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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, it’s always a privilege to stand in this place, but I’ll tell you, I wish we were here today talking about something very different. Unfortunately, in this moment, what we are doing, for anybody watching, is we’re debating a motion that this government has put forward to fast-track a deeply anti-democratic, anti-worker and ultimately anti-student bill, legislation, in this place, using all the tools at their disposal on the legislative front, when the government, the members opposite, could be using this time at the bargaining table, actually negotiating a deal, as government should do, with the workers they employ. But no, this is what this government wants to spend their time on. They want to talk about moving legislation through faster again, once again to take away the democratic rights of working people to negotiate the terms and conditions of their work.

They could be at the table. In fact, I would imagine that CUPE right now is probably down at the Sheraton, like they have been for months, with their sleeves rolled up, waiting for this minister to show up one day, but nothing. Instead—and I think what’s really interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that it’s pretty clear that this government has had this legislation cued up for some time. We saw it months and months ago when this government—instead of actually talking about negotiations and sitting down at the bargaining table, this minister and this government decided to threaten those workers, right off the bat, with back-to-work legislation. They’ve been talking about it for months and months and months. Why? Why such a rush? What’s the big rush?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you why I think they’re rushing through this fast-tracking motion: because this minister and this government want to distract. They want to distract from what’s actually happening in our classrooms. They want to distract from other news, like the fact that this Premier won’t show up at the commission in Ottawa. They want to distract as much as possible. They want to distract from the fact—and I want to remind this government again, because parents in this province will not forget: This government shut down schools for 27 weeks, the worst record in Canada and in most of the world—absolutely terrible—and that could have been avoided, that 100% could have been avoided.

They want to rush this legislation through because they want to distract from the fact that they have squirrelled away billions of dollars that should have been spent in classrooms—$6 billion—that this government chose to sit on, instead of spending it on public education. I want to say that it’s our kids, our students that paid the price for that.

I was in Barrie last week and somebody pulled me aside and said, “Do you know what? I’ve got a kid in kindergarten in a class of 40 kids. Thank you. Thank you for standing up for us.” This government could have reduced class sizes in the middle of that pandemic, and they chose not to. Instead, they were using that opportunity to set the table, let’s say, to undermine workers’ rights, every second of every day. That is what this government wants to do—55,000 education workers in this province—

Interjection.

And do you know what they do? They’re ECEs. They’re educational assistants. They’re the custodians that keep our schools clean. These are the people in our schools who make $39,000 and less, and all they are asking for is a nickel an hour more—a nickel. And will this government give it to them? No, they won’t.

Interjection: No, that’s what they’re offering; they’re only offering a nickel—

Interjection: They don’t want that.

Interjections.

Interjections.

This is a government that likes to talk about working people, Mr. Speaker. But I’ve got news for you: Education workers are working people. Education workers are parents. Parents are working people. And the facts are facts: You are legislating away their collective bargaining rights, and you’re doing it to distract from the significant cuts and undermining of our public education system under this government.

I want to talk for a minute about why I’m so deeply concerned with the fast-tracking of this legislation, because I think we need to talk about what the real costs of this bill are going to mean. Not only is it going to undermine labour peace—I think that goes without saying—and alienate the entire education community, not just the 55,000 workers impacted directly by this legislation, but undermining the morale of education workers all across this province, including teachers and others, and all of that when we’ve already seen how this pandemic impacted our communities, our classrooms, families—all of this is going to impact students.

As New Democrats, we are very focused on what’s going to work for students in classrooms, and we are very focused on how to improve the quality of life for the people who work in those classrooms. I’ll tell you why that matters in the big picture, Mr. Speaker, and why, again, it’s so problematic that this government would want to rush through this legislation. It’s because the early childhood educators, the educational assistants, the administrators, the custodians, the people who care for and nurture our children in our classrooms, the people who keep our schools clean—all of those people deserve our respect, and if we do not respect them and this government fails to pay them a living wage and respect their basic democratic rights, they’re going to leave. That’s what’s already happening. The same crisis that we have seen in our health care system, which is causing emergency rooms to shut down, which is causing a crisis in communities across this province, is hitting our education sector too. There are not going to be educational assistants to support our students with special needs.

