Well, they got paid.

This proposed act, Bill 28, has two main features to it: It’s about fairness and balance. There is much talk about rights, and we believe in the rights of all citizens. We all must live together. We are on a journey in our short lives here together, and we have to respect each other. Students and children have rights to an in-person education. Parents have the right to expect that their children will have the best learning and educational environment possible, and they have the right to stability and the right to be able to rely upon all aspects of the education system.

And yes, our wonderful, dedicated CUPE employees have the right to a fair wage and the right to a safe workplace and the right to respect, but no rights are absolute. And when we speak of the charter, the very first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms indicates that the rights in this charter are guaranteed—

Interjections.

Thank you very much. I’d like to thank the labour critic for doing an incredible job for his half-hour—of getting notice late, like we always do, that they’re going to bring in and try to rush this through. I’m going to have a message to the Conservatives, very quickly—

Interjection.

The member for Niagara.

You know, Speaker, there’s a lot of catcalling over there. I ask them to respectfully listen to this, because I’ve said many times, and I say it again: Read Bill 28 very carefully and read the charter very carefully and read the history of how the charter came to be.

The very first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is really about this very fact: that as citizens, we cannot trample on each other’s rights. We must live together in harmony. That means no one can trump somebody else’s, and there are competing interests often at stake. So section 1 of the charter begins with this: that the rights in this charter are guaranteed “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That must be read in the context of the rights enumerated that follow and in the fact that under section 52, that the charter, including section 1 and the rights listed therein, and including section 33, is the supreme law of Canada—that part of what the charter permits is both judicial review and a conversation between our courts and the legislative branches of government, the Parliament of Canada, the legislatures of the provinces. All are part of the conversation.

Section 33 is really a conversation clause. It’s about balance. When it comes to a conversation about defining the rights in the charter, the rights of all citizens, even when those rights clash with each other, when it comes to that conversation, as professor Peter Hogg wrote in his constitutional law text, which is a leading authority on constitutional law—I was honoured to be one of his students at the Osgoode Hall Law School from 1984 to 1987, and he just passed away at the age of 80 last year. He wrote that courts are not always correct when it comes to their rulings on matters of charter rights.

Our Supreme Court of Canada in 1929 in the Persons Case legally reasoned its way to the determination that women are not persons for purposes of Senate appointments under the Constitution Act of 1867. Back in 1929, thankfully, there was still a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a committee of the House of Lords. That route was abolished in 1949, but 20 years earlier, in 1929, there was a right of appeal, and mercifully, thankfully, the JCPC overturned the Supreme Court of Canada on that ridiculous ruling. The Supreme Court of Canada, with respect, in that ruling, was spectacularly wrong, was on the wrong side of history, and yet somehow legally reasoned its way, wrongly, to the determination that women were not persons for purposes of Senate appointments. So the courts are not always correct, as the late professor Peter Hogg indicated.

So we need a conversation about rights. We need to have a conversation that is civil and respectful and understands the unique nature of our Canadian Constitution. That conversation means that the elected representatives of the people in this House and in every other Legislature in the Dominion of Canada and in the Parliament of Canada can enter the conversation before or after a court has started the conversation. Our part of the conversation is the bills we propose, debate and enact into law and the conversation before the courts or the cases that come before it leading to decisions. That’s an ongoing conversation. It’s a vital aspect of a free and democratic society—the independent judiciary, not elected by the people but appointed by the executive council and the elected representatives of our Parliaments. When we have that conversation about defining and limiting and balancing competing rights under the charter, then we have true free and democratic conversation.

So section 33, in my respectful submission, although it is itemized as override and has repeatedly been called the “notwithstanding” clause, simply because that’s one word in section 33, is part of the supreme law of Canada, is part of the charter. We would not have the charter without it. It’s part of the fact that there’s a conversation that can and must go on with a bill like this that does reference the charter, in section 13—and because it’s about balance. It’s about saying we need to somehow balance the right of freedom of association, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2015 decision—balance that interpretation by a court with the right of students and children to be in class and not to face disruptions, for parents to be able to rely on a stable education system where their children can learn in the best possible undisrupted environment. That’s what this is about.

