The carbon tax royal love story keeps getting more and more complicated, and frankly, the king of the carbon tax Prime Minister Trudeau needs to rein it in. Now, we know he’s got the support of the queen of the carbon tax over there and Jagmeet Singh continues to vacillate, but there’s a new player, Mr. Speaker: Prince Carney, otherwise known as Mark Carney, has decided that this tax has run its course. Now, I suspect that that lines up perfectly with how Canadians feel about the tax and his prospect of replacing the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, we have a more irenic solution, and that is to scrap the tax.

The ayes are 34; the nays are 71.

Just a reminder to all my colleagues that the ACTRA rally will be starting at noon on the front lawn.

So they have three requests. They want education to be free and accessible to everyone. They want a return to grants, and not loans, to reduce that amount of debt. They also want to ensure that these student union groups have the right to organize, like they fought for and won in the courts.

I support this petition. I’ll affix my signature and provide it to page Aaldrian.

I just wanted to correct the record: Earlier today, in question period, I used the number 2.2 million Ontarians that don’t have a family physician. The number is actually 2.3 million.

I have a petition that calls upon this Legislature to stop Bill 166. The petition notes that this government has made significant cuts to community mental health services and has also effectively dismantled the Anti-Racism Directorate, so this increases the pressure on our post-secondary institutions to provide student mental health services and to effectively tackle racism and hate on campus.

However, at the same time, the government has underfunded post-secondary education to such an extent that the mental health services are being limited and the anti-racism work is difficult to undertake because there are so few staff.

Bill 166 opens the door to unprecedented political interference in our colleges and universities in this province. The protection of universities from political interference is highly regarded as a cornerstone of a democratic society, which is why the petitioners, who include many, many faculty, staff and students from Western University as well as members of the community, are calling on the government to stop Bill 166, to use the powers of the Anti-Racism Act to enable the anti-racism work that critically needs to happen in this province, and to restore funding to post-secondary institutions so that they can provide student mental health services and support from equity offices.

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Raisa.

It’s my great pleasure to be able to present this petition titled “To Raise Social Assistance Rates” to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I want to thank Sally Palmer for getting these names collected from the residents of Grimsby.

In summary of the petition: It’s basically about, the rates for Ontario Works have been frozen since 2018, and a small increase to the Ontario Disability Support Program—have left recipients struggling well, well below the poverty line.

We on this side of the House advocate for doubling the rates of OW and ODSP—as well as the individuals who are on this petition. There was an open letter, also, to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, with signatures—over 230 organizations that recommend that social assistance rates be doubled, both with OW and ODSP.

I cannot think of a better petition to affix my name to, and I’m going to be sending it down to the table with Glynnis.

The question raises the important role of both Tarion, which provides deposit protection for new homebuyers of freehold homes, and, of course, the other administrative agency, which our government created in its first term, after inheriting a broken administrative authority system for new homebuyers from the Liberal government, supported by the NDP.

With the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, we can regulate home builders. We can weed out the bad actors. We can protect consumers. The combination of the two administrative authorities demonstrates that the system definitely works. It’s about consumer protection specifically for those freehold homebuyers, making sure their deposits are protected and the bad actors are put out of business.

It was this government that acted, that stopped the sponsored industry dinners. It was this government that created HCRA, the Home Construction Regulatory Authority, and it was this government that limited Tarion’s board to incorporate no more than a third of developers. We’re getting it done for the people and consumers of Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McCarthy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 194, An Act to enact the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 and to make amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act respecting privacy protection measures / Projet de loi 194, Loi édictant la Loi de 2024 visant à renforcer la sécurité et la confiance en matière de numérique et modifiant la Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée en ce qui concerne les mesures de protection de la vie privée.

The act would also enact the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024, to establish new regulation-making authorities to set requirements for cyber security, artificial intelligence, and children’s data protections for applicable public sector institutions.

The act would also provide the ability for the minister to issue directives for cyber security and children’s data protections to applicable public sector institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my deputy minister and her team, and my chief of staff, Michelle Stock, and her team.

It’s been six years now since my constituents paid deposits to Greatwise Developments for new homes, and construction has still not started. A year ago, I raised this issue in the House and the government responded that they were putting bad developers on notice, making them think twice before taking advantage of homebuyers. And yet, while homes are going up all over Ottawa right now, this developer hasn’t even prepared the land to start construction.

Why is the Premier allowing a bad developer to hold homebuyers hostage with no consequences at all?

