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—

I rise not just to defend our education experts and teachers in Niagara, not only to echo the concerns from so many parents, but to sound an alarm about the risks of underfunding education in Ontario, especially in the Niagara region.

Since 2018, the ministry has stripped away $1,500 per child from our schools. Across Niagara, I’ve heard from so many of our amazing teachers who have to dip more and more into their own funds to support their students.

I come from a family of educators, and I know that in Niagara, we have some of the best teachers and some of the best EAs in Ontario. However, this is the legacy of this government: Educators must get used to doing less with less. Our most vulnerable students suffer disproportionately. Special-needs children are sent home because we lack the resources to support them. Parents who are already burdened are scrambling to fill the gaps that the government has abandoned.

So what solution does the Ford government propose? A superficial ban on cellphones in classrooms, the classic bait-and-switch distraction from the real issue: considerable and suffocating underfunding of education.

An education leader and a teacher in Niagara, Jennifer McArthur, hits the nail right on the head when she says, “This focus on cellphone bans is a mere distraction from the escalating violence in our classrooms and the desperate need for mental health supports. It’s another glaring example of how out of touch the Ford government is with the realities of modern education. They sidestep real issues, offering token policies instead of substantive dialogue and effective solutions.”

And this is the harsh reality: While the Ford government gets you to focus on small policy tweaks, over 40,000 qualified teachers in Ontario are walking away from the profession, driven out by real issues related to funding shortfalls. Nine out of 10 principals declared a crisis in mental health support, yet what is the government’s answer? More security cameras? Come on. A focus on security, not actual funding for mental health or educators? This narrative of neglect, less funding and more distractions cannot continue. This is exactly why we need sweeping changes.

The government of Ontario should substantially increase the funding for public education in Ontario, so that every child receives the high-quality education they deserve, regardless of their family income. The time for excuses, the time for deflections and the patchwork of Band-Aids is over. It is time for this government to step up, to take the responsibility and to right the wrongs. The children in Niagara and in Ontario and the educators that teach them deserve much, much better.