As has kind of been said, it might seem maybe a more abstract question, a less pressing question, a less vital question to discuss, but actually it's a really important question to discuss and answer and at the end of the day to be prepared for because, you know, when revolutionary movements start to happen, questions like, is it okay to kill people? Should we arm the workers? These can become of the utmost importance and if we have an incorrect understanding of these or if we're kind of can be stifled by different pressures or different attacks on the basis of morality, this could completely derail a revolutionary movement and time and time again you've seen kind of pre-revolutionary movements or kind of movements of the workers that have been, that have been kind of betrayed by the leaders who have pacifist illusions and kind of call for workers not to take up arms in the moment when they should take up arms. An example of that kind of would be the the movement in Sudan in 2018 where you had a huge movement of the workers and the kind of press layers all in struggle and you had the ruling class use these reactionary armed bands of people going around terrorizing the workers and in that movement and in that moment the leadership of that movement did succumb to kind of accusations of amoralism and did kind of succumb to pressures from pacifism and these ideas violence is wrong we must turn over cheek we need to show the better way and that led to that movement facing a huge setback and obviously things have moved on and today there is still big movements in Sudan but that whole episode kind of shows the importance of the question of morality and if we don't have a very clear question and a clear and developed understanding of morality it can really put the class struggle back and can really really cause us problems but and quite often I think in society Marxists are kind of painted especially by maybe liberal kind of figures or right-wing figures as kind of a moral creature is obsessed and who would do anything who would lie you cheat who would murder to achieve the aims of of you know the revolution would achieve their aims and the day that we have no understanding of morality and we'll just basically do whatever to get what we want and which is obviously not the case and actually I would say morality is a really important question for us and we have actually a deeper more scientific understanding of what morality is and then liberals do or then right-wingers do or then kind of the average person might have and as Marxist we don't just say oh some things are good because they are or this idea is wrong or you should never do this just because that's the way things are in fact we should be able to justify and explain why our actions are good and bad why our actions are justified or unjustified and because of that we have a more much more deeper and much more scientific understanding of morality I would argue than can other layers and a kind of key text when you're looking at kind of Marxism and ethics Marxism and morality is their morals and ours by Trotsky and that's something I would really recommend if you've not had a chance to read it and it's a kind of pamphlet and I would really recommend I'm sure the bookstore will have copies downstairs and it was written by Trotsky in 1938 where he was facing quite a bleak global situation you know the Stalinists had kind of taken hold in Russia and a lot of the old Bolsheviks had been killed or had been imprisoned after the Moscow Childs there was a lot of demoralization globally I guess from kind of communists and other people and outside of Russia in particular a lot of kind of liberals and a lot of people who had maybe been Stalinists or had supported the USSR but kind of changed their mind started to use the question of morality to really attack Russia to attack the USSR and even more seriously to attack the October Revolution and at that time there was this accusation I think it's something probably we've all still heard today that you know Stalinism and the kind of terrible things that happened because of the Stalinist degeneration were the inevitable result of the violence of the lack of morals of Bolshevism the lack of the morals of the of the Russian Revolution and so basically blaming Stalinist reaction on the immorality of the Russian Revolution and it's obviously you know quite ludicrous to say that the degeneration of the USSR and obviously all the crimes that came with that you know the corruption the secret police tortures murder then those were that those were inevitable because the revolution was somehow bad or immoral or violent and obviously apart from being very basic and very crude it looks at things as a very static isolated abstractions you know just taking a list of features and saying oh if you have this this this and this then you are dictatorship and that's bad and but instead you know we look at events in relation to one another we look at things as part of a historical process of change. Stalinism is not just a static dictatorship but was a bureaucratic reaction against a revolution in an underdeveloped developed an isolated country and you know the kind of crimes of Stalinism and the kind of terrible things that happened under Stalinism was a move to re-establish privileges in a case where the material based abolish them couldn't be sustained and so I would say like we don't just believe that Stalinism happened because we don't have enough morals so it's all bad things will always end up happening and we have a much more deeper analysis of it and on this point Trotsky writes in their morals and ours Stalinist frame-ups are not a fruit of Bolshevik amoralism no like all important events in history they are a product of the concrete social struggle and I think that's really kind of important when we face these kind of accusations of amoralism and to actually explain no this is the reason