When will we finally see real action, not just words, from this government to hold bad developers accountable, so families like my constituents finally get a home in Ontario?

I’d also like to say hello and welcome to folks from AEFO, ETFO, the trustee organizations and the Toronto Schools Caregiver Coalition who are joining us online this afternoon to watch the debate on education.

I do, yes; Speaker, thank you.

Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

Supplementary question.

The next question.

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

The division bells rang from 1147 to 1152.

Mr. Gates has moved private member’s notice of motion number 94.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Motion negatived.

The member for Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Point of order, Speaker: In keeping with beating my head against the wall, I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion number 5 be apportioned as followed: 56 minutes to each of the recognized parties and eight minutes to the independent members as a group.

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

The House recessed from 1158 to 1300.

First reading agreed to.

Thank you to the associate minister for her response. I know that people in my riding appreciate our government’s continued advocacy for Ontario’s small business owners. Now more than ever, entrepreneurs and innovators are looking to governments to help them, not hinder them, as they continue driving innovation, job creation and economic growth. But it seems like the federal Liberals are copying the high-tax environment which saw their provincial counterparts wiped out from party status in 2018.

Speaker, through you, can the associate minister explain why the federal carbon tax is hurting entrepreneurs’ and innovators’ ability to start, grow and invest in their businesses?

This petition is titled “To Raise Social Assistance Rates.”

I want to start off by thanking Dr. Sally Palmer, who has been ongoingly sending us petitions to help advocate for people who are on ODSPoverty and OW here in Ontario.

As we know in this Legislature, we are dealing with an affordability crisis.

I can tell you that in St. Paul’s, there are several community members of mine—Cinco and his new wife, Liz, just got married in my community, and they are also folks who depend on ODSP and OW, and they are significantly struggling.

This petition is essentially calling for the government to help people get out of poverty—and that’s what ODSP and OW rates currently are. They are calling for ODSP and OW to be at least doubled, and I stress the “at least” part, because even doubling ODSP can barely get you a one-bedroom with a window in St. Paul’s.

I’m certainly proud to affix my signature on this petition calling for a doubling, at least, of ODSP, OW, so folks can get by—and not just get by, but maybe one day even thrive. And that should include people with disabilities here in Ontario.

I have a petition here called “Rent Stabilization Now.” This petition is calling on the Ontario government to establish strong rent control on all tenancies—including those first occupied after 2018—as well as vacancy control so there’s a cap on how much the rent can be raised between tenancies.

The purpose of vacancy control and strong rent control is to stabilize rent and reduce the incidence of eviction, which is unfortunately on the increase in Ontario.

I support this petition. I’ll be giving it to page Aaldrian.

MPP Stiles has moved opposition day number 5.

I recognize the Leader of the Opposition to lead off the debate.

I want to move the following motion:

Whereas the government has cut education funding by $1,500 per child since 2018; and

Whereas this underfunding is preventing our children from getting the learning and mental health supports they need; and

Whereas this results in a challenging and unsafe learning environment; and

Whereas this has a disproportionate impact on our most vulnerable students; and

Whereas the burden is falling to parents to find and pay for the supplemental mental health and education supports that their children need;

Therefore, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should substantially increase funding for public education in Ontario so that every child receives the high-quality education they deserve, regardless of their family’s income.

It’s also my belief that one of the features that distinguishes Canada is its quality public services, like education and health care. We are considered leaders in the world because of these public services—or we have been. As Ontarians, we’ve been proud that your ability to get the care that you need was never dependent on the size of your wallet or that your children could get one of the best educations in the world no matter what your parents earned. But today, under this government, things are not okay. This government wants Ontario students to settle for basic when our kids deserve so much better than that.

Today, I want to start by setting the record straight on how the Conservatives are really treating education in the province of Ontario. Because in spite of this government’s claim of historic spending in education, the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association has said this year’s funding is the lowest level of per-student funding in more than a decade.

The Minister of Education and the Premier have not, as they like to claim, increased funding for education. It’s simple. In fact, education funding has decreased every single year since they have been in government. In fact, education funding is down by $1,500 per child since 2018. In fact, since 2018, this government has also cut at least 5,000 classroom educators. In fact, the only thing that’s historic about these funding levels is this Minister of Education’s crusade to underfund our schools and send more families into private education. That’s the truth of the matter: replacing our public education with a system where, yes, you, the people of Ontario, the parents, have to pay.

