 It's now time for our member's statements. I recognize the member for Thunder Bay Attic-Oaken. Thank you, Speaker. And good morning. Thunder Bay is experiencing a COVID-19 crisis. And I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone back home working on that. After months of very low case numbers, we have outbreaks throughout our community in long-term care, our shelters, and our schools. Our hospitals that serve all of Northwestern Ontario are stretched to the limit. The impact on everyone, as we are locked down yet again, is immeasurable. People are dying. Families continue to be separated. Children, parents, and teachers are struggling. Small businesses are struggling. Many seniors remain isolated and afraid, not understanding why it's taking so long for the vaccines to roll out. We all have our stories, and we've all tried our best. But we need this government to step up. We have tried to advise that the slow course of action on outbreaks just does not work. It especially doesn't work when we are clearly in a crisis a month ago. Our calls to action went unheeded. Our community is paying for that now. This government needs to start understanding the needs of the North. Will this government finally do the right thing and get Thunder Bay everything, everything it needs to get these situations under control? Get us the human and financial resources to stop this. Lives are depending on you. Thank you. Thank you. Member Statements, the member for Whitby. Thank you, Speaker. The Ministry of Colleges and Universities recently announced an additional $7 million to help increase access to mental health and addiction services for post-secondary students during COVID-19. To assist local post-secondary students with access to the mental health services and supports they need, the government is providing Durham College and Whitby with approximately $374,000. This much needed funding speaker will strengthen community partnerships, increase the number of mental health workers and programs, and immediately expand access for students to the provincial mental health and addiction system during COVID. Speaker, providing students with access to mental health supports and services when they need them is a critical piece to a student's health and well-being. We will continue to work with and support our post-secondary sector partners like Durham College, Ontario Tech, and Trent Universities to create a learning environment that helps Durham region students succeed in education and speaker in light. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you very much. Member Statements, the member for Toronto Centre. Thank you, Speaker. COVID-19 has intensified food insecurity in my writing of Toronto Centre, coupled with the high cost of housing, precarious employment, and insufficient income supports. Food security in my writing is worsening. Low-wage workers who have lost their jobs, black, indigenous, and racialized community members, and people experiencing homelessness have all been the hardest hit. In some cases, people are opting to eat less in order to pay their bills or pay their rent. Seeing the urgent need for help in our community, the Cabbage Town BIA partnered with Dixon Hall and St. Luke's United Church to create the Cabbage Town Cares Lunch Program. This is a unique initiative that helps folks experiencing food insecurity, while at the same time also supporting local small businesses in the neighbourhood. The weekly lunch program provides healthy meals supplied from local restaurants to over 100 people a week in Allen Gardens. The organisers of the program hope that it will build bridges and connections that will last beyond the pandemic. Speaker, I'm happy to share the successes of this community initiative with this House, but we need permanent solutions to poverty and homelessness and income insecurity. No one in Ontario should go hungry because they can't afford food, and communities shouldn't be the ones stepping up to fill the gaps in our systems because this government refuses to address the upstream root causes of poverty and homelessness. Speaker, we need increases to OW and ODSP. We need paid sick days and an increase to the minimum wage. We need more affordable housing, and our municipalities need the financial resources to navigate the homelessness crisis. When will this government finally act? Thank you. Thank you. Member statements? Member for Kitchener, Conestoga. Well, good morning, Mr. Speaker. Under the leadership of retired General Rick Hillier, Ontario has made huge strides in getting our frontline health care heroes and highest-risk populations fully immunized against COVID-19. Thanks to our local COVID-19 vaccination distribution task force led by Waterloo Regional Police Service Deputy Chief Shirley Hilton, I am pleased to report that our region is also making headway in rolling out vaccines through our mobile teams and the vaccination clinic at Grand River Hospital. Health care workers and long-term care residents have been the top priority. Just two weeks into the new year, the vaccination of long-term care residents began at Golden Years in Cambridge, Mr. Speaker. And by January 25, with the support from our government to meet the deadline set by our Premier and General Hillier, all local long-term residents have received their first dose. It is humbling to see the growing number of people in my community protect from this virus and barring any further supply challenges. This momentum will continue, Speaker. Earlier this week, an online portal was launched so those over 80 could pre-register for their shot. And I'll quickly mention for seniors without access to internet, you can also call 519-575-4400. As we begin to expand capacity and ramp up for phase two, plans for large-scale and mid-sized clinics are underway locally with Deputy Chief Hilton, making it a goal to administer 12,000 doses per day, Mr. Speaker. There has been great progress since December when the first PSW from Elmira was vaccinated and with Ontario leading the country in the number of doses administered. I'll close out by echoing our Premier that hope is on the horizon. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you. Member Statements, the member for Hamilton West, Ancaster Dundas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always a pleasure to rise in the House and it is my pleasure now to announce that the Ancaster Community Fair Drive is going virtual in 2021. For almost three decades, people from Ancaster, from schools, businesses, and local faith groups have come together to raise food for our community. In fact, in three, in the 28 years since the food drive has been taking place, they've actually raised 1,856,500 pounds of food for food banks in our community. And we know that during this pandemic, the need is greater than ever. And so rather than donations of food, the Ancaster Community Food Drive is asking for people to make a financial contribution. People can go online to theancasterfooddrive.ca. That'sancasterfooddrive.ca to make a donation. The campaign runs until March 6th. I would just like to take this time to say thank you to all of the volunteers that worked so hard for so many years to make this food drive the kind of success that it is and to make the people of Ancaster proud. And I would also just like to say that I give a personal shout out to my friend, Jan, who makes sure that this thing runs every year without problems. And so while we can't all be together for the Ancaster Food Drive in our Ancaster Fair Grounds this year, we're all looking forward to being there for the 30th anniversary of the Ancaster Community Food Drive. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. The next member's statement, the member for Guel. Speaker is an honor to rise today to celebrate the life of my dear friend and mentor, Wayne Roberts, who we tragically lost on January 20th. As the manager of the Toronto Food Policy Council, the author of 12 books and a columnist for Now Magazine, Wayne played a vital role in energizing and diversifying the local sustainable food movement. City food charters and policy councils across Ontario and around the world were inspired by Wayne. He won many awards, including the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the Lifetime Achievement Award from Food Secure Canada. I first met Wayne 25 years ago and was instantly moved by his wit, his wisdom, and his booming laugh. His book, Get a Life, inspired me to start a local food business, and his work with the coalition for a green economy still influences my views on politics and policy. I loved working with Wayne and his wife, Lori, promoting Ontario Food and Farmers with Local Food Plus. Speaker, there's a reason Wayne is known as a godfather of the local food movement in Ontario. When you shop at a farmer's market, harvest from a community garden, or find local food at the nearest green grocer, think of my dear friend, Wayne. He will be missed but not forgotten and his legacy will live on the local food movement in Ontario. Member Statements, the member for Stormont Dundas, South Glen Gear. I rise today to congratulate a farming couple from the small community of Anchorman North Dundas who received the 2021 Environmental Stewardship Award from the beef farmers of Ontario. Jackie and Sevan Pemberton have been recognized for their efforts to incorporate research and innovation as part of the farming strategy with an eye towards long-term sustainability and for the contributions to the community and beyond. The Pemberton's environmental focus on research has led to partnership projects with Carlton University and the federal government along with other organizations on a number of issues including agriculture adaptation to climate change, crop genetics impact on biodiversity and manure storage pits. Jackie and Sevan are also community leaders when they're not on the farm. They invest their time and expertise in stewardship programs, education, promoting clean water strategies and nutrient management. They continue their volunteer roles with local associations and communities including the Dundas County Agriculture and Cattleman's Association. Jackie is currently the Ontario Federation of Agriculture Regional Director and acts as a liaison for the beef farmers of Ontario. And I wish the Pemberton's continued success in the farm operations and their educational and community involvement. Jackie and Sevan, you are the pride of Dundas County. Thank you. Member Stevens, the member for Toronto Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, people are tired out from this pandemic. They felt the isolation and frustration from staying at home. They felt the loss with death of loved ones and the anxiety when they have a friend or relative who comes out with a positive COVID diagnosis. And they've had it, which is why they can't believe it when they see this government isn't doing everything it possibly can to bring this pandemic under control. Week after week, month after month in this house, we have been demanding a paid sick leave program that would protect workers and their families and protect all of us, that would drive down the numbers and allow us to get past this pandemic more quickly. You would think, given the cost of the pandemic, that it would not be a big fight, that it would be a very simple straightforward thing, but it has not happened, Speaker. And Speaker, that is a major problem for people in this province. We're also in a situation where we're not on top of things with vaccinations. We're seventh out of 10 provinces in terms of people getting vaccinated. Just last week, we were told to be March 15th before people could book their inoculations. March 15th, March 15th, we've known about vaccines since last fall. Speaker, it is not too late to save people's lives and to bring this pandemic under control. We need to act now. Thank you. Member statements, the member for Carlton. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, next Monday, March 8th is International Women's Day. This is a time to take the opportunity and reflect on the hard fought progress of women and the men who have supported them on their journey towards real gender equality. In 2019, I had the pleasure of hosting the first ever International Women's Day breakfast and high tea in my riding of Carlton. Not only was it a fantastic way to support local women business owners, like Debbie, the owner of Danby's Roadhouse Enrichment, but it was a great way for women and their families to come out and celebrate themselves and their accomplishments. In fact, the last two events that I hosted in 2020, right before COVID hit, was my second annual International Women's Day breakfast enrichment and high tea in Metcalf. 2021's International Women's Day theme is choose to challenge. We can all choose to challenge and call out gender bias and inequality. We can all choose to seek out and celebrate women's achievements. While this year, unfortunately, I won't be able to host my International Women's Day events to celebrate the amazing women of Carlton, I choose to rise in the house today to acknowledge their accomplishments and celebrate their achievements. To all the amazing women of Carlton, including my three staff, Candace, Hina and Navida, happy International Women's Day, and I can't wait to celebrate again with all of you in 2022. Thank you. Member statements? The Member for Perry, Salma, Skoka. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to recognize the challenges that today's move into the gray lockdown COVID framework presents for businesses and individuals across Muskoka. At the same time, two vaccine clinics are opening in Muskoka today to offer vaccines to those 85 and older. This is great news for seniors around Muskoka, but not only good news, not the only good news for seniors in Perry, Salma, Skoka recently. Last month, I was thrilled to announce that our government is investing more than $6.1 million to expand the community paramedicine for long-term care program across the writing. More specially trained paramedics will offer non-emergency services like community wellness clinics, home visits, and remote monitoring of vital signs. This will help seniors stay safe in their homes while they wait for space and long-term care. Jeff McWilliam, Chief of Muskoka Paramedic Services, said the funding will be used to expand remote patient monitoring and other services. Frank May, Manager of the Perry Sound District EMS, explained how the program can allow patients to be examined by specialists using equipment like remote stethoscopes without having to travel to an urban center. In both regions, this funding will be used to hire and train more community paramedics to offer services seven days a week. Thank you to the Minister of Long-Term Care for recognizing the need of this program, particularly in rural areas that struggle to attract doctors. And thank you to all the paramedics and healthcare partners involved in the existing community paramedicine programs and to those who develop the plans to expand these services. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our member statements for this morning. The member for London RAS to understand has a point of order. Yes, point of order, Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the accelerated passage of Bill 239, the stay home if you are sick act to help in the fight against COVID-19. And if the London RAS to seek community unanimous consent of the House to move a motion regarding the accelerated passage of Bill 239, the stay at home if you are sick act to help fight against COVID-19. Agreed? No. Or to no. I wish to inform the House that the official opposition house leader and MPP for London RAS has provided me with notice of her intent to raise a point of privilege and I'm prepared to hear it at this time. I recognize the member for London RAS. Thank you very much, Speaker. As you know, I sent a letter to you last week raising concerns about a possible breach of privilege regarding this government's decision to name a government MPP as vice chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates. And I very much appreciate this opportunity this morning to highlight a few of the points I made in my letter. The Standing Committee of Estimates is one of three committees whose chairships are explicitly restricted in the standing orders. The standing orders outline two classes of committees, six whose chairships are distributed in proportion to the number of seats each party holds in the house and three with specified leadership requirements. Standing Order 120B reads as follows. The chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates shall be a member of a recognized party in opposition to the government. The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall be a member of the party forming the government and the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts shall be a member of the party forming the official