As we speak here, negotiations can be ongoing. There is no strike yet. There is no reason why another type of conversation can’t occur. As we know from the history of the negotiations, this government actually bid against itself in the face of an unmoving position from the union leadership.

This government was open and is open to continued discussion, just as we should have a discussion in this House—a conversation about balancing rights, because we do not live in a vacuum. We cannot say, “My rights trump yours.” We cannot say that collective bargaining and the right to freedom of association always trump the rights of students to not be disrupted in their educational experience. That’s the kind of society we live in. We live together. We must live in harmony. We must converse civilly.

I’m very delighted that the catcalling has stopped, because that means my friends on the other side are listening. We can learn from each other. I happen to believe that if we always speak of balance and fairness and trying to get along in a civilized way, we can achieve a just society. That’s what Bill 28 is trying to do. But when we misunderstand the nature of how our nation is governed, when we use phrases and labels that do not accurately describe what our Constitution is all about, then we mislead each other, and then we stop listening to each other. We can always learn from each other, and we can learn from history.

A little bit of history: In 1982, we did achieve patriation of Canada’s Constitution. It was the original British North America Act of 1867 that created the Dominion of Canada and the four original provinces and our federal system of government. It was renamed, in 1982, the Constitution Act of 1867; rightly so, because the British North America Act was an act of the UK Parliament. Until 1982, we had to go to the Imperial Parliament just to make simple amendments. When employment insurance and jurisdiction over it—or then we called it unemployment insurance, in 1940, in the final, dying years of the Great Depression. When it was established as a matter for federal jurisdiction, that took a constitutional amendment to the old BNA Act, and we had to go cap in hand to the UK Parliament to do that, even as we were sending our young people off to a war in Europe. We were a nation by then, and yet we still were dealing with a colonial, outdated approach to governing ourselves.

In 1982, we achieved patriation, which means the provinces and the federal government could decide for themselves how to amend our Constitution, and we got a Charter of Rights, with section 1 telling us that all rights are not absolute—we must live together in harmony and balance competing rights; we can’t have it all for ourselves—and a conversation clause in section 33 that said not just the courts but the elected assemblies, the elected Parliaments, can be part of the conversation about defining rights, how they will work in practice and even, yes, balancing or limiting the rights so that we can live together, because if only one group has all the rights and another group does not, then we have chaos and disharmony.

That’s why Bill 28 is about harmony. It’s about fairness. It’s about balance. It’s attempting, in one respect, to implement a fair wage increase, fair benefits, and at the same time to make sure there is no disruption. So the bill reflects listening and conversations with the union leadership, saying, “You are asking for this. We were offering this. Now we’re offering more, and we’re going to implement that as part of the bill, because we believe, on behalf of the people of Ontario, that it’s fair.” And at the same time, we respectfully are implementing this bill to say we cannot trample on the rights of students and parents by allowing strike action that would disrupt education.

This bill comes on the heels of an attempt at not having to bring in such an act, but the point of leadership, the point of governance, is that when we face a roadblock, when we face a crisis, when we face that moment where a decision is required, leadership is required. So we all gathered here yesterday at 5 a.m. to begin the conversation, the debate, and I realized as I sat among all of the members of this House yesterday that parliamentary democracy is alive and well. Yes, there are strong disagreements about the merits of this bill, and I greatly appreciate being able to be heard on my characterization of the bill in the context of the Constitution, the charter and that need to balance rights.

There are ways to implement good policy. We are first and foremost a Parliament, but yes, we must vote. We must divide. There are times when this House is unanimous, and in this instance, from what I am hearing on the other side, we will not be unanimous, but in the end the majority of the members of this House will decide.

And dissent is welcome. Dissent is part of democracy. It’s part of the conversation. And we believe—the members on the government side—that the time for decisive action has come, but in doing that, one can be decisive and yet implement a bill such as this, or propose to implement a bill such as this, that is based on being harmonious, being balanced, being fair.

