I’d like to thank the member, my friend from Perth–Wellington, for his question. If you believe you’re a victim of cybercrime, please reach out to the OPP toll-free at 1-888-310-1122 to report this matter.

Cybercrime is a serious issue and should not be overlooked. That’s why our government is investing more than $1.6 million to help fight cybercrime. This funding will support local organizations and their police services to work together to increase awareness about these horrible crimes and prevent them from happening in their communities.

Monsieur le Président, nous continuerons de faire ce qui est difficile, et nous continuerons de réaliser ce qui est difficile, pour assurer la sécurité de l’Ontario.

This $1.6-million investment is being allocated to 18 community-based organizations. I’m pleased—the member for Perth–Wellington will be happy to hear—that we’ve allocated $100,000 to Crime Stoppers Guelph Wellington. This organization will work with the OPP and Victims Services Wellington to increase awareness about cyber safety.

Monsieur le Président, rien pour moi, en tant que solliciteur général, n’est plus important que la sécurité de notre province.

I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

If everyone in the House tomorrow morning would like to get an “egg-cellent” start to your day, I would like to invite everyone to the breakfast that is being hosted tomorrow morning by the Egg Farmers of Ontario. It’s probably one of the best breakfasts of the year, so I hope to see you in the legislative dining room at 7:30.

Deferred vote on the motion that the question now be put on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 23, An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 23, Loi modifiant diverses lois, abrogeant divers règlements et édictant la Loi de 2022 visant à soutenir la croissance et la construction de logements dans les régions de York et de Durham.

Yes, we would like to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.

I would like to take this time to congratulate my amazing CA Jenny and her partner Andrew on the birth of their identical twin girls, Molly and Alice.

I would like to rise and provide some comment on the motion that is before us to begin the House tomorrow at 1 p.m. rather than 3 p.m. And clearly, this is all part of the government’s plan to ram through this legislation, to prohibit strikes and lockouts by education workers represented by CUPE, and to impose a collective agreement on those workers.

Speaker, we are completely opposed on principle and in substance to the government’s attempts to use the time of this House to try to force CUPE workers to accept a collective agreement that has not been bargained at the bargaining table. I would respectfully suggest to the government that their time would be much better spent sitting down at the bargaining table and trying to hammer out a fair deal with education workers.

We’ve heard the Minister of Education talk about using every tool at their disposal. This is not using the tools that are available to the government when they are negotiating with education workers, and, in particular, the education workers who are the lowest-paid workers in our public education system. They are the educational assistants, the early childhood educators, the custodians, the school secretaries, whose role is absolutely vital to the safe functioning of a school and to the success of the students who go there.

We heard the minister this morning talk about the government’s plan to catch up, and all of us, I think, have received feedback from parents in our communities that the $365 million that the government is spending on these catch-up payments to parents is being easily seen by parents as nothing more than a bribe. It’s just an attempt to try to get the government to ignore the fact that they are not—

Interjections.

I am not the only member in this House who remembers Bill 115. I’m sure that the Liberals at the end of the row here certainly remember those dark times of Bill 115. I know my colleague the member for Waterloo remembers Bill 115. We were trustees at the time. The member for Waterloo was the president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association. Bill 115 was really what got us mobilized to enter into politics. It was a terrible time in public education. The morale of education workers was lower than it had ever been. The frustration of parents was higher than it had ever been. And it was students who were losing out because of the then government’s failure to sit down with education unions and negotiate fair collective agreements that reflected the value that those education workers provide in our education system.

The mistakes of the Liberal government in imposing Bill 115 were rightfully challenged by education workers, education unions, and the courts have upheld those challenges. We know that the government has, so far, had to pay out $210 million as a remedy for taking that unconstitutional action and imposing collective agreements with Bill 115.

And yet, here we see the government is prepared to make almost exactly the same mistakes. They’re spending $365 million in these catch-up payments that will offer parents $200 per student—$250 if a student has special-education needs—to, what the government says, allow that student to catch up. But we know, parents know, that’s not going to make a drop in the bucket.

What will really help students catch up, what will really help students who are struggling with the learning loss and the disruption over more than two years of the pandemic is having more education assistants in our classrooms; it’s having more custodians who are keeping schools safe and clean; it’s having those school secretaries, who are really the backbone of the school system, who are there to help students who need to go home when parents come to pick them up early—they really are the traffic managers of the school system. All those workers deserve to be fairly compensated. They deserve to have their work valued to the extent that it should be.

The experience that we’ve gone through with COVID has, if anything, heightened our awareness of the importance of education workers in our system. We know that kids’ mental health needs have increased to a point that we haven’t seen before because of the disruptions over the last year. We know that kids are struggling both academically and also socially and developmentally because of the experience of the last two years.

