It certainly has been an interesting start to the 43rd Parliament, I have to say. And I also have to say that it has been a very interesting experience for me to serve in the position of House leader for the official opposition in the previous government and continuing in this government. It has been an “interesting” experience, and I use that word carefully, because it puts me in a position of trying to work with a government House leader who has absolutely no interest in ensuring that the processes of democracy function as they are supposed to in this place. I remind—

Like many members in this place and, I expect, many of the new members, in particular—many of us were sworn in in July and brought family members and volunteers to this chamber to watch this very powerful and significant moment, as we swear in to serve our constituents in the betterment of the people of the province of Ontario.

I joined the group that had come to attend my swearing-in, the volunteers who had participated on my campaign, in a tour, the official tour, of this assembly. We came into this chamber, and the tour guide pointed to two carvings on each side of this chamber. There is the carving of the eagle that faces the official opposition. The eagle represents the official opposition’s duty to hold the government to account, to make sure that the decisions that are being made by the government are actually in the best interest of the people of Ontario.

The government side looks at the carving of the owl, and that is a constant reminder to the government to make decisions that are thoughtful, that are wise, that are informed, that take into account all of the diversity of this province, the needs of the people of this province, and make good on its responsibility to do the best for the people that we serve.

I want to quote from the throne speech that opened this Parliament, Speaker, the throne speech that sets out the agenda for this government that is supposed to set the tone for how we are going to proceed in the 43rd Parliament. In that throne speech, the Lieutenant Governor, reading from the speech, said, “Now is not the time for partisanship and ideology to trump the virtues of partnership and collaboration.” I thank the Lieutenant Governor for that comment. I thank the government for including that statement in the speech from the throne. I am saddened, however, that these are mere words, and that is shown by the actions of this government, this government House leader, in terms of the non-collaboration, the non-partnership that we have seen right from the very moment we came together in this place.

I was reading the Hansard of the debate that occurred on this motion on Thursday afternoon, and I do want to thank you, Speaker, for your very measured and thoughtful ruling on the point of order that was raised by my colleague the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane as the official opposition whip. You pointed out, you confirmed exactly what the point of order had raised, that “a review of the history of the appointment of presiding officers” in this place “reveals that from 1989 to 2018”—a period of 30 years—“the House has appointed members of recognized opposition parties to the maximum allowable number of presiding officer positions. Between 1989 and 2008, where the standing orders provided that up to two opposition members be appointed, the House appointed two. And from 2008 to 2018, when the standing orders provided for up to three opposition members to be appointed, the House appointed three.”

You also noted that this motion that is before us today “represents the first time that less than the maximum number of members from a recognized opposition party has been proposed to fill presiding officer roles, the first time that an independent member has been included in the motion and the first time that the Speaker has been asked to interpret this standing order.”

I don’t envy you or the position that you are in, Speaker, as you are faced with weighing 30 years of tradition, 30 years of productive conversations between the government and the recognized opposition parties on the appointment of presiding officers. I should also say, typically, those motions to appoint presiding officers, the motions to appoint committee members are worked out in advance, through the collaboration and partnership that the throne speech highlighted, the urgency of working in collaboration and in partnership. Through that process of discussion and collaboration and engagement, the wording of those motions is agreed upon in advance, and those motions typically pass by unanimous consent because there is no need to debate, because the government listens to the advice of the leaders of the recognized opposition parties on the appointment of presiding officers. The government includes the names that the recognized opposition parties put forward for the presiding officer positions, for the committee appointments, and the government puts those names in their motion. But what we have seen in the first week that we were back and in this motion that is now before us today is the government completely disregarding the input that was received.

Now, I should not say “completely disregarding.” The official opposition put forward names of the three members of our caucus who were interested in serving as presiding officers, who would have been amazing presiding officers, Speaker. One of them you served with, the member from Oshawa, who always went above and beyond—to be fair, often to the consternation of people in our caucus when we were called out by the member from Oshawa as she served in that chair. She was an exemplary Acting Speaker or Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House. She was one of the names that was put forward, and her name does not appear in the motion that is before us today.

My colleague the member for—Jill Andrew.