Note, Speaker, that this bill does not attempt to legislate an agreement based on earlier offers but rather its improved offer. I happen to be a lawyer and mediator and negotiator, as well as a trial lawyer in my former life before I was a parliamentarian, and I know the meaning of the phrase “bidding against oneself,” but sometimes, for a greater good, representing one’s side, that’s what one does in negotiations: One says, “I’m very disappointed that the opposite side did not move from its position. I’m very disappointed that they are saying, ‘Well, we’re leaving. We’re taking our last offer and going home and not moving.’” Sometimes the right call is, “I’m sorry to hear that, but we’re actually going to make our next offer anyway. We’re going to bid against ourselves.”

That’s what our government, in good faith, did, and yet still we have no movement from the CUPE leadership. So this government is trying to be fair, and this government, in proposing this bill, has proposed that agreement where it bid against itself, not out of weakness but out of respect, as a sign that we do wish to be balanced, we do wish to do everything that we can, within the limits of government fiscal limitations.

With taxpayer money, there is no money growing on trees. There is no bottomless pit, right? We hear about a surplus, but we have a massive debt that was tripled under the Liberals, doubled under the NDP. When we speak of children and rights, what kinds of debt and deficits will we leave to our children and grandchildren if we spend unwisely? They have a right not to be burdened with debt.

Again, there are rights for many of our fellow citizens involved in this debate, and rights that are being respected by this bill. Balancing competing interests is what leadership is about. That is what this government bill proposes to do. That is what Premier Ford is leading us toward: respect, harmony, fairness, balance.

I urge this House to support Bill 28 and swiftly pass it into law.

Further debate?

Obviously, I think it’s very clear that I’m rising today in opposition to this time-allocation motion, this ramming-through of something that is completely undemocratic, completely unprincipled. The simple fact that this bill has to start off negating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the fact that it is operating notwithstanding sections 2, 7 and 15 of the highest law of our land, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the fact that a lawyer would even stand to support this is shocking. And that it would operate despite the Human Rights Code—I can’t believe we’re even here discussing this heavy-handed, draconian legislation.

We had breakfast this morning here in this great House with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, and many members from the official opposition were there. However, I don’t believe—and I think we waited for quite some time for any government members, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Colleges and Universities—

Even more shockingly, the Liberal Party showed up. It’s not too long for us to remember Bill 115. In fact, there are many people in the official opposition who woke up to what was happening in our province as a result of the Liberals’ Bill 115, which stripped education workers of their rights under the charter.

That was a very costly, lengthy legal battle, which the Liberal government at the time knew they would lose. But they were able to do it because they figured, “Well, we’ll save a little bit of money now and kick the can down the road.” That’s what this government is doing with Bill 28: They are probably well aware that the Supreme Court is not going to stand for this, but really, it’s not their problem. They’re foisting this upon future generations. They’re pushing that debt down the road.

Around the time of Bill 115—and I should preface, as well, Speaker, that my background is in education—the Premier at the time, Dalton McGuinty, actually came to visit my school. I was working in a library at the time as a teacher-librarian. Interestingly, I had tried to go into the school—it was over the summertime—because, like when the Minister of Education goes to schools, teachers are told to hide in their classrooms, to not come out. They’re not even allowed to go to their cars when he’s coming to make an announcement, because he doesn’t want to speak to educators; he doesn’t want to speak to students.

At that time, as I said, Premier McGuinty visited my library, and he was making an education announcement, because he liked to position himself—he liked to pretend that the Liberal Party supported education despite all of the cuts and underfunding and all of the attacks. He had behind him a bookcase, and from that bookcase they had certain titles removed. I think that speaks to that party’s character and quality, and their ethos, perhaps. They removed Gordon Korman books, for heaven’s sake, Speaker—Gordon Korman, a very famous Canadian author. Books titled—and I kept a record of these—Schooled; Swindle; Chasing the Falconers; Framed; Hunting the Hunter; the entire On the Run series. It really spoke to me at that time. I thought, why would they be so afraid of Canadian titles and a Canadian author? But they were afraid that they were going to be seen that way.

I would posit that this government is afraid of how they’re going to be seen, because I’m well aware that members on the government benches are receiving just as many emails from outraged parents who are upset about the cuts and the underfunding and the mistreatment of people in our education system.