School boards are getting less money year over year. That’s a fact. This government simply doesn’t want to acknowledge all the struggles that our kids, that parents, that teachers, that other staff are dealing with. Well, here’s the reality: Extreme teacher shortages across all the schools in this province; 24% of elementary schools and 35% of secondary schools are reporting teaching staff shortages every single day. There are students who require additional supports that are being sent home from school, because there are not enough staff available to help them.

Every single day, parents are having to find and pay out of pocket for the supplemental mental health and educational supports that their children need. These were things we used to actually be able to count on our schools to provide. More kids today are experiencing depression and anxiety than ever before—ever before. Big school boards; small, rural district school boards: They’re all facing deficits. They’re all looking at having to make cuts—cuts to schools in rural areas, cuts to schools in big cities, everywhere in between.

This government is denying equal learning opportunities for kids everywhere—fact. Cuts are also affecting children’s safety. Violence in schools is on the rise. But the Minister of Education’s student safety allocation is only 14 cents per child per school day. Structural deficits created by this government are forcing everyone—boards, teachers, parents—to make difficult decisions that are going to impact their children, their learning and—you know what?—Ontario at large.

Members opposite like to stand up here every day blaming this and that on the carbon tax. Can they stand up there today and say the carbon tax is why Ontario’s education system is crumbling? Let’s see; we’ll find out. I think it’ll be a bit of a reach, but you never know.

The thing is that when this government says that the education budget for the 2024-25 school year is Ontario’s largest ever—and you’re going to hear them say that in a few minutes, I suspect; they’re going to say it over and over again—they’re not taking into consideration inflation and the role that it plays in budgets. Members on this side will recall that this morning, I laid that out for the government, for the minister. A budget that ignores inflation is a budget that ignores reality.

A computer costs more today than it did a year ago. That’s a shortfall. People know this. We are living it: a $1,500 shortfall for each and every student in this province. When this government says their funding is the largest ever, we only need to read between the lines to see what the numbers are really saying. What they’re saying is that kids and schools are being shortchanged.

The government, I will say, wants us to focus on vaping and cellphones. You know, I’m a parent. We care about these things—we sure do—but they are underestimating parents in Ontario when they think that they don’t know that without investing in the qualified and caring professionals that students need in schools and in classrooms, cellphones will still be there, vaping will still happen and students’ mental health and their well-being will be at greater risk than ever before.

Parents know what’s happening, because along with all those mounting grocery bills and the rising cost of things that this government could actually do something about—the cost of school supplies, the cost of clothing, the cost of food, the cost of everything—now they have to decide, “Do I turn to a private tutor? How do I find support for my child who is struggling so hard with math and with reading in bigger and bigger classrooms with fewer and fewer supports?”

Speaker, yesterday was Mother’s Day. Happy Mother’s Day, belatedly, to all of those and to all the mother figures in our lives. Yesterday, I was thinking a lot myself about the joys of motherhood. I’m the mother of two daughters, now grown. But I was also thinking about the struggles. It’s not easy. It’s complicated being a parent.

I was thinking about all the supports we depend upon, like the nurses who, I will say, held my hand when I was struggling as a new mom; the early childhood educators who—as working parents, my partner and I had to leave our little ones every day, from the time they were less than a year old, at daycare. Every day, it was the trust you put in those people, how much you depend on them and how little they are actually rewarded for that work in our society, everyone who supported my kids.

It is why I ran to be a school board trustee in 2014. I really wanted to make sure that our schools would be stronger. Many of my colleagues have also been school board trustees or educators themselves. I wanted to make sure they were better. I’ve got to tell you, under the previous government, under the Liberals, it wasn’t so great either. Our schools were pretty lean.

As a working parent, you have to put so much trust in those caring adults who you leave your children with. You drop them off when they’re little, in junior kindergarten, and you hope that Mr. Evans is going to make her day great. You say, “If she falls, he’s going to pick her up. If she’s struggling, somebody is going to be there to help her.”

But as they get older, things get even more complicated. Sometimes, as a parent, it can feel like you’re just shouting into a black hole. So I ran because I wanted to ensure that other people, other parents, people who maybe had fewer resources than I did, maybe had more challenges and more obstacles, would have that strong system that they could depend on, that bedrock beneath them. But today, that’s not how it is in Ontario; it’s worse, and it’s getting worse and worse. For families that can’t afford private mental health services, their children simply go without those supports that should be guaranteed in our schools, Speaker. That is the reality.

