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.

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.

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.

The government House leader.

Interjection.

I’ll recognize the member for Oshawa.

The member for Oshawa has the floor.

Mr. Calandra has moved that the meeting schedule of the House for Tuesday, November 1, 2022, as set out in standing order 9(a), be revised by substituting 1 p.m. for 3 p.m.

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 will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1430 to 1500.

Mr. Calandra has moved that the meeting schedule of the House for Tuesday, November 1, 2022, as set out in standing order 9(a), be revised by substituting “1 p.m.” for “3 p.m.”

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

Motion agreed to.

I recognize the government House leader.

The House adjourned at 1504.

Thank you, Speaker—

Interjections.

This government is wanting to fast-track it by making the House sit at 5 a.m. to start debating and then two hours in the afternoon, reclaiming some time there and changing the rules a bit to allow us to get through this faster, to get this piece of legislation to and through and passed so that they are ready with that great big huge hammer to stick it to those education workers—those most poorly paid education workers in the province, who at 5 a.m., Speaker, while the government is feeling quite pleased with themselves because they’re going to stick it to those education workers—they’re not going to let them strike—a lot of them are going to be getting up and getting ready to go to work. The custodial staff is going to be—if not already at work, at school—heading in to do important work. We’ve been talking about, we’ve been learning—some of us have been learning—about pandemic protocols, about cleanliness, about cleaning, and those custodial and janitorial workers and support staff are doing their darnedest, and they haven’t had what they needed all the way long.

So at 5 a.m., while we’ve got folks being smug because—like I said, stick it to ’em—we will be standing here in our place as New Democrats, glad to bring voice to this House on behalf of those workers, but they’ll already be starting their day, and they won’t be able to fill the galleries, which I know that they would like to do. They won’t be able to come to committee, because “Ram it through,” “Get ’er done”—right—“Run ’em over.”

Speaker, we’ve talked a bit about Bill 115—and I’m going to keep this connected to the motion, don’t you worry. My colleague from Waterloo talked about what brought her here—that Bill 115 was a big part of that. Well, my journey was different—not as public but about the same, because I was a teacher at the time and I got my teeth kicked in by the last Liberal government, maybe the actual last Liberal government. It was super anti-democratic. They stole our sick days and legislated us back to work and all sorts of stuff that turned out to not have been legal.

They and the province have learned—well, I don’t know about those members of the province—a valuable lesson about the cost of trampling rights. The courts have made their ruling, and it’s a hefty amount of money that is being repaid.

At the time when I got my teeth kicked in—I don’t know if that was the part I wasn’t allowed to say—by the then Liberal government, I got involved with my local union. I hadn’t been involved before that time. I got involved because it wasn’t right, because it wasn’t fair. It was anti-democratic. That manoeuvre of the Liberal government woke up a bunch of us to our responsibilities, as union members and as members of the labour community at large, to stand up for our rights to collectively bargain. I had no idea that I had collective bargaining rights. I was just doing a job that I thought was super important. But then I learned, and I was willing to stand up and defend those rights.

That’s what this government is doing, and I don’t know that they get that yet.

You are awakening a beast. You are going to have education workers who are going to wake up and realize their full potential, and all of you are going to feel it. Those of you who have dabbled in education and a labour minister who has said he’s a labour minister were the first ones to stand today and clap about ramming it through super fast, that we have this motion that is meant to make it all be finished and over and done with—wait for it—before the education workers are even on strike. That’s the difference to Bill 115—they were heavy-handed, and they laid the smackdown and brought the hammer down, but they had already gone on strike.

This government has said, “Well, we don’t like that. They may have the right to collectively bargain, but we’re going to take it away. They may have the right to strike”—they have the right to strike. And this government has said, “Well, I don’t like that.” So this government, by rushing this through by the end of this week, before they even go on strike—you are ready to lay it down for them, these workers you purport to care about? The party of the people or whatever—I forget; I don’t read their bumper stickers.

Interjection.

Speaker, I don’t mean to make light of it.

We will have the chance at 5 a.m., and we will come prepared with all of the letters that you are ignoring, that your inboxes are filled with—stories of workers in this province who are doing their darnedest. They can’t pay their own way, they can’t look after their families, they can’t feed their families, and you guys are saying, “Take it or leave it.”

You’re sending cheques in the mail for whatever parents wanted—200 bucks here, 200 bucks there.

You could hire education workers. You could be putting money into education. Instead, you’re saying, “You’re not the boss of me. We don’t like the rights that you have, and we are going to override them.”

That is shameful. It’s awful, but they think it’s great. They’re clapping and they’re saying something about how it’s about the kids. They wouldn’t know what is best for the kids. They don’t listen to the kids. They’re not listening to education workers. And I would say shame on every single one of them.

I hope that when you go back to your ridings that you hear it, and I hope that you hear it for a long time—because you’re picking a fight that you may think you’re going to win because you’ve got the biggest hammer here, but in the long term, these kids you pretend to care about are watching.

Interjections.

Those kids are watching. They care about their custodial staff. They care about their EAs. They care about their ECEs. They care about their teachers. They care about the principals—