as every other member did in this place, to advocate on behalf of somebody that I thought would also perform the job equally as good as you have done. I never hid the fact that that is what I thought was best for this place.

Ultimately, in a democratic vote, the members of this Legislature, in their wisdom, put you back in the chair, Mr. Speaker. That is what happened in this place.

The member—again, after you were elected—could have raised this point with you but didn’t. Instead, she waited until this day to bring forward a motion.

She talks about membership on committees. First and foremost, let me say this: The standing orders don’t require me—Mr. Speaker, you will know that because of the diminished representation of the NDP, the people of Ontario so turned their back on the NDP, so reduced the size of that caucus, in giving us one of the largest majorities in provincial history—the reality was that when committees were to meet again, there would be only two members of the official opposition on committees.

Did the opposition House leader provide me with some suggestions? Absolutely. She also provided those suggestions to the media right away. Did we consider those suggestions? Absolutely, we did. I don’t know what day the Toronto Star wrote that, but I do have a copy of the letter that the Leader of the Opposition submitted to me. You will see that in the recommendations that we have tabled in this House today, many of those suggestions are actually in this motion. Many of the members the member opposite has suggested will serve on the committees that they had requested.

It is not my job, nor is it her job—the opposition House leader’s job—to tell me or a committee who will serve as a Chair or a Vice-Chair. Imagine this, colleagues: The opposition House leader, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, wants to start Parliament by suggesting that they get to decide who will be a Chair or a Vice-Chair—not the committee, not a democratic vote of the people who will serve on the committee; somehow he, the interim Leader of the Opposition, or the opposition House leader, will make that decision on behalf of the committee. How is that democratic? Not only is it undemocratic and not only do I and all of us have a responsibility to make sure that that doesn’t happen, that it is a free vote that committee determines itself—I don’t know how the NDP would actually operate if they ever got government. Thankfully, that is not going to happen again in anybody’s lifetime, but I think we’re getting a clear indication of how it would be. They would bring motions here that would be of no consequence because one or two people would decide how everything would go. That would be the end of it. So whoever he likes—the Leader of the Opposition—bang, you’re the new Chair of this committee. Forget about the democratic voice of the members of the committee; they’re going to make the decision on your behalf.

What did I do? I referenced earlier how, under the reduced representation by the NDP—it doesn’t take much to figure it out. The Leader of the Opposition won’t even sit in the traditional seat of the Leader of the Opposition, across from the Premier. He won’t do that because his caucus is so diminished, so reduced, that he feels he has to be over more. And I thought—we thought, the Premier thought—that the best way to ensure a vibrant democracy, despite the fact that the people of Ontario gave us such an overwhelming majority, was that this place had to function well, and that is why we took the unusual step of adding a third member of the NDP—

Thank you, Speaker. I’ll be even more specific because I think once even more specificity is there, it will certainly help you in bringing forward a decision. So let’s speak specifically to what the members are raising.

With respect to committees, there is no standing order requiring me to accept or even solicit recommendations from the NDP on the assignment of members to committees. I’ll repeat it, Mr. Speaker, and you will know that. There is absolutely no requirement that I do that. I have put forward a motion which I think best reflects the appropriate committee assignments.

With respect to independent members, I have satisfied my obligations under standing order 115(b) to appoint independent members to committees upon their request. The independent members did indicate their desire to serve on committees in this Legislature. Unlike the NDP, I feel it’s important that they get to serve on committees, and that’s what this motion reflects. I have satisfied that obligation.

With respect to the substantive motion I have put forward, I believe that despite the NDP’s poor electoral performance, limiting opposition members on committees to only two will not allow the fulsome study or vigorous debate that we expect at our committees in this House, especially given the new committee structure of this place that we voted on as an assembly in the last Parliament.

As for the orderliness of it, Mr. Speaker, it is a substantive motion which clearly seeks an exception from the standing orders, which is required to exceed the proportionality rule which normally applies. There is nothing to prevent a substantive motion from overriding the standing orders, and I would think, in this case, the NDP would in fact be happy to have more of their members actually engaged in committees and working on behalf of their constituents.