Some may also recall that I was the education critic for a while for our party, and I have to say that in regular meetings that I have had for years with school board trustees—and I think this is the same for all of my colleagues here. We meet regularly with school board trustees and teachers and staff and parents—man, do we hear from parents—the frustration, the disappointment: “How can I help my child?” “Why can’t somebody help me help my child?” They are so disappointed at this government’s absolutely outrageous claims, and yes, their cuts.

I’ve said this before: All this government has to do is talk to one parent in this province and you will know that the status quo is not working in this province. It is not working. It is not working for our kids in overcrowded classrooms. It is not working for our under-resourced teachers. All that that minister has to do is talk to real people out there in the real world before they pass a budget that doesn’t meet the needs of our kids or educators.

I ask you, Speaker, as I conclude, how much more support are our kids supposed to give up on? Is it the kids who are losing their math and English help in greater Essex; or in Peel, where they’re losing their specialized communications classes, their literacy coaches; in Hamilton, where those children are losing breakfast programs? Shameful.

These are not add-ons. These are not extras. These are essential. Our children deserve better than basics. They deserve everything we can give them, no matter how much their families earn, no matter what their parents do. That is the foundation; it is the bedrock of our democracy, of our country and of our province.

Today’s kids—they say this all the time, Speaker—they are tomorrow’s future. If we deny them the good-quality education and services today, we are going to pay for it down the road.

So I ask this government, what do you have against good-quality education? Will you make our children a priority? Will you support this motion?

Further debate?

I want to thank the member opposite for the opportunity to respond and provide a substantive update to this House on the progress we are making to support students.

I want us to start off with a differentiating perspective on the philosophy by which we measure success in this Parliament. For New Democrats and for Liberals, the measurement of success singularly depends on the dollars expended to the ministry. But for real people—as the member opposite encouraged me to dialogue with—the measurement of success is actually benchmarked against outcomes that those investments deliver. I want to speak about the achievements we are making in this province. Notwithstanding a significant increase of dollars and significant increase of funding, there’s also been non-monetary improvements that lead to better outcomes. The member opposite in her own judgment and experience as a former trustee will know that the single driving indicator of improvement on student achievement in the classroom is the quality of the teacher.

And thus is the thesis for today’s rebuttal to the opposition: that it requires courage to stand up for what’s right, even if it’s difficult.

Case study number 1 where the opposition has failed this test for families and parents who we represent: When the question was posed of who hires educators in the province, was it a recommendation of the NDP to stand up for merit and qualification and experience? Not at all. They were the chief champions and cheerleaders of Kathleen Wynne’s policy to revert to hiring in Ontario exclusively on union seniority, because the members opposite would never even contemplate a moment in their time where they’re on an opposite perspective with their teacher unions, federations. They are the chief advocates for them in this place, and when they had the opportunity to stand up for merit-based hiring—because Progressive Conservatives believe, if you can believe it, colleagues, the best teacher should get the job in this province, not the person who has been in their union for the longest.

Interjections.

Don’t say “absenteeism.” Shame on you.

The Leader of the Opposition was most helpful in reminding me about her intervention just minutes ago on the concept of not having a qualified teacher in the front of their class. And yet, when the trustee associations for whom the member opposite claims to be in contact with often, and all their members, all their former trustees—well, did you not get the memo, when the school board association of Ontario, the principals’ association of Ontario wrote a joint letter with the government of Ontario urging the teachers’ federation—a.k.a. the unions—to accept the recommendation to allow expert retired educators to work in class?

Again, the members opposite couldn’t get themselves to the position of standing up for what’s right because they’d rather, in this instance—case study number two of advancing a pension entitlement over a qualified educator.

Who are you standing up for? Honestly, who do you speak for? You stand with the unions instead of standing up for qualified educators, on retired educators, to make sure there is an actual certified member in front of children. You don’t stand up for kids. You do not stand up for parents. You stand with unions instead of standing up for common sense. And that is case study number two.

I want to speak about the measurement of success. I want to speak about how we actually deliver results for children. It starts, of course, with ensuring that we increase the funding. There is no doubt—a 22% increase in funding since 2017, under the former Liberals. That is a proof positive of our investment.