We are already in a crisis in terms of early childhood educators. The average number of years that an early childhood educator works in early childhood education? Guess. Three years. Why? Because they’re underappreciated, they’re given no respect by this government, and they’re paid too little.

There’s a fix. It’s simple. You’ve got to show people a bit of respect. That starts with treating them like a union that has the rights of every other union—democratic rights to collective bargaining.

But this government continues to show deep disrespect. Rushing this legislation through means that those folks are not going to have a chance to sit down at a committee and talk about the issues that they have with this legislation. It means that at 5 in the morning, we’re going to be debating this when a lot of people who care about this legislation are going to be getting up and trying to get their kids to school, getting themselves ready to work. So I don’t understand why—

Interjection.

Did somebody say, “Why would you be getting up at 5 a.m. to get your kids to school?” Oh, let me tell you. News flash: A lot of people and a lot of people in jobs like this have to travel a really long way and drop their kids at daycare and figure out all kinds of complicated arrangements. And, as I mentioned before, they actually have to work more than one job—half of them—in order to be able to do the job they really love, which is the one that involves nurturing and caring for our children. So they’re not going to be able to watch the discussions and the debate, because this government is going to be in such a rush to take away their collective bargaining rights.

This government is going to rush this legislation through—

Interjection.

The solutions—

Interjections.

As I was saying, this really is about transparency and accountability and rushing through legislation that’s really important.

As my colleague said, what are you rushing it through for? It’s probably going to get overturned in the courts. The Liberals learned that lesson the hard way. The people of this province paid for it. This is where this government is headed once again.

I am asking the government to reconsider this. Here in the NDP official opposition we are asking the government to reconsider this.

I’ve got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the other thing I’ve been hearing a lot—and I’m not kidding when I say I go to events and stuff and people say, “Thank you. Thank you, MPP, thank you to the NDP caucus for standing up for our kids. Thank you for being the only ones who stood up and asked this government to reduce class sizes, to invest in classrooms.” They say, “Please, our classrooms need more educational assistants, not fewer. We need smaller class sizes. We need more supports.”

This government is going to rush through legislation to deny those very workers their collective bargaining rights, to prevent them from being able to negotiate a fair wage increase at a time when we’re already losing those workers. We’re losing those workers every single day. We are in a crisis. Even if this government wanted to hire more than two educational assistants for a school, like it is in many schools in this province, to support all those kids who need that support, even if they wanted to hire more than that, they won’t be able to soon because nobody is going to want to work in this field.

The people who are educational assistants, and I think—I look to my colleague here, who has been a teacher. When you talk to the people who have actually been teachers in our caucus and around this province, they will tell you how absolutely essential it is, the work that educational assistants do. The educational assistants I meet will tell you that they do it because they love the kids, because they know how important the work is and how much those children need them. But if it also means that they have to juggle three jobs to keep doing that work, which is the reality of many educational assistants across this province, at some point, things break. Those are the voices that need and deserve to be heard in committees. It’s those workers who want to be able to sit here and listen to this debate of this legislation and who this government is going to exclude by fast-tracking the legislation. It’s deeply anti-democratic.

And I don’t know why I’m surprised. I’m not surprised, because this government, from day one, like the Liberal government before them, frankly, and the Conservative government before that, have been doing away with any ability of the opposition to provide opportunity for light to be shone on legislation, for us to have proper debate and accountability around legislation in this place. They’ve done everything they could to weaken that role.

I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I know many of them were elected, like I was, as a member of the opposition first. And I would think they would understand how important it is to have an opportunity for all voices to be heard but particularly the voices of the people who are most often forgotten, the people on the margins of our system but who really keep everything going. When I think of the educational system, it’s these workers—these CUPE workers, these educational workers—who are the backbone of that system.

The Minister of Education may stand up here and talk about how this is all about keeping kids in school. Do you know what this is about? This is about holding down the wages and benefits of the lowest-paid workers in our education system. And what this is going to do is drive down the quality of public education, and it’s going to mean that more and more of those education workers can no longer afford to work in that system. We saw that happen south of the border. We saw that happen for decades south of the border, and do you know what ended up happening, Mr. Speaker? It resulted in governments bringing in other solutions: private options, charter schools, voucher systems—

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to have a seat.

