Yes. My colleague the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s was another name that was put forward.

I heard the government House leader suggest that somehow we were disparaging the members who have been named in this motion for appointment as presiding officers, and I want to say that nothing could be further from the truth.

I read the comments from the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, and she recognizes that the member from Ajax—she congratulates her on being a hard-working member and acknowledges the historic moment that is before us with a Black woman stepping up to the position of Speaker. That is a signal to Black girls, as was discussed in the debate, a signal to Black people across this province, that they too can serve in the position of Speaker. Now, I do acknowledge the Honourable Alvin Curling, who had previously served in that position, but this is the first time that a Black woman will serve in that chair.

But it’s not about the member for Ajax. It’s not even about the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s. It’s about the process, the history, the need for working across the aisle, the need for partnership and collaboration so that we can make things better for the people of this province.

I read the feedback on the point of order that was provided by the government House leader and some of his comments as to why he decided to disregard the names that were put forward by the official opposition—the only recognized party in this place—why he decided to disregard those names both in the appointment of presiding officers and also in the appointment of committee members. He quoted some percentages, somehow making the claim that the appointments that are included in this motion are more representative of the people of this province. He said the NDP are presently at about 24% of the seats in the House, the government is about 67%, the Liberals at 7%, and he somehow claimed that he’s applying these proportions to the names that are in his motion.

But if the government House leader wants to throw out percentages, I also want to remind this government—as people across the province, in the aftermath of an election that saw an historic low voter turnout—that when only 41% of 43% of eligible voters in this province vote for this government, they are sitting in those seats with the support of 18% of Ontarians.

So 18% of Ontarians have entrusted this government with the responsibility to govern fairly and wisely and responsibly, and what do we see? We see a first-past-the-post system that translates that 18% support into a government that holds 70% of the seats in this Legislature and yields 100% of its power. That’s what this government has done with this motion before us on presiding officers, with the motion last week or two weeks ago on the committee appointments. They have arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to exercise the power that first-past-the-post has given them: the power that they have gained because 18% of Ontarians of voting age have put them into office. They are exercising that power to unilaterally decide who is going to serve on committee.

I do want to respond to some of the comments that were made by the government House leader about, for example, the member for Waterloo. This government House leader suggests that appointing the member for Waterloo to the finance committee is somehow this government looking out for the interests of that member. But I want to remind the government House leader that the member for Waterloo had previously served on the public accounts committee. Again, she had been an exemplary Chair of the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee is a perfect fit for her responsibility as finance critic and that is the committee that she expressed interest in serving on. That is the committee that we notified the government that that member wished to participate in. And in this government-knows-best approach of the Conservatives across the way, this government House leader decides that’s not good enough. This government doesn’t care where the member for Waterloo wants to best exercise her skills, her talents, her duty to hold the government to account and ensure that that appropriate oversight is there. This government decided they were going to remove her from the public accounts committee and instead put her on the finance committee. They did that because they can, because they have 100% of the power. They have the ability to disregard the names that had been provided by the official opposition on those appointments and to put in place whoever they want.

Speaker, that is not a process of collaboration and negotiation that these extraordinary times demand of us. The government House leader today in his comments also pointed to the fact that they have added members to committee. They have unilaterally decided that certain members of our caucus should be added to certain standing committees of this Legislature. Again, I ask the government House leader: Wouldn’t it have been a better process of partnership, a better process of collaboration, if the government had come and had said to the official opposition, “Look, we want to add members to these standing committees. Let us know which of your caucus members would like to serve in that role”? That would have been the appropriate way to deal with the addition of seats on those committees. But, no, that is not how this government operates. And we saw that.

We saw that in the 42nd Parliament with changes to the standing orders at a pace that we have not seen before. The government House leader changed the standing orders more times over that four-year period—actually, it was three years that he was in that role. But there were more changes to the standing orders in that three-year period than there were in the entire 15 years up to the election of this government. And each time those standing orders changed, it was to concentrate power more and more in the hands of the government. It was to limit the ability of the official opposition, limit the ability of all non-government members to be able to have any influence on the legislative agenda that this government is pushing through.

Speaker, the government House leader is quite correct: We will not be supporting this motion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the names of the people who are listed in the motion; it has everything to do with respect for parliamentary tradition, with respect for the way that this place is supposed to function, the way that the government House leader is supposed to engage with the official opposition.

I heard the government House leader talk about the fact that nothing is secret when he meets with the official opposition. You will have read the story in the Toronto Star—all of us read that story—about the meeting that was held between me and the government House leader when he suggested that the official opposition caucus vote unanimously for the preferred candidate that he wanted to see in the chair of the Speaker or else we would not be able to get our recommended candidates for presiding officers and our recommended appointments for Vice-Chairs of committees. He suggested that somehow I was being dishonourable by going public with this threat. I don’t think that threats are a good way for this place to operate. I don’t think that that’s a good way for the government to move its agenda forward. But that is the approach that this government House leader has chosen to take, and we won’t support it.