The member opposite speaks about staffing—and yet, this is not the position of the minister. It’s not something subject to debate. Ask school board associations the very same thing we did, who report on hiring and firing, as the employer. There are 9,000 additional education workers. Colleagues, we could disagree on the rate of increase; you cannot debate the fact that there are 9,000 additional education workers and 3,000 net new additional educators. We could disagree with so much; we can’t disagree that there are more people in schools making a difference in our education.

I know members opposite would love to bring forth a different narrative, but these are the facts.

Interjections.

Even the Liberal Party in this Legislature, to their credit, had the wisdom of supporting a higher elevation of accountability and improving on governance of school boards.

We talk about effective governance leading to better outcomes for kids. The members opposite—the only measurement of success is the billions of dollars invested, not the accountability we have to place on our school boards to improve the state of schools, to refocus on academics, to end the vexatious complaints and stop the inter-trustee governance beefs and get back to the business of governing and leading and improving outcomes.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that funding is up; I am proud that staffing is up, but I am also proud, most of all—because that isn’t the measurement of success. Kathleen Wynne spent billions of dollars in education—many of you were here—and you will know that the education outcomes in reading and writing and math systematically declined, notwithstanding the enhancement of funds. So we cannot measure by the dollar. We have to measure by the outcome. That’s the difference between a Progressive Conservative and members opposite.

So let’s look at the outcomes.

A 577% increase in mental health funding—that is a critical investment. We added $117 million. Just put that in perspective. The Liberals were spending $16 million to $18 million per year. We’re over $115 million to date because of an ironclad commitment to invest in what matters: the wellness, the success and the health of children.

Mr. Speaker, we added $659 billion to special education since 2017-18.

But beyond the investments—because obviously you cannot persuade a New Democrat; in the abstract, for New Democrats, there’s always an omnipresent need for billions of dollars—we believe there’s a need for accountability, for curriculum reform, and for qualified educators to be in front of the class.

So let’s look at those benchmarks of success. If the members opposite were correct about their theory, that it is just catastrophic in Ontario, then why or how is it that we have increased graduation rates from 87% to 89% under our Progressive Conservative government—89%, from 85%, a significant achievement in the five-year average of graduation. That is how you measure success: Are more kids graduating with skills? Are more kids getting employed in the private economy? Those are the numbers we need to emphasize.

The Ontario secondary-school literacy test results are up 3% from the previous year. Math achievement, one of the big challenges we face in Ontario and in the country, has trended up in both English and in French in our EQAO assessments in grades 6 and 9. In the OECD, we are number 2 in the country on reading and writing and in math, and in the top 10 in science in the entire OECD and the top 15 in math.

We understand the need to constantly be reforming and improving. It’s why we have updated 80% of the Ontario curriculum in the last four years—80% reformed. We didn’t just reform it; we’ve now mandated future governments to benchmark, or rather to ensure the curricula we teach our kids are no longer reviewed in five-year cycles.

That provision, which would have made sure we have relevant curriculum and skills and competencies for educating young people, was opposed by the NDP. They actually opposed the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, which elevates the voices of parents and the transparency on school boards. In what world could someone who claims to be an advocate for public education—in what world could the education critic or the Leader of the Opposition, as they heckle—how can they say they want less accountability for school boards? How can they want less empowerment of parents’ voices in their child’s education system?

Honestly, the overwhelming observation for me, as a more generational person in politics, is from a policy perspective. The irrelevance of the opposition is the disconnect between your values and those of real people. There’s a difference between downtown Toronto perspectives and the entire province. For example, on cellphones and vaping and on cannabis, when we announced a plan, the opposition didn’t support the plan. They didn’t actually agree with the premise that there’s a problem. They haven’t said a peep on these issues for months and months and years. Instead of constructive, they opposed it in the abstract. They’ve said nothing really meaningful.

But 86% of parents, in recent public opinion surveys reported by the Star, said to do something about it. And the Leader of the Opposition has the audacity today to proclaim that this is some irrelevant issue, as if the distractions of education aren’t at the core of some of the great difficulties kids are facing when it comes to mental health, bullying and academic achievement. They are not on the side of parents and they never have been. They will speak up and stand up for the special interests in this province, but they will never speak for the parents of this province who demand better for the children we represent: better outcomes on reading, writing and math and better achievement when it comes to academics. That is what we stand up for today.