I hope this government will understand—I hope I can explain this in ways that they can understand—that education workers’ working conditions are students’ learning conditions. Education workers’ working conditions are students’ learning conditions. When you attack educators, when you attack education workers, that all falls upon students.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with many, many gifted education workers over my career. I see them giving their all, each and every day, making sure that when a young person comes to them, no matter what is going on, they’re giving them their full attention. But what you’re doing right now is demeaning them. You’re making them question whether this profession is for them.

Quite frankly, Speaker, I can’t blame them for feeling that way. I can’t blame them for feeling like they’ve been kicked in the teeth by this government. We hear over and over again from this government that front-line workers are heroes—which they are—and yet we see legislation which would keep them earning minimum wages. Many will earn less than $20 an hour, and this government is okay with that. This government is okay with attacking the people who give their best each and every single day for our young people so that they grow up and have their best and brightest future.

It should also be mentioned that education workers are a largely female-dominated profession, so this is effectively an attack on women. When we consider Bill 28, as well as Bill 124, these are attacks on women.

What’s also shocking is that this government, who would position themselves as being prudent fiscal managers, are wasting money on this, which will be a costly legal battle. We saw the Liberals with Bill 115, which they lost, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet this government, if they just look at the math—it’s no wonder. I would like this government to take the EQAO test, because I don’t think they would do well on it either. Quite frankly, if you took the money you’ve spent on these education coupons that parents never needed, never asked for and never wanted and you paid that to our education workers, you would have a cost savings. Invest in education. It is not a cost—absolutely ridiculous.

So this time allocation motion: They’re just trying to hide things under cover of night. In fact, we’re probably going to end up with a midnight sitting tonight because, quite frankly, this government wants to escape scrutiny. They don’t want people to pay attention. They don’t want people to notice what they’re doing.

I’ve had so many parents reach out in my riding who are concerned about this bribe that they’ve been given by this government: $200 for a student or $250 for a student with disabilities—as if that $50 is somehow going to make everything okay.

I want to quote a couple of people from CBC London in my riding. Robyn Michaud is a member of Western University’s faculty of education, and she’s also a parent, Speaker. She argues that the funding should be put towards hiring and supporting educational assistants, EAs, and other education support workers. I’d like to quote Robyn: “You can’t have a government at the table saying we have no money to give to education workers, then provide all these random payments to parents.... [The provincial government] is not paying them a livable wage, you’re not going to retain the best staff and there’s going to be a massive education crisis.”

I’d also like to quote Trang Bui, who is a parent who has two children in school. Trang says, “Wouldn’t it just be a better decision to take that money and hire EAs? That way, this so-called catch-up plan could be a plan that helps teachers support our students and not put the burden back on parents.”

This is classic bait and switch. They’re telling parents that they support them, but they don’t support their students in schools. It’s absolutely ridiculous that education workers have faced over a decade of wage cuts under the previous Liberal government and this government now. The fact that there’s anyone working in our education system who earns less than $20 an hour is absolutely disgraceful.

As I offer my comments here, it’s funny how many Conservative members are squirming and how many are averting their gazes, how many are looking at their phones with their faces buried because they know all of their constituents are reaching out to them in support of education workers, yet they are denying the fact that people are not happy about this. People want students to be supported in schools.

I think as well that we need to make sure that we are investing in education. I’d like to come back to my comments about education workers being demeaned and degraded and treated poorly by the prior Liberal government and this government now. We’ve heard in this chamber that almost half of education workers are forced to use food banks, that they’re unable to fully support their families—pardon me, a quarter of them are using food banks and that half of them have to not only work a full-time job within the school system but have to take an additional job.

This time allocation motion is clear evidence that this government is unable to bargain, they’re unable to negotiate, and it’s clear evidence that they do not stand for students. As we’ve had so many students visiting this chamber, I think we should ask them if they think that their educational assistants, their administrative staff, the folks who clean our schools, the dietary aides—I think we should ask them if they think that they should be paid a livable wage, or if they think it’s okay that the people who look after them and provide them with their best education should be living in poverty.