I’m going to have to ask the member to take her seat. I’m going to ask the House to come to order.

I’m going to remind the House that we’re debating a motion with respect to the sitting time for tomorrow, and I’ll ask the members to confine their remarks to that.

The member for Davenport has the floor.

The member for Davenport.

I rise today to speak to this motion, and as I reflect on the government’s haste to start debate at 5 a.m., in the wee hours, and coming back from the break that we normally have to meet as caucuses, this seems like a movie I’ve seen before. It’s kind of like a horror movie. It’s October 31, 2022, and it really feels like a horror movie to me.

It feels like a time when I was here all night—1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m.—and I felt the walls of this place shake, because people were pounding against the wall, trying to get the attention of this Premier and his government about the use of the “notwithstanding” clause to divide the city of Toronto’s council in half. People felt that this was diminishing Canada’s democracy and that we ought not do it. They were fighting all night long. I was here. I went out to say hello and to welcome them to their Legislature.

And yet, Speaker, this government has not resorted to using the “notwithstanding” clause that one time, learning its lesson and leaving it alone; they decided to use it again. And now, they have put legislation before this honourable House to resort once again to the use of the “notwithstanding” clause.

Every time a provincial government uses this clause, it weakens Canada’s democracy. Why is it that this Ford government cannot do its work—its basic work—without resorting to the use of that hammer? Why is it?

At this point, Speaker, we are talking about negotiating a collective agreement with our education workers. That is what we’re talking about. Yet instead of doing its job, instead of going before the negotiating table in free and fair bargaining, this government decides to produce sweeping legislation that denies the constitutional rights to free and fair collective bargaining of 55,000 education workers, the majority of whom are women, the majority of whom are part-time workers and the majority of whom earn an average of $39,000 a year—

This is leading not to a solution for parents in our education system; this is leading to more chaos and more confusion, because other education labour unions have cancelled their bargaining dates as a result of this legislation that tramples on the collective bargaining rights of these education workers. What is the government trying to solve, Speaker? They promised parents and students that they would not lose instructional days. This is not the solution. The solution is to stay at the bargaining table. That’s where they should be right now. That’s where they should be tomorrow, November 1, meeting with the mediator as was previously scheduled. But instead, they’ve brought us all here, requiring us to be here tomorrow morning at 5 a.m. and, as the motion requests, earlier in the afternoon, so that they could ram through their legislation that takes away the bargaining ability—it says it in the actual text of the legislation. It takes away the bargaining ability of these workers. And that is a disgrace.

Speaker, that is not the purpose of this Legislature. That is not the purpose of each and every member that is sitting here representing—I represent 111,000 people in my constituency of Scarborough–Guildwood; many of them are students, many of them are parents, and they do not expect that their education workers should be treated in this fashion. The people who create a school environment that is safe and healthy for our children and for our students deserve more respect than what this government is proposing in this legislation and with this motion that they are asking us to consider.

The government House leader said to the prior motion that he sought unanimous consent on and that we said no to, that he’s going to go and get an order in council—an OIC, Speaker, at a time when they should be meeting as a cabinet to say, “How do we bargain with our labour unions in education to settle these deals at the table and keep our schools open and working for each and every person?”

This legislation does not do that, Speaker. This legislation breaks trust, this legislation diminishes our democracy and this legislation denies these workers the opportunity to collectively bargain, which they are constitutionally given the right to do. Our Legislature should not be doing this. We should not be upholding this type of consistent behaviour from the Ford government.

So the Keeping Students in Class Act is just a title, because with the disruption that this government is going to bring on the education system, it’s going to create more chaos, not less. And it’s going to put our students at risk of their instructional days, not stability. This is a beginning; I am certain it is not the end of this conversation with these labour unions.

Speaker, we are here to be a voice on behalf of our constituents. We are here to hold the government to account. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you should be doing it. Instead, I would urge the Premier to accept the commission’s invitation and go before the commission and answer a few questions. Why is the Premier—

Interjections.