What we do not need for kids when they’re in our system is education workers who feel completely demoralized, devalued, beaten down and tossed to the curb by this government, by its planned legislation to move forward as quickly as possible to prohibit any strikes or lockouts and to impose a collective agreement.

This government is saying, “The cupboard is bare. We have no money to settle with education workers and come up with a fair deal for those workers.” And yet, as I mentioned, they have the $365 million in catch-up payments that won’t do a thing to help kids catch up. They have the $210 million that they’ve already spent on remedies in response to the Liberals’ Bill 115. And as the Financial Accountability Officer showed us, there’s $44 billion in unallocated contingency funds that are available to this government over the next six years, on top of a $25-billion surplus.

Parents in Ontario, education workers in Ontario know that the cupboard, in fact, is not bare, that this government has the resources available to sit down and hammer out a fair deal with education workers that reflects the value that they provide in the system.

I am deeply disappointed that the government wants to bring us back at 1 o’clock tomorrow so that they can have more time on the legislative agenda to deal with the legislation that is before us.

This is not legislation that we should be considering in this place. The government should instead be focusing its efforts, its resources—everything, all the tools that it has available—to sit down with education workers and hammer out a fair collective agreement that recognizes the importance of those workers in our system.

With that, Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

The Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022, would, if passed, keep kids learning in school without disruption, critical to catching up on their studies, along with supporting their mental and physical health.

This legislation will prohibit strikes and lockouts during the term of operation of the collective agreement and require termination of any strikes already under way, following over two years of learning loss.

This legislation would, if passed, ensure students remain in class with a refocus on learning, catching up on extracurricular activities and quality education.

This legislation will protect the interests of two million children, their working parents and the communities that depend on equitable access to nutrition, mental health supports, developmental services and, quite simply, access to a safe place. It is for them, Speaker—it is for all students—that we are acting to keep kids in class.

Interjections.

The ayes are 74; the nays are 34.

Pursuant to standing order 63, your committee has selected the 2022-23 estimates of the following ministries for consideration: Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Infrastructure; Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries.

Pursuant to standing order 64(a), the 2022-23 estimates of the following ministry and office not selected for consideration are deemed to be passed by the committee and are reported back to the House:

Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism: 4601, ministry administration, $2,388,200; 4602, Anti-Racism Directorate, $28,068,900; 4603, citizenship and inclusion, $25,837,600; Office of the Lieutenant Governor, 1701, $1,903,500.

Again, I appreciate the member raising the question. It is, of course, what we’ve been focused on. We knew, as we came out of the pandemic, that there would be challenges across many different areas of the government’s responsibility, the same types of challenges that our partners in jurisdictions around the world are facing. But that is why we have brought a comprehensive health and human resources policy in front of the House.

I know the Minister of Colleges and Universities has been working very closely with the Minister of Health, and we’re seeing record numbers of people who want to get into nursing through our colleges and universities. We’re seeing records of new people hired into nursing programs. We’re hiring hundreds of PSWs. We’re expanding health care across the province of Ontario. In Niagara, we are adding a new hospital—also, the transition to Ontario health teams to have a seamless continuity of care.

The member is right, but that is why we are putting all of these historic resources into rebuilding a health care system that, for so long, was ignored by the previous government. We’ll get the job done for all Ontarians.

The supplementary question.

Also, pursuant to standing order 36(a), the member for St. Catharines has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the government House leader concerning sexual assault survivors’ kits. This matter will be debated Tuesday following private members’ public business.

The division bells rang from 1149 to 1154.

On October 27, 2022, Mr. McGregor moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Mr. McGregor’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Mr. Clark has moved second reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1200.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Second reading agreed to.

There being no further business at this time, this House stands in recess until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1300.

Report deemed received.

Mr. Lecce moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28, An Act to resolve labour disputes involving school board employees represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees / Projet de loi 28, Loi visant à résoudre les conflits de travail concernant les employés des conseils scolaires représentés par le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1303 to 1308.

Mr. Lecce has moved that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to resolve labour disputes involving school board employees represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

First reading agreed to.

Introduction of government bills? Introduction of bills? Statements by the ministry? Motions? I recognize the government House leader.

Government House leader?

The government House leader?

The member for London West.

Thank you for the question. I’m sure he’s noting my tie and saying it’s very scary. Of course, it’s for Halloween, not for your party.

The member asks an important question about auto insurance rates, and he will remember that through the pandemic, it was this government, working alongside industry and others, that had no changes to premiums in 2020 and very limited changes in 2021, producing over a billion dollars in savings for auto drivers in this province.