why those things happened under the USSR it's not just because of violence in the Russian Revolution and it was kind of in the context of these accusations that Trotsky wrote this pamphlet to kind of tackle this question that the lack of morals that Marxists have don't just mean the Russian Revolution degenerated but this idea that it would mean revolutions would always degenerate that basically attacking the fact you could ever even have communism by saying oh no if you have violent means you're gonna end up with a violent society or something like that and but before I even address the kind of question of morals and what we kind of think about morals I would just like to flip the question you know on these liberals on these right wings on these other strands of political thought which seek to attack us through accusations of immorality and you know any kind of a moral compass that that these different layers are seeking to judge us us by capitalism obviously comes out eternally worse and you know the kind of attack that oh violence is wrong killing is wrong you should never take up arms you know these kind of calls yet at the same time these layers are more than happy to support imperialist wars where the violence is for what it's for nothing is for imperialism or is for some kind of abstract and support for the nation compared to us who are actually engaged in wars to put an end to the current system and that we live under and that causes so much violence and even when you start to look at you know kind of accusation that you have no regard for life life is so precious and I'm sure you've all heard the kind of figure of a hundred million dead because of communism which was kind of popular has been popular with right wingers since 1997 when it was released in this book called the black book of communism so they basically argue a hundred million people have died because of communism or 1.2 million people a year and while there's a lot of exaggeration in those figures and a lot of liberty taken with what was included even if you take that face value we can only imagine the capitalism's death toll the death toll of capitalism and you know if we look at figures the in a normal year the World Health Organization estimates that 3.8 million people die from lack of clean water 1.5 million people die from preventable disease and 14 million people die from hunger and that's just a kind of normal year so that's already 19 million people considerably more than ever has been accused of communism killing have been killed and that leaves out you know imperialist wars it leaves out people dying from lack of medical care leaves out unsafe conditions at work poor housing no housing at all and all the kind of ills that are an inevitable product of the capitalist system and that's before we even discuss the kind of outbreak of coronavirus and something which could have been completely prevented and completely controlled and if the system had the interests of the people at its heart but obviously doesn't the system is run the interest of profit and it's run in the interest of the ruling class and at least five million people and have already died from coronavirus and the real figure is likely to be far far higher than that and that was all completely inevitable so I think it's just the utter cheek that they they dare to accuse us of having a disregard for life or us being letting people die and being engaged in violence and killing when you look around at the capitalist system and and that it's it's full of violence it's full of death and destruction and we are the people fighting to overthrow that and putting into that and and so I would actually like to use the words of the famous kind of Scottish Marxist John McClain in his speech from the dock in 1919 and he kind of said I am not here then as the accused I'm here as the accuser the accuser of capitalism which is dripping with blood from head to foot I think it's really important in any kind of discussion on morals to lay out the complete hypocrisy of these kind of liberals and right-wingers who dare to say that what we believe in or we're immoral and when the system that they defend with every inch of their beating is so violent and so horrible and so much worse by any kind of moral compass that they're judging people by I think the next part of my kind of lead-off and I want to look a bit deeper at the kind of questions of well what what is morality what are morals and or on what basis do we ascribe something as wrong or as right and kind of look at the questioner of is there eternal moral truths you know are there things which are always wrong or always right and I think you know in society there is an understanding of certain things being bad or certain things being wrong and I'm sure if you went out and asked someone on the street you know what what is wrong they would maybe say like oh it's wrong to kill people or it's wrong to steal it's wrong to lie and those kind of things I think there is a general understanding of society of certain things being wrong or certain things being bad or certain things being immoral but you know we're Marxist we're very scientific and it's important for us not to just take that at face value and go all right well that's what people think is right and wrong that must just be it you know we have to actually go in and then analyze these things and I think a key question is that are those things static do people always think that those things are right and wrong I think the clear answer is no you know views on different moral questions have changed incredibly over time quite drastically and the fact that morality is not is not static at all but it reflects wider society and reflects and the kind of society that we're living in and so I guess one kind of example and would be sure if you ask people most people out on the street you know adulterate is it wrong to cheat on someone a lot