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.

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.

The opposition will come to order.

—$1.8 billion of support, Speaker, systematically over multiple years. Then, you were the enthusiastic champion of making it more expensive—Speaker, for the opposition—for parents to bring their kids to school because the cost of gasoline has gone up 10 cents a litre; it has gone up 30 cents a litre as recommended by the federal Liberals.

Yes, we’re standing up for parents. I know that is offensive to some of you that we actually believe it is—

Bring that back in the next election. Please do us all the favour and continue to champion higher taxes and the interests of teacher unions instead of the interests of children. Please do us that favour and we’ll see the results, because I think history will repeat itself, as it did in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, as it did in Milton.

I’m just going to do a confirmation on timing from our government House leader’s office. We’ve got a bit more time, so I’m going to keep going because I’m on fire, Speaker—because I’m fired up, I should say, because honestly it’s alarming. I respect the members opposite; many of them are parents, former trustees. I believe, in their heart, they care about these kids. I hope they will believe the same is true for those, even if we disagree on policy—

The example in Milton, where you’re not hitting double digits, is perhaps an alarming, sobering example. You’ve got to really get outside the bubble of the downtown NDP. When we built 27,000 spaces—announced this year—100,000 additional students spaces overall, the opposition opposed it. That’s all within the core education funding. It’s not reflected in the GSN, as it formerly was known, Speaker. But nonetheless in our capital plan, $16 billion over 10 years, members opposite thought: “No, we’re going to oppose that. We think doubling the funding to build schools is it not a good thing” for which they opposed it. It’s just shocking, because most parents, the ones we speak to, want us to build schools and build them faster which is exactly what our government has done.

I was with the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore on Friday, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence on Friday—literally in one day, both TDSB and Toronto Catholic schools, one each. We announced a brand new school, the Etobicoke city centre school, in Lakeshore. That was announced by the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: 30-million-odd dollars of investment, a historic achievement—not her first school. With the honourable member from Eglinton–Lawrence, we announced funding and the completion of the Dante Alighieri school that was opposed by the former Liberals that we actually funded and is now getting done. This is all in one day’s work.

The members opposite should wake up and listen to the voices of real people, not to that poll that was done on cellphones and vaping where they sampled the 14% who opposed it. That’s what they do. They’re obsessing with the absolute minority instead of the overwhelming majority that agree with the government on the actions, the interventions and the investments and reforms we’ve brought forth.

The case study of our actions on capital, how we’ve changed the culture—we’ve never had more shovel-ready project submissions ever in Ontario history. We have 81% of our schools today—a massive increase—that are now being built using standardized designs. That didn’t happen by coincidence, because school boards, as they said through Bill 98, they knew best. It is our job as the province to be the provincial arbiter, to make sure we have higher standardization and we actually achieve results. We have a patchwork of systems, a devolution of powers as recommended apparently by opposition members who opposed me, the gall of the minister of the province’s education to have a provincial standard on achievement. It is our right. It is the sovereign right of government to set provincial expectations on reading, writing and math and to reorient the school system back to that basics foundation. And we did that through the passing of Bill 98 for which we strongly support, and I think overwhelmingly parents want that accountability. They want their trustees to focus on academics. That’s where we disagree as well. That is not what the members opposite would want us to champion in our school system.

So we brought forth submissions to bring in a provincial code of conduct to end the vexatious, ridiculous complaints that paralyzed our school system with interpersonal complaints from members of all political stripes, instead of focusing on academics. What, Speaker—how can that be controversial? How do the members opposite disagree with the premise of a provincial code of conduct, which was supported by the Ombudsman? Ontario’s Ombudsman wanted me to go further in this public positioning, and we still didn’t. We took a measured intervention that actually makes sense to support well-governed schools in English, French, Catholic and public.