I’m sure the member opposite will remember it was this Premier and government that took the licence plate stickers off the drivers—that’s eight million people in the province.

And, of course, this member will remember those tolls that the previous government put on the 412 and 418. They’re off, they’re done, they’re gone.

I’m sure this member has read the budget, where we have a plan for auto insurance. Please take the time to read it.

I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy on the estimates selected and not selected by the standing committee for consideration.

Speaker, as our lives become increasingly reliant on technology, the threat of cybercrime becomes a more significant concern that, we all understand, needs to be better addressed. Cybercrime is no longer just suspicious emails from people claiming to be your long-lost royal relatives from faraway countries. Cybercrime violates individuals’ privacy as well as their security of data. Our government must support Ontarians in identifying and avoiding digital threats.

Can the Solicitor General please share with us what our government’s plan is to increase awareness around cybercrime?

Speaker, can the Solicitor General inform this House how our government’s $1.6-million investment will translate into local support, improve cyber security and protect my constituents?

I guess it’s Halloween, because we got the trick—not much of a treat for the thousands of education workers across this province, mostly women, who, not to use a Christmas analogy, are going to get a lump of coal in their stocking.

Look, there are three things we need to remember about what’s going on right now. This bill smells a lot like Bill 124. What’s Bill 124? It’s a bill that restricts the rights and wages of nurses and front-line health care workers who are mostly women. I think we can all agree on that. What’s the government doing right now? The government is restricting the wages and the bargaining rights of another group of workers who are mostly women. I dare anyone in this House to tell me where they’ve done that—this government—in a group that’s dominated, mostly, by men. Think about it.

So why is this government building a surplus on the backs of women? Why is this government doing that? That’s exactly what they’re doing here. That’s exactly what’s happening.

Let’s talk about who these workers are. They’re custodians. They’re EAs. They are early childhood educators. Actually, they’re administrators. My mother-in-law used to be what they used to call a school secretary; they call it an administrator now. She was that for 25 years. She got paid crap. But do you know what? That school would not have functioned without her. It wouldn’t have worked.

Across this province, there are thousands and thousands of women and men who do that every day, the lowest-paid workers. It sounds like you guys are trying to use them as an example for the rest of them. Good job, Premier; good job. Good message for—

These workers are critical to safe and welcoming schools. We all know that. And they’re the lowest paid—

Interjections.

The Premier has said many times, “These are front-line heroes. They’re the greatest. They’re the most wonderful, folks. I love them. They love me.” That’s what he says. But if they’re that important, if they’re that essential, then why doesn’t the government treat them as essential workers? If they’re that essential and that important, why don’t they pay them like essential workers? And if they’re that essential and important, why don’t they actually do what we do in health care, which is to create a framework for fair bargaining while we keep schools open? I don’t think that’s a tough one. If you’re going to say they’re essential, then treat them like they’re essential.

All this spin and scary stuff on Halloween—

Further debate?

Thank you, Speaker. I’m getting to it. I apologize.

We’re in a rush to do this; we shouldn’t be. The government has created an emergency where there didn’t need to be one. There are still bargaining days left.

I’m going to give you a tip, a really important history lesson, so I hope you’re listening: Learn from Bill 115. Learn from our mistakes; don’t keep making them.

Interjections.

Interjections.

It’s not just about the rights and the bargaining; it’s about trust. The most important thing that I saw wrong with Bill 115 was the break of trust of people we depended on for our kids and people we had worked with so well for nine years. You’ve got to learn those lessons. These workers are important to our children, and we shouldn’t be rushing through a bill.

I’ll say one last thing specifically about having a 5 a.m. sitting. Tonight is Halloween. You’ve got lots of families here. You don’t need to do this. It’s all for show. So I would suggest that if you want to put something forward to get this bill through, do it in a way that works to work-life balance, that respects the fact that families are going to be having to do the things they do tonight. It’s not just us, folks; it’s the people at the table, it’s the people in this building. Think about that. You don’t need to do it. It’s all for show.

Speaker, that’s all I have to say.

I’m going to interrupt to remind all the members of the House that we’re actually debating a motion to revise the schedule for tomorrow starting at 3 p.m.—we’ll start at 1 p.m. I’ll ask the members to keep that in mind as they offer their comments on the motion.

The member for Ottawa South.

The member for Ottawa South has the floor.

Member for Waterloo.

The member for Waterloo has the floor.

It is very interesting for me to hear the remorse and the regret from the Liberals over Bill 115. Of course, I am here because of Bill 115. Just in case some of you don’t remember this: When Elizabeth Witmer resigned her seat here in the Legislature, she went off to WSIB. This opened up a seat here. The Liberals were trying to look like Conservatives to win the riding of Waterloo, so they brought in Bill 115, the hammer, and bypassed the collective bargaining process. Of course, we know what happened with Bill 115—at least, we should know, because history should inform our future actions. What happened was that this piece of legislation ended up in court, and the people of the province paid for that hubris that the Liberal Party exhibited during that time.