The member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

The member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

I am going to remind the members, all the members, that we’re debating a motion with regard to the hours of sitting tomorrow and the members should confine their remarks to the actual motion itself.

Member for Scarborough–Guildwood has the floor.

Merci, monsieur le Président. Je dois vous dire que je ne suis pas trop heureuse cet après-midi d’avoir à parler de cette motion qui parle de changer l’heure du début de la journée parlementaire demain, où l’on reviendrait à 13 h plutôt que de revenir à 15 h.

Pourquoi est-ce qu’on fait ça? On fait ça parce que le gouvernement a mis de l’avant un projet de loi qui empêche les travailleuses de l’éducation, qui font à peine quelques dollars de plus que le salaire minimum—on veut leur enlever le droit d’aller en grève, un droit pour lequel tous les travailleurs et travailleuses de l’Ontario ont travaillé très fort. Quand il y a un conflit, la travailleuse n’a pas beaucoup de choix. Le seul choix qu’elle a, c’est d’enlever ses efforts, d’enlever son travail. Ce droit-là, le gouvernement veut le leur enlever.

Plutôt que de demander aux gens de venir ici à 5 h demain matin, plutôt que de demander aux députés de revenir ici, pourquoi ne pas utiliser ce temps-là pour s’asseoir avec les représentants syndicaux de ces femmes-là pour voir comment on fait pour s’assurer que les emplois des travailleuses, qui font deux, trois, ou, si elles sont chanceuses, quatre dollars de l’heure de plus que le salaire minimum—pourquoi ne pas prendre le temps de leur demander comment on fait de ces jobs-là de bons emplois, de bons emplois où une éducatrice de la petite enfance, une adjointe à l’enseignement et celles qui font l’entretien ménager ont un emploi permanent qui leur permet de payer le loyer puis de nourrir leurs enfants? Elles ne demandent pas de faire des millions, ces femmes-là. Elles demandent d’avoir assez d’argent pour payer le loyer puis nourrir leurs enfants. C’est tout ce qu’elles demandent. Pourquoi est-ce que le gouvernement n’est pas capable de s’asseoir avec elles, de les écouter et de les respecter?

Ces femmes ont vécu deux ans et demi de pandémie. Ces femmes ont vécu le projet de loi 124, qui limitait—puis là, encore une fois, le gouvernement va passer une loi contre ces femmes-là, ces femmes qui font deux, trois, quatre dollars de l’heure de plus que le salaire minimum.

Mais ces femmes-là font toute la différence dans les vies de nos enfants : les enfants qui, pour une raison ou pour une autre, ont besoin d’un petit peu d’appui; les enfants qui vivent des moments difficiles, qui ont besoin d’être entourés; les enfants qui veulent apprendre et ont des besoins spéciaux. C’est ces travailleurs-là qui font que ces enfants ont l’opportunité d’avoir du succès dans la vie.

C’est ce qui fait de notre système d’éducation—pourquoi est-ce qu’on en est fier? Pourquoi est-ce que, en Ontario, on est connu pour notre éducation? C’est parce qu’on a des travailleurs comme ça dans nos écoles. C’est sûr que nos professeurs—

Interjections.

De nous forcer à revenir ici pour enlever des droits à ces femmes-là me brise le coeur, monsieur le Président. On ne devrait pas avoir à revenir ici à 13 h demain. On ne devrait pas avoir à revenir ici à 5 h demain matin. On devrait plutôt voir notre ministre de l’Éducation—et je vous dirais, le ministre du Labour également—aller rencontrer les représentants du syndicat et voir comment on fait pour s’assurer que nos écoles restent ouvertes.

À la fin de la journée, ces gens-là sont des êtres humains. Les êtres humains, quand tu ne les respectes pas, quand tu ne les traites pas de façon équitable—bien, on est tous des êtres humains, monsieur le Président—ça va paraître dans la façon qu’ils font leur travail. Ça va paraître dans la façon qu’ils vivent leurs vies. Puis ça, ça va avoir un impact direct sur chacun des enfants qui va à l’école en Ontario.