Mr. Speaker, we announced early reading screening—every child, the only jurisdiction in Canada. We will screen children and senior kindergarten and grades 1 and 2 for literacy. Opposition from the members opposite—why? How can the members opposite oppose the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Right to Read report? When we announced a new language curriculum, they actually opposed it, siding with the teachers’ union instead of with parents, science and data, who urged the government to come up with systemic, evidence-based interventions on literacy because the former government’s language curriculum left some of the most vulnerable kids behind.

Again, is this about public policy, is it about data or is it about blind adherence to ideology? That is your theme. That is your common theme. It isn’t about data. Objectively, how can you look at that and say, “You know, maybe the human rights commission, maybe leading educators in pedagogy, maybe they’re wrong and I”—insert politician from the opposition—“am right. I am the keeper of knowledge”?

It is offensive intellectually to even have a debate. When the human rights commission urged government to act, we did. Within weeks of getting that report, we announced our intention. We introduced the curriculum. We brought it forth this September. It restores phonics, cursive writing, critical thinking skills and screening assessments, opposed by the opposition but supported by all the evidence and all the leaders. We are actually getting ahead of the curve. Most jurisdictions are now going to be catching up with the reforms, having daily systemic instructional literacy and the return of phonics within our schools.

It isn’t about doing what’s right. The mission statement of New Democrats in this House could be, “Going along to get along with all the special interests of Ontario.” They’ve never opposed their primary supporters and donors. They never do what’s right for children. They never stand up for parents in this province, who demand that we eliminate distractions, that we get back to basics in the classroom, that we reform the curriculum and that we invest in modern schools—which is why, weeks ago, with the Minister of Finance, on behalf of our Premier, we more than doubled the funding of the actual brick-and-mortar facilities that educate our kids.

We may have a modern curriculum, but we have to have modern schools too. And we doubled the funding, which was the number one ask of school boards. We more than doubled it: 136%. Again, on the day we did that, the opposition couldn’t say a word. They couldn’t even bring themselves to acknowledge the incrementalism of how that investment makes a difference in our communities.

When we cut the timeline to build by half in Toronto—because it takes 10 years to build in this city, among many other parts of Ontario—do you think that the opposition would have celebrated that, with the New Democratic mayor of Toronto and the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario and school boards of all political associations, we came together with a plan to cut construction timelines by half? But it wasn’t about getting schools built faster or delivering more schools; it simply is about opposing, because that is the core competence of NDP members instead of standing up for what’s right, instead of even coming together as some other parties in this House have done from time to time.

It reminds me, weeks ago, when I was standing with the Minister of Labour, and we announced a plan to introduce the FAST program, which is the accelerated apprenticeship program in Ontario, private sector unions rallied behind this concept. It is based on the German model. It is literally based on the German model, the leader in global experiential learning, to accelerate paths. They still have to take literacy; they still have to take language and math courses in grades 11 and 12.

But again, do you think the members opposite sit with private sector unions? Did they stand with parents and those that aspire for their kids to get a good job and get out of their basement? No, they did not, because it isn’t about good ideas. It isn’t about results. It isn’t about measuring success according to what improves the life and the quality of a child as they leave our education system. It is singularly about advancing blind ideology over the pragmatic public policy of this government.

Again, there’s a reason why in Milton, in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex—and I say this respectfully—you were in a wholesale rejection: Because your ideas—the downtown New Democratic party of the contemporary NDP is so disconnected. You’ve lost your way from the values of working parents. Frankly, the numbers speak results. My goodness, you lost a seat to the Greens in Kitchener Centre. Why don’t you reflect for a nanosecond on what that means? What does it mean when in rural communities, urban communities, suburban communities—you lost all your Brampton seats. What is the message, New Democratic colleagues? It’s that you guys are out to lunch and disconnected and out of touch from the real priorities of people.

The opposition member trivializes the increase of federal tax. Honestly, it wasn’t part of my plan, but how can you say this? How could your motion include components about supporting parents? When the Progressive Conservatives brought forth successive support-for-parent payments of over $1.8 billion, it was the leader, then-opposition critic for education, who said we were wasting money; called the funding we gave parents, the $200 or $400 cheques, literal waste; condemned me for bringing forward such a concept of giving parents money through the pandemic and beyond because of the cost of living.

Do you see the irony of your motion and your voting record? Honest to goodness, you opposed our—when we launched the largest tutoring program in Canadian history, publicly funded, delivered by qualified educators, what did the opposition do? You opposed that, calling it a bribe. Pick a lane. Your actual motion calls for support for parents. You voted against—

The House will come to order.

The Minister of Education has the floor.