Within our education system, one of the reasons I became involved—as I said, my background is in education—was because I saw so many students with special needs and mental health needs falling through the cracks. We had a Liberal government that talked a good game. Premier McGuinty talked about inclusion and how students should all be included—and we absolutely agree on this side of the House that students with special needs and with mental health needs, they belong with their peers—but what they did was that they shoved students into classes without supports. That is not inclusion; that is abandonment.

When it comes to the allocation of educational assistants for students with special needs, it is an absolute nightmare. Learning support teachers have to go appeal to the board and they have to tell the best story. It’s the learning support teachers who tell the best story to the board who receive the most educational assistant lines within the elementary panel. They have to go in and they have to tell the board, “The roof is on fire. We have this many needs, oh, my gosh.” Well, what about those schools who are already completely overwhelmed and completely taxed? What if they don’t tell a good story to the board? What if they don’t receive the funding for educational assistants that they require? Because, quite frequently, that happens.

Students are not funded based upon their individual need; instead, we have this system where the government wants to not abide by their responsibility and not provide each student with what they need, because our funding formula is flawed.

Students are funded the exact same, in a cookie-cutter fashion, and then school boards are provided with a purse with the hopes that they will spend that on the student. But there are two problems here, Speaker: Number one, that problem is that there’s no guarantee that that purse of money will be spent on the student who needs it; and number two, even if it is spent on that student who need needs it, there’s no guarantee it will be spent in an appropriate way—massive flaws. We need to return to a funding model where students are funded based on their need.

In our education system as well, we see that there are supports for students who are at the top of the class and there are meagre supports for students who are struggling. But we also need to consider, what about the students in the middle? What about the students who just need a little bit of extra support? Those of us in the education system, who have spent some time and understand the system, recognize that it wasn’t too long ago that educational assistants used to be able to provide literacy groups for students in the middle, that little bit of extra reading support, numeracy support so those students who might not necessarily put their hands up in class but might need that little bit of a push would get that assistance, and you cannot underestimate how much value that had. But now we have a system where it has been cut and underfunded so deeply there is no chance that those education workers will get the chance to meet with those students, because they’re, quite frankly, running back and forth between classrooms like their hair is on fire.

We see classes that will frequently have students who should not be in the same room, but they’re put together so that they can share an EA, because this government is too cheap to pay what these educational assistants are worth and what students are worth by not putting enough caring adults into schools. It’s ridiculous.

I will also remember as an educator that we would often hear “code yellow” over the PA system, and that was a code for educators. That code yellow: “Lock your doors. There’s something in the hallway, and the students are in danger.” So we would lock the doors. We would tell the students who might be desperate to use the washroom, “Sorry; you can’t go anywhere.”

Speaker, what you would hear coming from the hallway would be an absolute nightmare. I’ll never forget a student being dragged from the school, kicking and screaming and swearing. And it wasn’t that student’s fault; let’s be clear here. That student had needs that were not being met, and they were not receiving the funding that they deserve and require. But because of that, education for every single student was impacted. How can you tell a bunch of eight-year-olds, “Never mind all that cursing and swearing, which is horrible and awful to hear. Go back to learning. Pay attention, concentrate, smile. Everything is okay”?

What this government also fails to recognize is the amount of violence that education workers are subject to in the workplace. Some have to attend and look after students who abuse them. Many of them have to wear Kevlar body suits; they have to wear armour. That is on this government. You are not providing the funding to make sure that not only students are safe but education workers are safe.

Education has been cut to the bone. This time allocation legislation to push through this undemocratic, terrible piece of legislation is something that we should all oppose.

I urge this government: Listen to the front lines. Listen to students. Do not ram through this legislation. Pay education workers what they’re worth. Make sure that you’re providing those caring adults who are in our schools—that you’re treating them with the respect that they deserve. And do you know what happens? That will filter through into the best learning environment for our students, and we’ll all benefit, because one day they will be looking after us. I shudder to think what this will do to them when they know that they have a government that is attacking those caring people in their schools.

It’s important for me to be here to speak to, really, a pivotal piece of legislation. It’s not that long ago—certainly, I think it’s a bit of a shorter time period than some of my colleagues—that my class time was being disrupted.