At the College of Teachers, we cut the time to bring forth new educators—the certification—by half. How can that have been opposed by the New Democrats? In what world could you ask me on Monday: “We need more teachers; there’s too many absences that are not being filled by qualified teachers,” but then on Tuesday or later in the day, vote against the very measures that would have allowed qualified teachers to be in front of the class? This is the bizarre irony that I am commenting on today. The constant, the thesis, of my response to the New Democrats is the illogical inconsistency of the opposition, who advances singular self-interest or special interest over the interests of children. That’s what the last election was about: governing for the people; standing up for what’s right, even if it’s difficult; having the audacity, the chutzpah, to say to some of the big unions that back you, “We disagree, because it’s not good for kids. It may be good for you,” but those are words that will never be expressed from members opposite. They couldn’t dream of a scenario where that is achievable, but we do that every day, because it’s the right thing to do, and we don’t apologize for challenging the status quo.

Yes, the great agent of change, the Leader of the Opposition, the person who opposed transparency on school boards, wanted it to be status quo. The person who opposed building schools in half the time because everything was hunky-dory, the person and party who opposed hiring new educators at half the speed—I mean, honestly, in two words, “status quo” is the core mission of New Democrats.

We are disrupting change by demanding better and holding school boards to account. We don’t apologize for that. That’s what parents want us to do. That’s exactly what we’re going to keep doing, which is why we brought forth reforms to hire based on merit and increase the funding and staffing.

I think, Mr. Speaker, what I will finally conclude with is that over the past months, we have benefited from two parliamentary assistants, new members brought in to the ministry: the member from Burlington and the member from Markham-Unionville, two highly skilled champions, parents, leaders, One’s a former trustee; one worked in the post-secondary sector herself. These are people of principle who care deeply about kids. They care about kids. They are parents, okay? They got into this because they have experiences that have just totally fuelled their desire to see a better country and a better education system for the next generation.

I believe that they at their core—we at our core as a government—are committed to that change, and we’re going to keep doing it, hopefully with, but frankly even without the opposition—the constant opposition of the members opposite as we increase the funding, increase the staffing and increase the opportunities for young people to graduate, get a job and achieve in this country. That is our mission, and we’re going to be on it irrespective of members opposite. Stand up for the special interests instead of standing up for the parents’ interests of this province.

Interjections.

No, I don’t believe it.

Comments through the Chair.

I have to start by saying that as a parent of three school-aged children in the province of Ontario, that was an incredibly shameful display from our Minister of Education. For a speech that talked a lot about accountability, that is a person who takes zero accountability for what is happening in schools under his watch.

The minister says his philosophy of success is outcomes. Well, let’s talk about his record, the outcomes for students and for schools in the province of Ontario, because what I hear daily from parents, from students, from teachers and education workers, from trustees, is that things have never been so dire in the education system in Ontario.

We have children who are struggling with serious mental health challenges, who are being told that they need to wait for a social worker and aren’t getting to see one until the next school year. These are children who need help immediately, and nine out of 10 school principals say their school doesn’t have the support they need to help children’s mental health. In fact, half of schools have no access to mental health professionals at all, at a time of one of the greatest crises in student mental health in our province’s history.

Children who have special education needs aren’t even being kept safe, let alone being supported in their learning in school. We’ve had multiple children who have eloped from school, who are being put in incredibly dangerous situations. One student who is supposed to have one-on-one support all day long not only escaped from his school, but they didn’t know he was missing for 35 minutes, because his school is so strapped for staff to support children with special education needs that there was not somebody with that student. There was not somebody to pay attention for 35 minutes.

There are students who need support who are spending the entire day with the principal, going around from classroom to classroom, because the principal is the only person left in the school building to keep an eye on this child.

We have students who are experiencing violence on a daily basis, teachers and education workers who are experiencing life-altering injuries because of the level of violence, people who are being sent to school in Kevlar because the Minister of Education is failing to take action on violence in our schools.

We have 5,000 fewer educators in our classrooms than we did when this government came to power. That means larger class sizes for our children who are struggling with their academics coming out of the pandemic, and it also means more challenging working conditions for the teachers that we have left, because they’re trying to juggle a class of 34 or 38 students, some of whom have mental health challenges, some of whom have special education needs, none of whom are getting the supports that they need.