of people go oh yeah that's wrong like that's bad and that's an idea most people in our society probably hold and but this whole concept would be completely bizarre and probably even difficult to comprehend to someone living in a kind of primitive agricultural society where marriage doesn't even exist and or monogamy doesn't even exist and because individual marriage isn't a component of their society of course there wouldn't be moral rules or moral understandings around kind of cheating or adultery and things like that and it'd be completely bizarre the question of whether that is right or wrong and another question is of course slavery something which I'm sure the vast vast majority of people if you ask them is slavery right or wrong they say no slavery is wrong it's disgusting terrible and of course we would agree but in ancient Greece in ancient Rome and probably not the slaves themselves but the citizens that the other people who lived there we find it completely ludicrous the idea that slavery was bad or slavery was wrong and which is completely understandable because their entire society was built upon the basis of slave labor so of course the morality would reflect that I think there's so many examples and maybe people would like to come in in the discussion of different questions where we can clearly see that the morality is not at all static and that it changes to reflect the kind of society that we're living under and the kind of understandings of the day I think that's quite clear and it's something that we as Marxist view morality as being a product of an epoch and morality is not natural morality is not innate and morale moral views are part of class society and they are enacted in a given society through maybe religious rules through laws through moral norms and they change and reflect the situation the position and the interest of a given ruling class and morality is a key component of ideology and so kind of looking at what ideology kind of is the ways of kind of seeing the world the explanations the half truths which the ruling class espouses and kind of puts out into society in order to justify its existence in order to justify the existence of the system that we love under and in order to maintain its power so obviously looking at kind of slave societies and of course the the morality of the day which was pushed forward with by the ruling class was that slavery is good and fine and in order to justify that society to preserve its existence and to maintain the power of the ruling class and of course you know ruling classes can maintain their power in loads of different ways you know they have the state if we look at our our current and society they have like the media all these kind of things but this alone is not enough to completely preserve the power of the ruling class because ruling classes are a tiny minority who are preserving their power over the vast vast majority of society and so ideology is like an extra kind of way that the ruling class tries to maintain its power and morality is a key part of that and where that leaves us kind of as Marxist our rule is obviously to strip away these illusions and to kind of reveal the false nature of of bourgeois ideology and so if we look at kind of morality that's a real key component of ideology a key way that people kind of are encouraged to see the world and see the capitalist system as eternal as inevitable and you can see that through certain morals a classic one is stealing that's obviously part of protecting private property the idea is wrong to steal yet you know extracting surplus labor the huge theft that goes on every day and which allows the ruling class to maintain their wealth and their power that's not seen as wrong or stealing that's just seen as as they're kind of right to do that and while if we were to suggest expropriating certain companies and certain people would say oh no that's wrong that's stealing so you can clearly see the class nature of morality the the role that it plays in maintaining the current system and in their morals and ours Trotsky says on this point from the point of view of eternal truths revolution is of course anti-moral but this merely means that the idealist morality is counter-revolutionary that it is in the service of the exploiters so then but coming back on this point some people might argue they might say okay yeah you know some morals change some things change in different societies and ownership slavery people used to think it's wrong right now people think it's wrong but some things are always right or wrong right you know killing is a classic one people say oh every society and doesn't doesn't think it's right to kill every society there's rules about killing and I mean that's true to a certain extent and most societies if not all societies have some kind of moral rules or moral judgments around killing and you know some people argue oh well this just expresses you know some innate or some natural kind of moral norms that the whole of humanity has I don't know we're born with or we just have deep inside there's certain things that are right for humans and certain things that are wrong and but I would completely disagree with this you know I would say yeah it's true there are some moral norms that are in common across different societies but that's because it's just the most basic things which allow us to live together in a group and you know it's understandable that there's gonna be a lot of moral kind of codes that limit killing because a society where people just go around and kill each other all the time won't really last for very long and but that doesn't mean there is natural or doesn't mean it's innate and it means that it comes from the needs of society and the needs of living in a group and the needs of preserving a society and I think it's what is important as well to note that quite often these kind of moral rules especially