When we think about the terrible two years that so many kids in our province have gone through with the COVID-19 pandemic, where one day they’d be learning online and the other day they might be in school and the other day they might not be learning at all—that uncertainty and that instability caused by the global pandemic—I think the idea that kids should enjoy a full, uninterrupted year at school is not such a crazy idea. I think that’s an idea that all members in this House should support. So I’ll be supporting this motion, and I hope the members do the same.

It’s a pleasure to rise today.

I want to start by talking to the education workers who are here today, and the teachers. I want to say, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for what you do every day. We showed today, when you were gathering here, trying to lobby this Conservative government to talk about the importance of education in the province of Ontario—and they refused to meet with them, all day. They didn’t come to the breakfast—“Hey, this is what’s going on”—to talk to educational workers, and that was wrong.

I want to welcome Patty Coates from the OFL, who represents 1.2 million workers in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

That lawyer there—I apologize; the member who spoke earlier—said he has been to the bargaining table, so he should know that when you’re bargaining, everything comes together in the last few days. I’ve bargained 150 collective agreements. And do you know what? I had one three-day strike out of those—

The reality is, you know that when you go to the bargaining table, it’s all done in the last few days. You also know, or you should know and your members should know, because I’ve told you enough, that 98% of all labour disputes are resolved without a work stoppage—I don’t know if the Speaker knows that, but, Speaker, that’s the true story in the province of Ontario—and I believe that we’d have 100% if we didn’t have scabs in the province of Ontario, instead of legislating them. I really believe that, because people want to get a collective agreement.

What you’re doing here, rushing this bill through, having us meet at 5 in the morning—which, by the way, I don’t mind; I worked steady midnights for 20 years, so I can come at midnight or 1 in the morning or 5 in the morning. It doesn’t matter to me when you decide to attack workers. I’m going to stand up and I’m going to fight for workers till the day I die. What you’re doing here is disgusting—to some of the lowest-paid education workers in the province of Ontario, who have an average salary of $39,000. Do you know that some days they’re going to work—the kids just love to see their educational workers. They see them every day. And those kids and those parents do not want those education workers, when they get paid on Friday, to get their pay stub and then have to go to a food bank to provide for their family. That’s wrong, in the richest province in Canada. What are you guys doing over there? They defend this. I know my phone is ringing off the hook back in Niagara Falls, from my constituents from the Falls and Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake, from parents who are saying it’s wrong: “Tell this government not to do this.” I’m telling you, I’m standing up and I’ll stand up every day to tell you. A worker is a worker is a worker in the province of Ontario, and you should be treating them with respect and dignity. And how do you do that? You do it at the bargaining table.

I went to a rally last night. I don’t know how many people were there—maybe a couple of thousand. The leaders were there. Yesterday, what did you guys call them? You attacked the leadership of the union movement. The president was very clear, because what you guys probably don’t know—because I don’t know how many of you have ever been to a union—-is that that union leader was voted in by the membership. They were voted in to represent them and be their face. But the other 55,000 workers, the brothers and sisters that are there, they’re leaders. They’re leaders in their schools, they’re leaders in their community. They respect their union. You can’t tell me you respect unions. You can’t tell me you’re working for workers. You can’t do it, when you bring this stuff forward.

You had no intention, quite frankly, of getting a collective agreement. When the PCs said this morning there was no movement, that’s not accurate. There was movement all along. You just didn’t like what the movement was, so you decided, “Do you know what? We’re going to bring in legislation. We’re going to attack workers. We’re going to continue to attack workers.” Because these very teachers that are up here and over here and filling it are next. If we don’t stand up and take this government on today, the labour movement is going to be in trouble, and you’re waking up a giant.

I’ve never seen so many people at a labour rally on such short notice as I saw last night. Speaker after speaker, union leader after union leader was saying—Madam Speaker, I know you’re interested in this, and I’ll talk directly to you. They were saying very clearly—there were skilled-trades workers there, there were teachers there, there were auto workers there, SEIU was there and health care workers were there. The labour movement is coming together to say to you, “You are not going to attack us anymore. Enough is enough in the province of Ontario.” You guys can rush everything you want through, but you’re going to pay a price for this. Make no mistake about it.