It’s not surprising, under these circumstances, that people are fleeing our education system. We have 46,000 teachers in the province of Ontario who are registered with the Ontario teachers’ college but are choosing not to work in our education system because of this minister and his policies. A quarter of our elementary schools, a third of our secondary schools have daily staff shortages, and the minister wants to talk about qualified teachers? We are so short on teachers that those positions are being filled with unqualified people every single day. Instead of showing teachers any respect for the work that they’re doing, the minister stood up and attacked our hard-working teachers once again. He can’t even show them the tiniest bit of respect for the hard work they do and the conditions that they work under every single day in the province of Ontario. Those are the minister’s outcomes. That is the minister’s record.

Apparently not satisfied with having done that to our education system, not satisfied with having done that to our children—my children, your children, everyone’s children across the province—the minister is cutting funding once again, for the sixth straight year.

To make matters worse, Speaker, he’s not even putting the full amount that he announced towards our kids in education. They announced a nice big number, and then, if you read the small print, it actually says $1.4 billion of that amount is not going to kids in classrooms; it’s going to the government’s priorities. As a result, we have $1,500 less per child in Ontario than if funding had just kept pace with inflation and enrolment growth since 2018.

But even 2018 funding levels wouldn’t be enough right now to address the incredibly serious challenges that we’re experiencing in Ontario. As I mentioned, we have these really high rates of violence, which are making students, teachers and education workers, principals afraid to go to school in some cases. And what’s this government spending on student safety? Fourteen cents per day per child—that’s really going to help address the situation, Speaker. That’s really going to make people feel safe in their schools. But it’s okay, because there’s a security camera that’s going to capture the violence that nobody’s doing anything about.

We have a student mental health crisis, but what’s the government spending on mental health care for students? Twenty-two cents per student per day, and that’s a cut from last year, because even this year’s inadequate funding was 27 cents per child per day. So we already have kids waiting more than a year—kids who have no mental health support whatsoever in their school this year—and the minister thinks that’s such a successful outcome that he’s cutting funding for next year. It’s absolutely crazy-making, Speaker, that we cannot provide supports for our children who are struggling in Ontario.

As a result, while our kids are already not getting the supports they need to learn, to be safe, to be supported, school boards are being forced once again to make cuts this year. They have already cut to the bone. They have already laid off teachers, educational assistants, child and youth workers—the people who help our children learn and keep them safe every day. And now school boards are being told they’re going to need to make even more cuts this year.

We’re seeing school boards cutting incredibly important resources—resource teachers, for one, teachers who support children who have special needs. We’re seeing congregate classes cut. We’re seeing every single school board in the province running a deficit in special education, and now they’re going to have to cut even more supports for our children with special needs.

If this funding had just kept pace with inflation, we would have $3 billion more in our school system than what this government is putting in. At a moment when things are so dire, what would that $3 billion mean? What would $1,500 more per child mean in our education system? Well, every single school that I go to, I ask the principal, “If you could have one thing, what it would be?” And do you know what every single principal responds? More EAs.

For a school of 400 students, $1,500 per student would allow for the hiring of 10 more EAs. These are EAs who are currently running from crisis to crisis with a walkie-talkie trying to figure out which student needs help the most after the crisis has already erupted.

Imagine what a difference it would make for that school, for the levels of violence, for kids who are not having their learning needs supported, if a school had 10 more EAs? It would mean more social workers and mental health nurses so that when a child says, “I need help,” help is there and we’re not making them wait. It would mean more child and youth workers to help supervise lunchrooms and hallways and make sure that we’re actually intervening before things reach a crisis level. It would mean that every child in Ontario would have a better opportunity to go to school safely, to feel safe and supported at school and to receive the high-quality education that I would like to think we all believe children in Ontario deserve, except that the government’s actions demonstrate differently.

So I will conclude with a plea to the other members of the government. We have clearly heard that the Minister of Education is not going to support giving our children the resources and supports that they need for a high-quality education in the province of Ontario, but many of you are parents; many of you are hearing from your constituents what the outcomes of this minister’s policy are.

So stand with parents; stand with kids; stand with the future of Ontario and support this motion today.