opposition. The rule that the Estimates Committee chair must be a member from a recognized opposition party has been in place since that committee was formally established in 1989. This is in keeping with the responsibility of oversight that our system of parliamentary democracy places on the opposition. In the 30 plus years since then, the vice chair whose sole and only responsibility is to sit in for the chair has always been from the same party as the chair. This has been the practice and success of parliaments helmed by all three major parties including the current government for more than two thirds of its current mandate. The government will likely argue that the standing orders are silent on the matter of vice chair. The official opposition submits however that the requirement that the vice chair come from a recognized opposition party is implicit in Standing Order 120B. The rules clearly and unequivocally state that the chair must come from a recognized opposition party. That is without question. But the sole reason that the vice chair role exists is to fill in for the chair in instances where the chair is unable to carry out her or his duties. Unlike the naming of an acting chair which is transitory in nature and temporary by design, the appointments of chair and vice chair are intended to provide stable and long lasting leadership to a committee for an extended and possibly indefinite period of time. Since the vice chair is permanently and only tasked with the responsibility to preside over committee proceedings in the chair's absence, it can be argued that the requirements and restrictions placed on the chair also extend to the vice chair in order to ensure that the permanent leadership is consistent with the intended function of the committee. So while Standing Order 120B is silent on vice chairs, the spirit of the provision logically asks this question. If the permanent chair of those committees must fulfill certain requirements, how can someone permanently tasked to act as chair be exempt? Put this another way. If the sole purpose of the vice chair of estimates is to be ready to assume the duties of chair as outlined in the committee's mandate, should the chair be unavailable for whatever reason, does a government MPP in that role satisfy the intent of Standing Order 120B that the Standing Committee on Estimates be led by a recognized opposition party? Speaker, the answer is no. As Wilding and Landy point out, in the fourth edition of an Encyclopedia of Parliament, parliamentary procedure is a combination of two elements, the traditional and the democratic. In keeping with our reliance on this mix of codified rules, unwritten practices, and observed traditions, we should also look to the historic approach that the estimates committee has taken when it comes to installing vice chairs. Since the creation of the Standing Committee on Estimates in 1989, there has never been an instance where a government MPP has held the vice chair role. In fact, the committee has never had a vice chair from another party from the chair prior to the February 24th, 2021 motion passed by the government majority of the Estimates committee. While there are no universally accepted guidelines on what constitutes formally recognized practice, there is a strong case to be made for an approach that has served the House well for more than 30 years and has been utilized exclusively since the committee's inception. It can be argued that the universal and only interpretation of a standing order that has never been substantively amended or modified at any point during its history satisfies all unwritten requirements to formally constitute recognized practice. Speaker, you understand better than most this blend of tradition and written rules because you apply it every day in the chair. We simply cannot throw out more than 30 years of understanding and application by successive parliaments simply because the government of the day is tired of the rules as universally understood. No government, including this one, has ever questioned the interpretation or application of this standing order or has made any efforts to change it since it came into force in 1989. Our traditions give governments the ability to permanently amend standing orders and that's something that this government has done more frequently than any other government over the last 30 years. But they also require that governments take the necessary steps to make changes. What they do not do is give governments the power to reimagine and repurpose established practices without the express consent of the House. In closing, Speaker, it is our position that the government's misinterpretation of standing order 120B is not only a violation of the intent of the provision, but a flagrant disregard of the established practices of this House and that this action potentially compromises the intended function of the Standing Committee on Estimates. It is our hope that you will uphold the 30 plus years of precedent and rule in favor of this point of privilege. Thank you, Speaker. Thank you very much. Are there any other members who wish to speak to the point of privilege? I speak on this point. Government House Leader. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of privilege raised by the member from London West. The member has made serious claims that privileges of the House have been breached resulting from the election of the member from Flamborough-Granbrook, a member of the Progressive Conservative Caucus to the position of Vice Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates. First, I assert that the member has failed to clearly identify any specific privilege of the House or of any individual member which has been breached. However, the member has made several arguments which I will respond individually. While the alleged breach of privilege is specific to a Vice Chair position, the basis of the member's claim is that explicit restrictions and Standing Order 120B for the allocation of committee chairs flow inherently to the selection of Vice Chairs by way of established practice. As such, I must first address the supposed intent of Standing Order 120B as characterized by the member opposite. Mr. Speaker, as you know, Standing Order 120 provides for the distinction of committee chairs in proportion to the representation of recognized parties in the House. The Standing Order further provides for exceptions to this general framework for specific committees, the Standing Committee on Estimates, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The member claims that the Standing Orders distinguished between multiple classes of committees, one, those with restrictions on the chair, two, those without restrictions on the chair, three, oversight committees, and four, non-oversight committees. In her notice of this point of privilege, the member writes, quote, as you know, the Standing Orders place restrictions on the chairships of the Standing Committee on Finance, estimates and public accounts in keeping with the longstanding parliamentary tradition that ensures balance between a government's right to proceed with its agenda, finance, and the opposition's responsibility to hold the government to account, estimates and public accounts. The member's argument is, however, flawed. If the intent of the restrictions on chairships was, as the member claims, to balance the obligations of the government and opposition parties, then surely the Standing Orders would have explicit, would include explicit restrictions for all committees, making up the class of oversight committees. As the member knows, the Standing Orders do not do this. They are silent on the chairship of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, which must surely be seen as an oversight committee in that its mandate and primary function is holding government to account. This has been acknowledged by the official opposition in a joint letter signed by the chairs of the Standing Committee on Estimates, public accounts, and government agencies stated June 16, 2020, grouping these three committees together as legislative assembly oversight committees, requesting that the House authorize them to meet following the temporary suspension of committee activities in the early months of the pandemic. The member's argument regarding the intent of Standing Order 120B cannot be supported by the facts. The intent of the House was to adopt a standing order for the purpose of balance and distinction between oversight committees and committees which facilitate the government's agenda, then it would have further restricted the chairship of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, a committee which exists when the provisions of Standing Order 120B were implemented to a member of an opposition party. To determine the intent of Clause B, we must look at it in the context of the entire Standing Order. 120A sets out that the chairship of Standing Committee shall be distributed proportionately. 120C sets out the specific procedure for reconciling disagreements between parties on distribution. What the member has failed to recognize in Standing Order 120B is that a small but incredibly important distinction in language exists. While the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to be a member of the official opposition, the chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates is set out as a member of any recognized opposition party. The distinction is important in that Clause B clearly and only furthers the intent of Clause A, ensuring minimum standards, proportional distribution of those positions. It is my position that the intent of Standing Order 120B is to ensure that all recognized parties share the chairships of Standing Committees while leaving room for scenarios where there are only two recognized parties. As noted by Bosch and Gagnon in Chapter 20 of the third edition of the House of Commons procedure and practice, chairs play an important representation role on behalf of their committees, like the Speaker on behalf of Parliament. Quote, they are the committee's main spokesperson with parliamentarians, the media and civil society. End quote. It follows that the proportional distribution of chairs supplemented by minimum standards which create the conditions necessary to ensure members of all recognized parties become chairs would be desirable for the House and for the nonpartisan institution of Parliament as a whole. This, Mr. Speaker, is the actual intent of Standing Order 120B. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has failed to demonstrate that the intent of Standing Order 120 was anything more than ensuring the chairships of Standing Committees be shared between parties, a much easier interpretation of the intent of the Standing Order has written. The member opposite has simply not demonstrated that there is some inherent unwritten partisan requirement for certain chairs to be selected from certain parties as she claims. Looking to the quote I read in the record earlier, the member has also made the argument that the chairship of oversight committees furthers the ability of the opposition to hold the government to account. In addition, the member states the following in their notice of this point of privilege. If the vice chair maintains a standing responsibility to assume the duties of chair as outlined in the committee's mandate in the event of the temporary incapacity of the chair for whatever reason, does the government MPP in the role satisfy the intent of Standing Order 120B? The answer is no. On this point, Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree. It is an accepted convention of our system of parliament and our legislature specifically that the chair of a committee or the speaker shall be impartial. Bosch and Gagnon noted in chapter seven of the third edition of the House of Commons practice and procedure. When in the chair, the speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show and be seen to show the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the house. The principle further applies to committee chairs as they execute their procedural, administrative and representative functions on behalf of their committees and to members acting temporarily as the chair in the chair's absence. Those presiding over committee must be impartial. As such, political affiliation should have no effect on the ability of a chair or vice chair to execute their responsibilities. In fact, in her arguments, the member has conflated the responsibilities of opposition parties and the responsibility of committee chairs and vice chairs. I do not in any way dispute the opposition's bare fundamental obligation to hold the government account. In fact, I have referenced it countless times in this place, but I do assert that those holding the office of committee chairs and vice chairs do not bear the same obligation by virtue of those positions. In their roles on behalf of committee, they bear only the well-documented procedural, administrative and representative responsibilities flow to them by the house. There is a further key distinction between the chair and vice chair position, as Bosch and Gagnon noted also in chapter 20. I quote, a vice chair has no administrative or representative responsibility, such as convening or canceling meetings unless he or she is acting on the instruction of the chair. And further, vice chairs cannot fulfill any responsibility or perform any other function while the office of chair is vacant. Vice chairs share singularly and procedural responsibilities when the chair is absent and share none of the representative responsibility. This, it is my position, is my position that this key distinction combined with the fact that the standing orders create the positions as distinct roles separately referenced indicates a clear intent that the house wished to defer to individual committees for these selections as was the standard with all committee chair and vice chair positions prior to 1986. It is exceedingly clear that the members arguments that the explicit requirements of standing order 120B respecting chairs somehow flow inherently to the position of vice chairs has not been proven. The member seems to also argue that there is some sort of parliamentary convention or tradition to select the chair and vice chair from the same party and that to not do so impedes the work of committee. We need only to look to the House of Commons where the standard practice is that the chairs and vice chairs be selected from different parties. In fact, the standing order of the House of Commons specifically provide for this in standing order 1062 which states at the commencement of every session and if necessary during the course of a session each standing or special committee shall elect a chair and two vice chairs of whom the chair shall be a member of the governing party, the first vice chair shall be a member of the official opposition and the second vice chair shall be a member of the opposition party other than the official opposition party. This practice has in no way disrupted or impeded the work of any of the nearly 30 standing committees of the House of Commons and to argue that a similar arrangement for standing committees of this House would somehow impede the proper functioning cannot be supported by the facts. There is simply no basis for the members arguments related to standing orders, parliamentary convention or tradition or the ability of committees to conduct business. Further Mr. Speaker, I must raise the issue of timeliness which is fundamental, which is a fundamental requirement raising a point of privilege. On August 24th, 2020 the select committee on emergency management oversight elected the member for Humber River Black Creek as its vice chair. On October 14th, 2020 the standing committee on regulations and private bills elected the member for Ottawa South as its vice chair. On October 20th, 2020 the standing committee on general government elected the member for Guelph as its vice chair. On February 18th, 2021 the standing committee on justice policy elected the member for Ottawa Vanier as its vice chair. On February 18th the standing committee on finance and economic affairs elected the member for Kingston and the islands as its vice chair, although he then resigned after only a few minutes of service. On February 23rd, 2021 the standing committee on government agencies elected the member for Scarborough Agent Court as its vice chair. And finally on February 24th, 2021 the standing committee on estimates elected the member for Flamero Glamrook as its vice chair. Mr. Speaker, in each of these instances a vice chair was elected from a party differing from the party holding the chair. But today is March 1st and we are only now hearing of the point of privilege from the members opposite. I would assert that this delayed point of privilege has not been made in a timely fashion. Further Mr. Speaker, when these elections