On n’a pas besoin de venir ici demain à 13 h. On n’a pas besoin de venir ici demain à 5 h du matin. On a besoin que le ministre aille à la table de négociations et négocie une convention collective qui respecte les travailleuses—point à la ligne.

It’s my honour to rise in opposition to this anti-democratic motion of fast-tracking this legislation through the House. I also am somebody, as a former educator, who supports education support workers—doesn’t just support them, but supports them in thought, word and deed, unlike this government. We hear words from this government, but we see actions like this fast-tracking motion, which is completely anti-democratic, anti-student and anti-education worker.

We’ve heard in this House that education workers, many of whom have to work a second job—that should give us pause. This government? They’re looking at their phones. We also heard in this House that one quarter of education support workers are using food banks, and, again, from this government crickets, because, quite frankly, Speaker, they do not care. They do not care about education support workers. They do not care about students, despite claims to the contrary.

This time allocation motion is a clear example of the government not being able to bargain. Conservatives cannot bargain, they cannot negotiate and they do not stand for students. Quite frankly, the fact that this government would stand up and applaud when they’re talking about trampling on democratic rights should give this entire province pause.

Right now, in classrooms across Ontario, education support workers are clearly reading the news and feeling demoralized. They’re feeling demeaned and they’re feeling disregarded by this government.

CUPE is waiting at the table, Minister. What’s the government afraid of? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of being fair? Are you afraid of doing what’s right? Are you afraid of doing what’s democratic? Instead, we see this hammer of a legislation coming down. This motion is completely ridiculous.

As a former educator myself, when children are losing, when they’re losing at a game, you know what they do? They try to change the rules, Speaker. They try to change the goalposts. Suddenly the rules that have been agreed upon are ones that are no longer in play, and they try that manipulative tactic. This is exactly what we are seeing from this government.

It’s a clear admission from the Conservatives that they’re incapable of bargaining. They’re incapable of negotiation. They’re incompetent. They’re ineffective and quite frankly, Speaker, they’re impotent when it comes to doing the right thing.

The NDP though, here on this side of the House, we stand for fairness. We stand for the rule of law. We stand for students, and we are the party of workers—end, stop.

Further debate on the motion with respect to the sitting times for tomorrow in this House? The member for Sudbury.

Thank you for the reminder, Speaker.

I’m going to try to be brief, because I know there are many of my colleagues who want to speak to this as well. We are talking about changing the schedule, but we’re talking about changing the schedule to 5 a.m. and sitting early—3 p.m. to 1 p.m.—so that the Conservative government can rush through legislation to attack the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers in the education sector. This is cruel, and this is heartless.

Today during question period, I talked about Charity. I reminded this Premier that I spoke about Charity in August, and today again I spoke about Charity and the fact that she works full-time and goes to food banks to feed her kids. Essentially, the minister and the Premier are her employer, and they are comfortable—the Minister of Education, the Minister of Labour, the Premier of the Conservative Party are comfortable that their employees have to go to food banks to feed their kids. And, Speaker, they have the audacity to say this is about taking care of children. The Minister of Education said “equitable access to nutrition.”

I want to tell you, Speaker, I’ve talked about growing up below the poverty line, growing up poor. My back-to-school clothes for every year of my life until I was 16 were from the Salvation Army. You could collect clothing, and you paid 25 cents for a bag. They wouldn’t charge 25 cents to my mom, because we were that poor.

There are people in this province who are living in deep, deep poverty, and this Conservative government gave a standing ovation when they attacked these workers. It is disgraceful. And asking us to come back so you can attack them earlier, so you can hit them earlier, kick them while they’re down, is disgraceful.

I promised earlier I was going to be short, but I want to circle back to Charity, who messaged me after the question. She said, “I am terrified. I already have to go to food banks. What’s going to happen next when they do this? My kids tonight will be going trick-or-treating in the same Halloween costumes as last year because I can’t afford new ones.”

This is an embarrassment for the party, and I hope that all workers remember this.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words with respect to the motion that’s on the table, Speaker. As you know, the motion does set out that the House will—

Interjection.

The ayes are 71; the nays are 32.