So let me say very clearly, Speaker, in conclusion that I reject the Leader of the Opposition’s summation that I—that I or she or their leader should appoint a Vice-Chair or a Chair; I think committees should do it. I further reject the premise that I should reduce the people who are serving on committees to two and eliminate half of that caucus from participating in the democratic responsibilities that they were sent here to do. So if she again, if they again—the leadership of the NDP will not stand up for their members, will not stand up for the people who sent them here. I say very sincerely and very clearly to all of those members who were ignored by your leadership, we will stand up for you. We will make sure that you have an opportunity to serve on committees, like we did in the last Parliament. We will do it again. So I hope that you will reject the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition outright.

Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. I want to thank our House leader for a very, very substantial, logical and powerful presentation. She has asked for your guidance. I know you’ll have to think about it. I look forward to what you have to say.

I’m sorry that the government House leader is leaving, because I have to say—

I have to say that the operation of the House is critical to the function of democracy in this province. There are traditions in parliamentary democracies that assist in the thoughtful—sometimes—deliberation of substantial issues in a society. It is important for all of us in this chamber to defend democratic traditions and to ensure that there’s the ability for impartial operation and for, to the extent that it’s possible, collegial work between governments and opposition parties.

I have to say that when I was first approached by my House leader to say that we were told that if we did not vote for the member the government House leader wanted for Speaker we would have our recommendations for committee chairs and for Deputy Speakers thrown out, I was totally taken aback. I have not dealt with a government before—and I’ve been here since 2006, so I’ve seen Premiers come and go—even with this Premier in 2018, I have never seen a government act in this way. It’s extraordinary to me. The selection of the Speaker of this House is a profoundly important matter and, as you’re aware from previous elections, often we’ve had multiple candidates running.

I know we’ll get into this further when we talk about the other motion before us, but I want to say to you, when we were told, “If you don’t vote this way we are going to punish you in that way,” we had a substantial decision to make.

I know a number of you in the caucus—those of you who are new, I’m going to get a chance to meet you. I’ve been with a number of you now for quite a few years and I’ve seen how you’ve stood up when you’ve been pressed by governments that have acted in unfair ways. I won’t single out any member, but some of you are willing to stand up and fight back. You have stood up and you have fought back. Well, we’re doing the same thing.

When a government comes and says, “We will punish you and this is the way we’ll punish you, unless you vote the way we directed”—

If in fact you set up a situation where there is not collegial agreement between the parties as to who is on committee, and if you set up a situation where recommendations from the opposition for Chairs and Vice-Chairs are thrown out by the government, you have diminished democracy within this province. You have undermined a principle that I think everyone in this House subscribes to. I look forward to your ruling on that.

I want to say to you, in terms of committee appointments, I don’t know about everyone in this chamber, but I been through a number of changes of governments, and I’ve been there when committees have elected their Chairs. I have to say, in 2018, this Conservative government was no different from the previous Liberal governments—and that’s that I walked into a committee meeting knowing who was going to be the Chair because the government of the day had already dictated that. If you and your caucus have not had discussions or have not been told “You’re going to be a Chair or a Vice-Chair,” I’m surprised, I’m shocked, I may be disbelieving, because, in fact, governments of all stripes decide who they want in those very powerful positions.

Historically, the opposition has been able to appoint Chairs of committees—the estimates committee; public accounts. It is simply something that is seen as being reserved for the official opposition—and, frankly, Vice-Chairs.

We have operated within the democratic traditions of this House. What is being proposed by the government is contrary to those democratic traditions.

I will say to those of you here today—and I said this to the Liberals before—don’t assume you’re going to win the next election. If you undermine the structures that allow the opposition to do their job you may, in the future, be in that position of being in opposition and you will want those structures to be protected. The government of the day will not be happy with the structures. That’s life. But the people of Ontario expect that there will be a structure that reflects their democratic values. People died in large numbers to protect democracy in this society; we fought for it, and to see it undermined, in my opinion, is disgraceful.