occurred on August 24th, October 14th, October 20th, February 18th, February 23rd and February 24th none of the member opposite, of the members opposite nor any of her colleagues from the official opposition raised any concerns with the potential breach of privilege of this house. If you review the relevant committee transcripts you will find that not a single concern was raised except by the member for Kingston and the islands who did not feel he could effectively hold the government to account by serving as the committee's vice chair. Mr. Speaker, this is an argument which has been referenced by the member opposite in her notice of the point of privilege and which is entirely contradictory to her other points. On one hand she claims that the official opposition must hold the vice chair of the standing committee on estimates in order to hold the government to account and on the other hand she argues that holding the vice chair would have limited the member for Kingston and the islands ability to hold the government to account. Finally Mr. Speaker, I believe that parliamentary convention and procedural and presidential rulings of speakers of this house and of the House of Commons leave you with no choice but to find that this point of privilege has not followed the necessary process as Bosch and Gagnon noted in chapter three. Speakers have consistently ruled that except in the most extreme situations they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the member and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual member. To support this point I reference Speaker Lovac in his decision of March 25, 2014 respecting an allegation of the improper disclosure of committee documents. In that ruling it says this power to reconcile that conflicting arguments presented rests with the standing committee on estimates which is best able to decide if the allegation of improper disclosures is correct and it can bring this matter properly before the House by adopting and presenting a report if it chooses to do so. In 2003 Speaker Millican ruled in a similar case and the absence of a report from the committee on such an issue is virtually impossible for the Chair to make any judgments as to the prima facie occurrence of breach of privilege with regard to such charges. Most recently Mr. Speaker on July 14, 2020 you ruled on a point of order which I raised regarding the disclosure of confidential information from an in-camera meeting of the standing committee as follows. While disclosing information regarding an in-camera meeting of a standing committee would be inappropriate and it could be a valid point of order, the Speaker has no way of knowing what transpires in each standing committee specifically during their in-camera sessions. This issue would therefore properly be raised in and considered by committee. Mr. Speaker I submit that the member from London West has failed to make any reasonable case for prima facie breach of privilege. She has failed to show any specific privilege which has been breached. She has failed to prove that the standing orders or any parliamentary convention explicitly or implicitly prohibit the election of vice chairs who are the members of parties differing from the party to which the chair belongs. She has failed to prove that the ability of committees to conduct business would be in any way impeded by this practice. She has failed to prove any rational connection between the partisan affiliation of a committee chair or vice chair and the member's ability to execute those nonpartisan impartial offices. Finally she has failed to show that even if a breach of privilege could be proven that the government in any way is responsible for it. Over the course of six months seven separate committees of this House have elected members to vice chair positions on committees where members of the opposing parties held the chair. Each of these times the chair of those committees in consultation with the clerks found the motions nominating those members to be in order. In two cases in two cases the chairs were members of the official opposition one of whom was the former NDP house leader who has 30 years of elected experience and 10 years in a heavily procedural role. Mr. Speaker the member for London West claims that the government is acting in a hostile way aggressively using its majority to unilaterally install bipartisan committee leadership. I read that again aggressively using its majority to unilaterally install bipartisan committee leadership. I will end by saying that on this side of the house we will always see aggressive bipartisanship as a good thing and we will always work to enhance the engagement of members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker that is simply not a situation where the ruling question is vague or unclear as to its scope or application which might logically invite a speaker to opine on its exact meaning. In fact the standing ordering question is very clear on its face and should be interpreted in the manner in which it was clearly intended. Finally thank you for hearing my response. In this matter of course any legitimate breach of privilege of this house must be considered seriously but now having heard these arguments I urge you to dispense with this unfounded point of privilege and allow this house to return to its important business. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Are there any other members who wish to offer their opinions on this matter? I want to thank the member for London West for her presentation as well as the government house leader for his response and I will deliberate and inform the house of my ruling in due course.