It’s my pleasure to introduce members of the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, whom I had the pleasure of hosting this morning at a breakfast. From the OALA council, we have Stefan Fediuk, Steve Barnhart, Cameron Smith, Justin Whalen, Matthew Campbell and a constituent of mine, Shawn Watters.

From their practice legislation committee, we have Glenn O’Connor, Shannon Baker and Tim Dobson.

From the OALA staff, we have Aina Budrevics, Angie Anselmo and Sherry Bagnato.

I want to welcome Matthew Collier, Jenny Collier, and their children Stella Collier and Alex Collier, who are here with no organization or cause. Welcome to your House.

I want to welcome Teresa Hebb and Colleen Carbert of the Ontario federation of ATVs. They will be holding a reception tonight. I hope to see you there.

And last but certainly not least, I’m pleased to say TOGA is in the House today. In addition to representing the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance—we heard about Jan and James—but I’d also like to welcome Rick Mastronardi, Albert Mastronardi and Richard Lee. We look forward to seeing you in the dining room from 5 to 7 this evening.

And hopefully last: I’d like to take a moment to welcome the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center as well as their chief executive officer, Michael Levitt, to the House, as we are observing Yom ha-Shoah today.

I just have to say welcome to Dr. Sarita Verma and Ray Hunt from the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. She has been fantastic in my community. She is leaving us, but thank you for being here today.

If there are no objections, I’d like to continue with introduction of visitors.

I want to acknowledge that we’re meeting on lands traditionally inhabited by Indigenous peoples. We pay our respects to the many Indigenous nations who gathered here and continue to gather here, including the Mississaugas of the Credit. Meegwetch.

This morning, we have with us in the public gallery the Fairbank Public School choir, from the riding of Toronto–St. Paul’s, to perform O Canada and God Save the King. Please stand and join them in the singing of our national and royal anthems.

Singing of the national anthem / Chant de l’hymne national.

Singing of the royal anthem / Chant de l’hymne royal.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Yesterday was Yom ha-Shoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. I seek unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence in memory of the six million Jews killed during the Holocaust.

I have the privilege of welcoming a couple of constituents today: Andrew Hendriks from Hendriks Greenhouses and Jan VanZanten, the president of Flowers Canada Growers. Also, Steve Barnhart is here with the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, and I also understand that Tenzin Phuntsok, who is working in my office for the next few weeks as an intern with the Ontario Parliamentary Friends of Tibet group, is here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

In fact, let me update the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, the province of Ontario and its partners, the municipalities and our service managers, have actually built 11,000 of the 19,000 units, with five years left to go.

We also had a target, I believe, of 23,000 units that were to be renovated, rehabilitated and brought back into service. Of that target, five years in, we have actually done 123,000 units—almost 400% of the target.

The federal government has unilaterally decided that they want to change the rules and are unilaterally holding back $357 million. The province of Ontario is committed and will continue to fund our portion of the National Housing Strategy. Our service managers and our municipal partners are in full agreement with the province of Ontario. It is only the NDP who feel differently, Mr. Speaker, and that’s why “other” got more votes than they did in the two by-elections.

Now, let’s unpack, colleagues, what the federal government has decided to do. They’ve decided to unilaterally withhold $357 million because they disagreed with us on how we should distribute that money. For weeks, we’ve been saying, “It is distributed through our service managers.” Now, the big, bad federal Minister of Housing is going to punish Ontario. Do you know how? By distributing the money the same way we have done it for the last 35 years: through our service managers.

So I say, thank you very much for listening to the province of Ontario. Thank you for continuing to distribute the money the way we have done it for 35 years. Unfortunately, unilaterally, they decided to hold back $357 million, with the support of the federal NDP, who could have stopped it right away but chose to ignore it.

We’re going to continue to fund those programs that make sense for the people of the province of Ontario. If the big, bad federal government wants to get on board and help us, we welcome that.

We have said for two and a half months that we fund housing through our service managers, through our partners at the municipal level. They have said, “No, no, no”—but then they sent us a wonderful letter just last week that said, “You know what? We’re going to punish you by funding the program the exact same way you’ve done it for the last 35 years.” Well, thank you very much, and I agree with that.

This question is for the Premier. Last week, I met with housing advocates in Peterborough and in Barrie, and I heard how this government’s refusal to spend federal housing money on housing is putting so many projects at risk.

