They don’t even ask the caucus, right? They just do as they like.

Now, the member for Hamilton West asked to be on the interior committee. It’s a new committee.

Interjections.

The member for Davenport was not going to be on a committee—not by my request, but by the request of the Leader of the Opposition, that we not put the member for Davenport on a committee. One could only assume that he’s a bit nervous that she might be running for the leadership and he didn’t want to do that. But either way, the people of Davenport deserve to have a member serve on the committee in this Legislature, and we made that happen by putting the member on the interior committee.

The member for Hamilton Mountain requested no committee, and we gave the member no committee. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane says his skill set really isn’t, in a number of ways—so he requested no committee, and we gave him no committee.

The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, Speaker—

Interjection: A brand new member.

The member for Sudbury—again, it seems like they want to ignore the north entirely. The member for Sudbury: not requested to be on a committee. We put the member on a committee. The member for Toronto Centre, a brand new member in this place, asked to be on the justice committee and is serving on the justice committee, Mr. Speaker.

And here you have the NDP arguing against adding an additional member to committee. This isn’t about presiding officers. It’s not about anything. It’s about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to exclude half of his caucus from serving on a committee. Again, it’s easy for us just to say, “Yes, no problem. We’ll let you only have two. We’ll take seven of the seats. Forget about it.” You know? It’s a lot easier for a Parliament when you have a 7 to 2 advantage. But we said no, because obviously the changes that we made in the last Parliament were reflective of making Parliament work better. This motion adds a third member, and it adds an independent to every single committee in this House.

Now, the offence goes even further, Speaker, because the opposition then said, in their speeches, they didn’t even know. They didn’t even know. The independents had no idea what committees they were going on. They had no idea. But the reality was, yes, because you know what they did? They reached out and said, “If we could, we would like to serve on a committee.” And what did we do? We said, “Okay, what is your critic role? That’s the committee you’re going to be serving on.” Makes sense to me. And then, when we reached out to the NDP, that was their list, leaving half of their critics off, leaving the northern members no opportunity to participate. We said, “No, that’s not good enough. It’s not good enough for the people of the north. We’re going to do better and we’re going to give up our seats and we’re going to ensure that the opposition have an opportunity to serve.”

Now, Speaker, they’re going to vote against this. They’re going to vote against this motion, right? Because they have some obscure thought that it’s, I don’t know, punishing their members by not allowing them to serve in this place, which I don’t get when the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane specifically says how important committees are to the process. Well, if they’re that important to the process, then surely the member would want members to serve on committee? So to the members of the NDP who were excluded by your leadership: Again, this side of the House will stand up for you; this side of the House will make sure that your constituents have the opportunity to be represented on committees, have the opportunity to talk about legislation, bring motions forward, make amendments when bills go to committee, even if your own leadership won’t.

Honestly, I don’t know what has happened to this NDP. I don’t know what has happened. They have become such an insignificant force in Canadian politics. And it’s not just here, right? It’s not just here. We’re seeing this nationally—federally insignificant. The party that once people called the conscience of the House now is nothing more than an angry group of people fighting amongst themselves. It’s not about saying no, Speaker. It’s not about saying no. It’s about tearing down, isn’t it, colleagues? It’s about tearing down, right? When you build things up, the NDP want to tear it down. That’s what they do. They have no options.

When you make Parliament better, they all of a sudden want to tear it down. It’s not even about saying no anymore; it’s about tearing it down because that’s what they’re about. They’re not about policy. They’re not driven by ideology. They’re driven by this crazy belief that if you make things worse, it helps them. So when we talk about Parliament being better, they vote against every single motion. But then, colleagues, outside of the House, or back there, they say, “Oh, thank God you did that. It was terrible, you know? We didn’t like the way it was working before. It was terrible.”

As the long-term care minister, let me digress for a moment. They tell me, “Oh, you can’t build for-profit,” but then what do they do? They come across and say, “Can you approve this home in my riding?” And then, when we approve it, they go on TV and complain that it got approved, because it’s a for-profit home. It’s not about regulation; it’s about tearing down.

I want to briefly finish off, Mr. Speaker, by talking about the Speakers again. I can’t tell you how the presiding officers—excuse me. I’m very proud of the fact that the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook will be the Deputy Speaker if this motion is passed. I think she—and I know you will agree—is a very qualified, quality individual who has years of experience holding politicians accountable as a newscaster, years of experience serving in municipal politics.

I look at the member from Ottawa–Vanier, I believe it is: a Franco-Ontarian, served on Ottawa council, a strong, independent woman.

I look at the member for Ajax: served as a school trustee for about 10 years; has done so much work in her community; won a seat in this place; is fierce, tough and will do a remarkable job in that chair, Mr. Speaker.

I also look at the member for Parkdale–High Park, who I believe is one of the best MPPs in this place, Mr. Speaker—a very, very tough riding, works very, very hard and I think is a credit to all of us. It doesn’t matter that she’s the first Tibetan. It doesn’t matter who is the first of what who serves in that chair, Mr. Speaker. What matters is, can they do the job and can they elevate this place by the fact that they’re sitting in that chair? That is the ultimate responsibility of a holder of that chair: to make sure that we elevate this place. And what did we hear from the opposition?