I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to this motion. At the outset, let me just say that I believe that all of the individuals put forward as potential presiding officers are exceptional individuals, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of thought went into the decisions that were made. One of the overriding principles, of course, as was highlighted, in part, in a debate over a ruling which you subsequently made, was ensuring that the presiding officers reflect the makeup of Parliament. And I think that we’ve been successful in doing so, Mr. Speaker.

Another principle, of course, as you will know, was ensuring that the presiding officers also had, amongst their ranks, a French-speaking member of provincial Parliament. I think that we have done that. And, again, let me just say that for the officers that have been put forward, they are all people of exceptional calibre. They will do a service to this place. It will be a positive service to this place. They are more than equipped to handle the duties of presiding officers should this House, in fact, vote for them. Let me just also say at the outset that I’ll be splitting my time with the member for Ajax. I am very confident they will have the ability to do so.

I wanted to address some of the other parts in the motion, Speaker, because the motion isn’t just about presiding officers, as you know; it is also about adding people to committees. We have heard from the opposition anger and frustration about committees—people being put on committees that they didn’t ask for and how terrible that is. But let’s back up, Speaker, let’s back up. On the election, the NDP were reduced to a much smaller contingent than they are now, so by virtue of that, by virtue of how this place works—the standing orders—the NDP were only entitled to have two people serve on each of the standing committees of this Parliament, and they, in fact, lost the chairmanship of one of the other standing committees, which reverted back to the government. And, of course, the independents had to request to be put on to committees.

Now, in order to ensure a vibrant Parliament with oversight, I believe, Mr. Speaker—and I still believe, and the NDP can vote against this because they’re obviously extraordinarily upset by this—that additional members serving on committee would actually be better for Parliament, better for ensuring the quality of debate on committees and, ultimately, for accountability.

So what does this motion do besides the presiding officers, Speaker? It adds a third member to committees for the NDP, and it adds every single independent member to a committee in a field that is consistent with their critic role. I think that’s a very, very important concession from the government in order to do that. It would have been easier, frankly, not to bring this motion forward and just take two members and that be the end of it, and then we could steamroll along as we wanted. But everything that we have done since we have come into office, whether it be the standing order changes or this motion itself, has been about making this Parliament work better for the people of the province of Ontario.

I’m gratified that we have heard in some of the speeches from the opposition that, in fact, they embrace some of the changes that have been made. Let’s just go over, if we can, some of the changes that we made to committee—because it’s against their will and they didn’t want them. Well, half the NDP caucus, of course, was left off of committee. By virtue of their poor election results, half of them were left off of committee, and we keep hearing how important committees are. In fact, the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said that this is where the rubber hits the fan, that where the government is held accountable is on committee. I agree, and that’s why we’ve added them.

Let’s look at what we’ve done, the horror of what we are proposing: the member from St. Paul’s, critic for heritage, appointed to that committee—the request was for no committee, but we appointed to that committee.

The member for London–Fanshawe—no committee requested; we have actually honoured that.

The member for Scarborough Southwest—government agencies requested. The member has been put onto government agencies.

The member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay—no committee requested. The member has been put on a committee.

The member for Niagara Centre: no committee requested, and that has been honoured.

The member for Waterloo, the finance critic: We heard this prominent in the member’s speech, that we put the member for Waterloo, the finance critic, on a committee that she didn’t want to be on. We’re forcing her. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, again, says, in his words—he talks about how people have better ability to do things, and when he was the finance critic, he wasn’t the best finance critic, but there’s somebody with better skills able to do it—presumably, the member for Waterloo. What do we do? We put her on the finance committee. Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker: If the member for Waterloo is not able to do the work on the finance committee, if she’s not the best person, then perhaps they should appoint a different finance critic. It is not my job to decide who is the best critic over there; they can make that decision. In his own words, he undermines his own argument. So imagine that: We’ve put the finance critic for the NDP on the finance committee—my gosh, colleagues, the horror of it, the savagery of such a decision.

But let’s go on. The member for Oshawa was put on procedure and House affairs. The committee request was none. We didn’t have room, but we made room on procedure and House affairs. My understanding is that the member has actually been elected the Chair of procedure and House affairs.

The member for Nickel Belt is on the policy committee that she’s a critic for—request made, request honoured.

The member for Spadina–Fort York requested no committee, and we provided no committee for that person.

The member for Windsor West: mental health and addictions committee was requested, committee honoured.

The member for Ottawa Centre—committee requested, committee honoured.

The member for Parkdale–High Park: The request was to make the member for Parkdale–High Park a presiding officer. The motion reflects that.

The member for London North Centre, critic, economic development and job creation, asked to be on finance and economic affairs—request made, request honoured.

Kitchener Centre—request made, request honoured.

The member for Kiiwetinoong: request made, and, if I’m not mistaken, the member is on the justice committee—and congratulations for being elected the Vice-Chair of that committee, something that in the last Parliament would actually not have happened had it not been for our standing order changes. Colleagues in the last Parliament will remember that when we made this change, the NDP voted against it. They voted against it because they thought we were being too good to the opposition and we were being too bipartisan, and that’s not the way a Parliament is supposed to work. But we said that is the way it’s supposed to work; that’s what makes a Parliament better.

But anyway, they can argue previous decisions to their hearts’ content.

The member for London West is the House leader, and she talks about all these secret meetings we have. I can tell you that there is no secret meeting with the member for London West. Every single House leader meeting we have had, we have a bet in our office of how long it will take for the member to go upstairs and speak to the media. I’ve got to admit, in the last one, I was wrong. I will give it to my assistant Patrick Kelly. He said, “They will go straight up to the third floor.” I said, “No, they’ll go up to their office first. They’ll craft something and then go.” But we were able to watch as they made that slow descent up.

There is never an opportunity where you have a secret meeting with the NDP, because their secret meeting is always a public meeting, right? That’s just it.

Interjection.