Under its agreement with the federal government, this government promised to build nearly 20,000 new affordable homes over 10 years, but six years later, they’ve built barely 1,000. The province didn’t keep its end of the deal, and now the federal government is taking back $357 million, leaving a giant hole in our housing budget.

My question is, why is this government so opposed to building affordable housing that they’d risk losing $357 million?

My question to the government is why, again, is this government abandoning its responsibility to fund and deliver new affordable homes in this province?

Public funding for luxury spas? No problem. Give $8.3 billion to greenbelt speculators? Sure thing. Fatten the Premier’s office’s budget? Why not? But provincial funding for affordable housing? Nada.

Why does this government hate publicly funded housing so much that it is choosing to give up $357 million in federal funding?

Interjections.

I need to ask for a moment of the House’s time, as I have a brief statement that I wish to make regarding the controversy that has surrounded the wearing of kaffiyehs in the legislative precinct and the chamber.

As we know, areas assigned to members, caucuses or the media are their own individual domains. These spaces are not subject to any restrictions relating to the choice of attire by their occupants.

However, there have always been different rules governing the chamber. I return again to an explanation of our long-standing practice, going back decades, that items of clothing or accessories, including T-shirts, jerseys, scarves, ribbons and pins, that, in the opinion of the Chair, are being used to make a deliberate statement may not be worn in the chamber unless there is unanimous consent of the House to permit members to do so.

When the issue of wearing kaffiyehs in the House was raised with me, I reviewed the matter, and I concluded that, at this time, a member seeking to wear the kaffiyeh in the chamber was intending to make an overt political statement by wearing it. I stand by that conclusion, and I believe that events which have transpired since have confirmed it to be true.

On at least two occasions when it was raised, the House denied unanimous consent for the wearing of kaffiyehs in the chamber. Had unanimous consent been granted, I would have had no objection to the wearing of the kaffiyeh in the chamber. Again, the Speaker is the servant of the House.

Let me add that I never concluded or stated that the kaffiyeh is not a cultural symbol for many in the Arab and Muslim communities.

Since the issue has become so controversial, I think it necessary to point out that there is not a blanket ban which singles out only the kaffiyeh for those who wish to wear it and enter the legislative precinct. It has been our standard practice, again for many decades, to ask those who seek to enter the assembly not to wear any attire which appears to be intended to make a political statement of any sort. This is intended to promote order and decorum and mostly has had the desired effect through the years. But in this case, which unfortunately became politicized, it has instead fostered division and discord, both in this House and in our communities in the province.

As Speaker, my intent has always been to uphold the conventions and principles that were designed to bring us together to debate important issues. Diversity has been and remains one of Ontario’s greatest strengths.

Therefore, I wish to clarify that members, staff and visitors wearing the kaffiyeh will be permitted entry to the legislative precinct. However, in line with my previous statements in the House, the kaffiyeh is not permitted to be worn in the chamber or the galleries at this time without the unanimous consent of the House.

I will remind all members and guests that demonstrations in the building are always prohibited, and members must be able to fulfill their parliamentary duties without obstruction.

I thank the House for its attention.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The Minister of Education would rather talk about anything but what’s happening in our schools right now, because the situation is pretty grim thanks to this government. Schools are turning down the heat to save money, telling teachers to bring in their own supplies. Kids with special needs are being sent home because there’s no one left to look after them. Teens asking for mental health support are waiting over a year to see a social worker.

In the face of all this, the Premier is once again proposing education funding for next year that doesn’t keep pace with inflation or enrolment growth. This is another cut, Speaker.

Why does the Premier not believe that children in Ontario deserve a high-quality education and safe, supportive, fully resourced classrooms?

It’s not a prop.

Wow. Do you know what’s highest in history? Homelessness rates right now—that’s what’s the highest in history.

But back to the Premier: A little over a week ago, on a Friday afternoon right before the constituency week, the government dropped their annual funding announcement for schools. That should have been the first clue; right, Speaker? Dropping a major announcement at the last minute on a Friday afternoon. The government thought they could pull one over again on the people of Ontario. They thought that if they gave it a different name, showed some kind of new calculations and rebranded it, they could confuse you.

I’m sure the Premier and the minister thought that they had outsmarted everyone and avoided accountability, but it turns out they weren’t so clever, Speaker. In fact, it’s the same cuts again and again, just under a different name.

