Speaker, let me tell you, the most expensive Premier’s office in the history of this province was the one that preceded this government, the Kathleen Wynne Premier’s office. You know why? Because it cost us 300,000 jobs. It cost us massive amounts of economic development. It cost us job creation. It cost us trade. It hurt our students.

Remember when our students were discovering math instead of learning math? That was under the previous Liberal government.

You know all of those doctors that aren’t practising right now? That was because they closed the medical schools. Instead of thinking about it 15 years ago, they closed the medical schools. They didn’t hire nurses; they laid them off.

We built long-term-care homes. We’re building more hospitals. We’re building roads, transportation—700,000 people have the dignity of a job who didn’t under the previous Liberal government.

That member can talk about gravy train all he wants, but the only thing we’re doing is building an economy out of the ashes of what was left behind by the previous Liberal government.

—$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.