Are there any other members who wish to speak to the point of order? Leader of the Opposition.

Speaker, this point of order can be summarily dealt with, I respectfully submit. The basis of it, as I understand it, is that you are being asked to rule on standing order 1(c)—“In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders....” But then, of course, in making any rulings, you are to be governed by the precedents of this assembly and parliamentary tradition. Parliamentary tradition is responsible government. It’s the members of this assembly voting on matters, including motions just tabled about the committees, and having a vote of the democratically elected representatives of this House respected.

Motion on notice has been given. There are 147 standing orders. Standing order 110 provides—and we are within the first 10 sessional days of this new Parliament—that the membership of the committee “shall be appointed, on motion with notice....” That has been done.

The procedures and practices of this House and parliamentary tradition have been respected by this motion. The standing orders provide for this motion. There is nothing for you, Speaker, I respectfully submit, to rule on because all of what has been done is provided for in the standing orders. All that’s left to be done is to respect parliamentary democracy and have a vote on this motion. That’s what this is about, and I urge you to dismiss this out-of-order point of order.

J’aimerais clarifier un peu ce qui s’est passé aujourd’hui. La députée a présenté un texte de motion qui ne tient pas compte de traditions qui datent de générations ici à l’Assemblée législative. Ce qu’elle a présenté c’est vraiment un texte qui n’a pas respecté ce qu’on a fait à l’Assemblée depuis des décennies. Ce qu’on leur demande, tout simplement, c’est de démontrer un peu de respect.

On est en train de nommer les gens qui vont siéger à des comités importants. Ici, du côté de notre caucus, notre chef a pris le temps de parler à chacun d’entre nous pour voir qui avait le « background », qui était intéressé, qui serait la meilleure personne pour bien faire le travail des différents comités.

Comme vous le savez, monsieur le Président, on a de nouveaux comités sur lesquels personne n’a jamais siégé; ils sont nouveaux. Donc, on a pris le temps de faire ce travail-là et on a soumis par écrit les noms des personnes qui sont les plus aptes à bien faire le travail qui doit être fait par les parlementaires de l’Assemblée législative. Mais il n’y a rien de ça qui a été respecté, bien que ce soit dans les lignes directrices de l’Assemblée législative que ce processus-là doit être respecté.

J’aimerais qu’on commence cette nouvelle Assemblée, le 43^e Parlement, d’une façon positive et d’une façon respectueuse—respectueuse des traditions, respectueuse des droits. C’est tout ce qu’on est en train de demander, monsieur le Président : de prendre en ligne de compte la communication écrite qui a été faite entre le leader de notre parti et le chef parlementaire du gouvernement pour lui indiquer quelles seraient les meilleures personnes pour nous représenter. D’ignorer tout ça, quand on sait qu’une conversation a eu lieu entre la chef parlementaire néo-démocrate et le chef parlementaire du gouvernement, qui nous disait clairement : « Si vous ne votez pas pour une certaine personne comme Présidente de la Chambre, vous allez payer les conséquences, et les conséquences seront qu’on va ignorer les personnes que vous nous recommandez, que l’on va ignorer tout le travail que vous avez fait pour vous assurer que l’Assemblée législative travaille le mieux possible. » Bien, là, ce qu’on est en train de vivre c’est vraiment—on le savait que ça s’en venait. Il nous l’a dit que si on ne votait pas de la façon qu’il voulait, ils étaient pour nous punir, ils étaient pour nous ignorer. Ils étaient pour ignorer les règles de l’Assemblée législative juste pour nous punir. En français, on appelle ça un peu un bébé lala. C’est ce qu’on est en train de vivre en ce moment. Ce n’est pas correct. On devrait commencer de façon positive, de façon respectueuse. Il n’est pas trop tard pour le faire.

J’ai bien hâte d’entendre ce que vous allez avoir à dire là-dessus, monsieur le Président. Merci.