My question to the Premier is, does this government refuse to adequately fund school programs that are needed by the most vulnerable of our students, and why?

This year, public funding is $2 billion lower than was expected. That’s only accounting for the current status quo, to keep things the way they are, which is pretty darn terrible right now. It’s not even including the additional funding that schools need to address the worker shortage, the student mental health programs, the school violence. This government thinks that that’s just good enough.

So to the Premier: Why does he think that “just good enough” is good enough for our kids?

Interjections.

The Minister of Education has pile after pile of applications for capital builds for schools, while kids are sitting in portables, and they are collecting dust on his desk.

The government has made a habit of stashing away so-called contingency funds to give them free rein on spending. We see this over and over, and we’re seeing it again with $1.4 billion allocated for “planning provisions” that is not accessible to school boards. Core funding isn’t really core funding if it isn’t actually available to our schools.

So to the Premier: Is the government disguising this new slush fund under education funding to hide the massive cuts to public education and our schools?

The Minister of Education.

Supplementary question?

Minister of Education.

Once again, I’ll remind the House that it has been the established practice of this House that members should not use props, signage or accessories that are intended to express a political message or are likely to cause disorder. This also extends to members’ attire, where logos, symbols, slogans and other political messaging are not permitted unless the unanimous consent of the House is granted. This Legislature is a forum for debate, and the expectation in the chamber is that political statements should be made during debate rather than through the use of props or symbols.

I must warn the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Harden left the chamber.

The member for Hamilton Centre is warned.

Sarah Jama, you are named.

The member is currently not eligible to be recognized in the House, pursuant to the order of the House adopted on October 23, 2023. As a result of being named, for the remainder of the day today, the member is ineligible to vote on matters before the Assembly, attend and participate in any committee proceedings, use the media studio, and table notices of motion, written questions and petitions. You must leave the chamber.

Ms. Jama left the chamber.

Interjections.

Interjection.

We can start the clock, I think. The next question.

Mr. Speaker, if you can believe it, we also made an announcement on a Sunday—because our government seems to be working 24/7—to restrict cellphones, to ban vaping and to deny social media from school websites.

This, coming from the member opposite: a party that has a record of literally denying to the public servants of this province, by the Rae day imposition of 12 days of mandatory unpaid leave. This is a member whose party, a generation ago, cut staff by 5%. This is a party that actually forced teacher unions to use surplus monies in their teacher pension fund to offset teacher cuts that they imposed.

This is a government committed to investing in our students and in our future: $745 million more dollars in the coming school year, 9,000 additional education workers, 3,000 more front-line educators.

I know the member opposite doesn’t want to acknowledge that this is a government investing more than ever before in our publicly funded schools.

Interjections.

I mean, in addition to the monetary investment, this is a government that did what your party and the Liberals couldn’t do, which is sign deals for three years, delivering peace for children in Ontario. Then we announced a revision to the curriculum, the introduction of a kindergarten curriculum that ensures literacy and math is involved in the curriculum. We also announced a plan to remove distractions, to ban vaping, to eliminate social media from school devices. This is a common-sense plan bolstered by support.

Some $17 million on mental health funding: The member opposite speaks about mental health. This is an issue we care about. There’s a reason why we’ve increased funding by 550%.

We’re continuing to invest. We’re also continuing to demand better—better outcomes from the investments we make. That’s the difference. We actually will hold school boards to account, to expect better outcomes on reading, writing and math, and the outcomes of our kids.

This is an opposition that can’t accept a basic premise. It is the Progressive Conservative Party that cut child care fees by 50%, it’s the Progressive Conservative Party that has increased capital funding by 136% and it’s the Progressive Conservative Party that is increasing literacy and math rates for the first time in a generation.

We are getting the job done. Join us for the benefit of kids in Ontario.

Interjections.

I guess the minister’s math is so basic, Speaker, that he’s never heard of inflation.

The Premier is providing $1,500 less for each child in our schools compared to 2018. This at a time when we have a massive teacher shortage, a problem with violence, a mental health crisis, not enough special education or ESL supports, transportation problems and crumbling schools.

As a parent, on behalf of parents across the province, I want to know, why are you attacking our children’s education?

Interjections.

To reply, the Minister of Education.

Minister of Education.