I want to compliment the courage of CUPE members, who are being very clear: “Get back to the bargaining table. We want to negotiate a fair and just collective agreement, like every worker in the province does.” Like I said, I’ve bargained a lot of collective agreements. Not one of the members I represented ever said, “Gatesy, can you take us out on strike?” What they said to me was, “I expect you to bargain a fair and just collective agreement.” Whatever company it was, whether it was General Motors or was a little manufacturing place at Iafrate, it was, “Get in there and bargain us an agreement. I don’t want to go on strike.”

And today, nobody wants a strike. They want a fair, just collective agreement, when their food prices—we’re being gouged with our food prices. We’re being gouged with our gas prices. Did the government bring in a bill to stop the gouging of workers in the province of Ontario, union and non-union? You did nothing, nothing at all, to it, and you continue to make record profits, because all you care about is the corporations.

I am saying to these teachers who are here and I’m saying to health care workers: They attacked you under Bill 124. That was the start of it—Bill 115 actually was the start of it.

With Bill 124, you attacked workers, whether it was health care workers, education workers or corrections officers. You took their rights away from them—their collective agreement was negotiated—and said, “We’re not going to honour seniority. We’re not going to honour your vacation time. We’re not going to honour your schedule.” And you can do whatever you want to us under Bill 124—

Interjection.

Further debate?

Education workers make our public schools great. They clean our yards. They maintain our buildings. They supervise our kids at lunch time. They clean our classrooms. They help our youngest kids and our kids with disabilities. We know them by their first names. They are part of our school community.

Education workers earn an average of $39,000 a year. Many work two jobs to make ends meet. Some have to go to food banks because their pay doesn’t go far enough, especially in this inflationary crisis we have. Many are leaving the profession.

I want our kids in class. Everyone wants our kids in class. No one wants a strike. That is why our schools need to receive the funding that they need so our kids can get an excellent education. That is why this government needs to stop violating the charter-protected rights of all workers, stop this bullying behaviour and get back to the negotiating table. That’s why this government needs to use the surplus that they have in their budget to negotiate a fair contract with workers, because that is the right thing to do for our kids, it’s the right thing to do for workers, and it’s the right thing to do for the people of Ontario.

I’m going to recap the actions of this Conservative government in the last 48 hours in this Legislature:

On Monday, the government pre-emptively tabled back-to-work legislation for education workers, using the “notwithstanding” clause yet again to trample over the constitutional rights of workers.

Then the government announced, at the very last minute, that the debate on back-to-work legislation would begin the next day at 5 a.m.—just like that. The same afternoon, we were all scheduled to debate the new government bill on post-secondary institutions, but they simply decided, with no notice, to adjourn the House—just like that.

The following day a debate and vote on a motion to double social assistance rates that was scheduled for 3 p.m. had changed to 1 p.m., sending stakeholders who had planned to be in the House to participate scrambling and rescheduling their day on very short notice—just like that. Let people figure it out.

This government creates so much unnecessary chaos and disruption—the same disruptive pattern we see in our education system, in our health care system, in all public services, in everything that this government is meant to take care of.

Speaker, I am worried. I’m worried that this government is running unchecked, with no regard for the Constitution, no respect for rights, with no compassion and with no basic operational competency. They’re making decisions with no consideration that their decisions have repercussions on people’s lives. They act like they’re some billionaire who thinks they can do what they feel like.

I know, you want me to sit down.

I rise in the House today in recognition of Show Your 4-H Colours Day. I am proud to be sporting my 4-H green, and appreciate all of my colleagues who’ve joined me today to support an organization that has shaped numerous lives across Ontario.

Today we celebrate all the incredible things 4-H youth have done and are doing in their communities, and how the experience they gain through this program enables them to be responsible, caring and contributing young leaders.

For more than 100 years, 4-H programs across Ontario have shaped future leaders and great citizens, and this is why they have been one of the most well-respected youth-serving organizations in Canada.

I want to recognize and appreciate the tireless efforts of 4-H leaders, who work to provide valuable, learn-to-do-by-doing experience for members of all ages. 4-H Ontario plays such an important role in leadership development in our province. So, to 4-H organizers and volunteers, please keep up the fantastic work you do to enable young people to pledge their head, heart, hands and health to better living.