But I do appreciate the context from the member, as well, and I think that he actually, in a genuine sense, reached across the aisle and said, “Learn from our mistakes.” When you undermine the collective bargaining process—because collective bargaining was not brought forward or won by the people in this House; it was won by the people of this province. And you can pretend that your interest is really with the students, but we have a lot of evidence that counters that narrative.

I want to just start with the money, because the money tells the story of the real priorities of a government. What we have seen over the last 4.5 years is that the government has been very circumspect about the money that they invest and that they don’t invest. We actually have a budget officer here for the Legislature who is non-partisan and who has been able to tell the people of this province that the money actually is there, as is the programming shortfall, including a $6-billion shortfall in education. When I look at the numbers—and this is directly from the FAO—the government will be sitting on a $44-billion, historically high unallocated contingency fund. The FAO, to his credit, last week said it’s “prudent”—that’s the finance minister; that was your language, you want to be prudent. One billion dollars in a contingency fund is reasonable, especially with some potential economic instability; $8 billion a year in an unallocated contingency fund is not.

What I’m saying to the Speaker—

He also wrote those mandate letters. We’ve never seen those mandate letters. I have to tell you, the mandate letters are of great interest, because in those mandate letters is there an indication that this Minister of Education has to fast-track a piece of legislation like this through this Legislature? Why is that the priority, to fast-track this piece of legislation? Is it in the mandate letters? You know what? We don’t know, because even when the privacy commissioner told the Premier to release the mandate letters, he appealed to the Divisional Court. When the Divisional Court told you to release the mandate letters, you went to the Ontario Court of Appeal. When the Court of Appeal told you the same thing, you appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it is now, four years later.

What is the true—

I do want to say, the people who are directly impacted by this legislation—the educational assistants, the ECEs, the secretaries, the child and youth workers, the hall monitors who keep our schools safe—want to hear us clearly articulate to them why this motion is trumping everything else.

At the end of the day, they have a majority. They will trample over the collective bargaining rights unless we try to appeal to them that the mistakes of the former Liberal Party back in 2012—actually they’re still the Liberal Party, but not recognized because, you remember, the House leader removed your party status. These are issues that I think the people of this province deserve to have some clarity on. And I know the government doesn’t want that. I’m sure that it’s very uncomfortable for them to be going down this road, especially over some of the things that they said about Bill 115, which will be interesting in the broader debate.

This, ultimately, is a failure to follow through on the main goal of the Minister of Education, which is to ensure that the very people who are doing the work in our schools, the very people who are keeping our students safe and who are nurturing them and who are really strengthening the public education system—it is very clear to us that whatever happened at that bargaining table was definitely not done in good faith. You need to get back to the table, get the job done, invest in public education so we don’t have to come back at 1 o’clock tomorrow or 5 o’clock in the morning and fast-track a piece of legislation which—you will lose this case again in the courts. Thank goodness for the courts.

Next, I’m going to recognize the member for Guelph.

Start the clock: The member for Davenport has the floor.

I rise to speak against this motion, which is designed to fast-track a bill that is fiscally irresponsible, that doesn’t work for workers and doesn’t work for students.

Speaker, the reason I’m opposed to this motion to fast-track a bill that doesn’t work for students is because if the government really wanted to work for students and put students and families first, they would be spending the time that we’re spending in the House right now, and that we’ll spend tomorrow, actually negotiating with workers, negotiating a fair deal.

Quite frankly, what the government has offered, especially to some of the lowest-paid education workers in this province, is unfair. To offer them a 30-to-50-cent-per-hour increase when many of these workers work for less than $40,000 a year—Speaker, I think it’s pretty reasonable at a time when we’re experiencing the kind of inflation we’re experiencing for them to request a $3-an-hour wage increase. So I would encourage the government, if they’re going to work for workers, to actually sit down and bargain with workers rather than fast-tracking this legislation.

The reason I think it’s inappropriate to fast-track legislation that’s fiscally irresponsible is because we’ve seen in the past—and the Liberals here just apologized for Bill 115—that these kinds of bills that violate bargaining rights end up costing taxpayers more in the long run. That’s why we shouldn’t be fast-tracking this bill with this motion.

Mr. Speaker, my message to the government is, if you want to address the worker shortages we’re seeing in the education sector, then pay workers a fair wage. Don’t fast-track this bill; actually go back to the table and bargain in a fair and responsible way that puts students and families first.