I wish everyone a very happy Show Your 4-H Colours Day. I’m a proud 4-H member too.

Thank you to the member from Niagara.

Debate deemed adjourned.

It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to deliver my member’s statement.

Recently I visited Burlington’s Grow for Change Urban Farm. Launched in 2020 by Bunchberry Connections, along with combined contributions from the Molinaro Group, Nurture Growth, Garden NV, private donations and a dedicated team of volunteers, the urban farm grew and donated over a thousand pounds of food to the local Burlington Food Bank in 2022.

Located on a vacant lot in downtown Burlington, the urban farm started out as a two-year pilot project and has now been extended for a third year. The farm teaches the wider community about growing and harvesting food. It promotes relaxation, education and biodiversity in the centre of our community. Connecting people to nature, the farm intentionally promotes and provides evidence-based positive mental health programs, workshops and volunteer opportunities.

With access to the right resources, people become empowered by their own abilities and gain the confidence to fulfill their potential. The urban farm is a place in the city to escape, to promote food diversity and to tackle food insecurity.

I’m proud to rise to share my member’s statement today, especially as the MPP for Canada’s largest 2SLGBTQ community.

I want to acknowledge that, a week ago, Canada marked the 30th anniversary of a landmark LGBTQ human rights case, led by Michelle Douglas, a young military officer who took on the Department of National Defence and won.

In 1992, Michelle Douglas and NDP MP Svend Robinson worked together to put together an end to the LGBT Purge, a shameful, 40-year period in our nation’s history. That purge lasted till the 1990s. LGBT members of the Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP and federal public service were systematically discriminated against, harassed and oftentimes fired as a matter of sanctioned practice. The careers and self-esteem of a generation of young people were destroyed; an estimated 9,000 victims were denied benefits, severance, pensions and opportunities for promotion if they managed to keep their jobs.

This horrifying period in Canadian history also resulted in suicide, HIV, fear, depression, PTSD, addictions, disownment, criminalization, rejection, isolation, erasure and many other painful, enduring experiences.

It was an honour to be invited to sit at the head table with Michelle and her family at the 30th anniversary gala this weekend.

It is now my honour to invite all members of the Ontario Legislature to join me in publicly acknowledging and applauding Michelle Douglas for her herstory-making role in making Canada a more inclusive and just country.

I’m standing today to celebrate the rebranding of a wonderful organization from Cambridge. It used to have the very geographically long name of the Family Counselling Centre of Cambridge and North Dumfries, which didn’t exactly roll off the tongue. This is a group that started in 1940 in Cambridge, in response to the economic problems and grief that families were suffering as a result of World War II. It began with knitting socks and making meals, and then it expanded, becoming the geographically long name in the 1960s.

During my campaign, I had the pleasure of meeting their director, Cameron Dearlove. Our first meeting was supposed to be half an hour, and I was there for about two hours. He’s an absolutely wonderful man who does incredible work in the community.

One of the exciting things this group does is, they work with recovery supportive housing, which, as a crown, I really enjoyed, as their entire concept is that those struggling with addictions do not succeed unless they are in supportive housing. They have the honour of, in the past four years, having had 99 people go through their 30-bed program, with 70 of those remaining in stable housing today.

They’re rebranded now as Porchlight counselling services, with the idea being that when you come home from a long journey, seeing that someone has left the porch light on for you shows that you are home and that somebody cares.

I want to congratulate them for the work they do.

November is Diabetes Awareness Month. Given that it is Diabetes Awareness Month, it is important that we continue to raise awareness and continue to make life better for those impacted by diabetes.

Diabetes is a medical condition that affects 11.7 million Canadians across the country. Diabetes is a disease in which one’s body does not produce, provide or properly use the insulin which causes blood glucose levels to be too high.

Sir Frederick Banting, a Canadian who, alongside Charles Best, discovered insulin—which marked a crucial step towards improving the life for those impacted with diabetes. We’ve come a long way with the progress of new medical management and technology that assists with blood glucose monitoring. However, more work can still be done to improve the lives of people living with diabetes. That is why it is crucial that we continue to raise awareness and work towards finding a cure.