ones that are common in lots of different societies are often very variable and very contradictory so you know the idea it's wrong to kill and something common in most societies yeah you can kill if you're in the army and in fact it's seen as good to kill it's seen if there's a war it's a moral right to go and kill someone and so it's completely flipped and you know in self-defense it's seen as right to kill and even more ludicrously you know with the death penalty so we're told oh it's wrong to kill don't kill that's that's immoral and yet the state kills people and in a lot of countries to kind of punish them for their wrongs and so we can clearly see that even these kind of moral norms which do supposedly exist across all different societies are not enacted in a way that is consistent is very contradictory and obviously isn't kind of natural I think kind of looking even deeper on the question of well what is a moral what what is it to say something is right or something is wrong and I would say is to say what you should or shouldn't do you know a moral is basically saying what is or what isn't permissible and so this idea that morality and that we can make decisions on what we should or shouldn't do that that could come from anywhere apart from the material world is completely ludicrous and so the idea that we somehow have these entire you know innate or eternal or natural moral truth this is actually just a religious hangover and from the past because you know the idea that there could be right and wrongs which come from outside society outside the material world and this could only come from a God and which is obviously something that we don't believe in and this is like an illusion that we as Marxist should strip away the only place that we can actually get rights and wrongs decide on if an action is permissible or not has to be from the material world it can't come from kind of outside and on this point Trotsky and has a quote which I personally really like and he says whoever does not care to return to Moses Christ or Muhammad whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodgepodge's must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development that there is nothing invariable about it that is serve social interests that these interests are contradictory that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character and so I think it's really important for us as Marxist to understand there is no innate or natural or everlasting right and wrongs right and wrongs morality is a product of society is a product of class society and what we think in a given time is a result of the kind of class society that we're living under so I guess then that moves on to where does that leave us then as Marxist is there a Marxist morality and you know should we just throw it all away or how should we respond to it and you know I think it's quite important that we don't believe in fixed moral codes and we don't believe that there's just a list of things which are right and a list of things which are wrong and we're quite clear in that current morality the morality of the current society is bourgeois morality it reflects the attitude of the bourgeois class and it serves to protect the interests of the ruling class so we stand like in opposition to that and but does that mean that we think that's it there's no right or wrong you should just go around and kill people randomly or live freely or just do whatever anything is permissible and we say of course not you know morality is a question of what you should and shouldn't do and just because we reject bourgeois morality that doesn't mean you should just we think you should do everything and anything and so yeah we don't have a list of things that you should and shouldn't do like some religion because we're a scientific philosophy you know before deciding if an action is permissible we need to analyze the action we need to think through the consequences we need to weigh up what's gonna happen and then make a decision and and there's obviously like a common kind of moral code of the end justifies the means and you know should we as Marxists do we believe in all the ends justify the means and I mean we do follow it to a certain extent because if you're not judging an action on its consequences what else are you judging it on you know if you're not judging or should I do this this is what's gonna happen you are just going back again to abstract moral codes to him to religion or to idealism to basing your moral judgments on the nature but the idea of the ends justifies the means that loan is not enough because yes the means should justify the ends but the end aim also needs to be justified you know so if we look at the question is it is it justified to kill is it justified to kill for a nation well you need to justify the nation you know is it justified to kill for God you then need to justify your religion and I think this is like a really great thing that Trotsky kind of and goes into a bit more depth on in the pamphlet and he says a means can be justified only by its end but the end in its turn needs to be justified from the Marxist point of view which expresses the historical interest of the proletariat the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and the abolition of power of man over man so you know we are Marxist and our actions and are the consequences of our actions need to be justified by the fact that we are Marxism we are fighting for the liberation of society so that is what we need to judge everything by and you know philosophers kind of saying all these are right or these are wrong they never kind of go that further step so maybe if they say oh it's right to kill for a nation they never then say well why is it right to kill for a nation what is the nation why do you think that is justified in itself and because of the end of the day Bors War morality is about maintaining the status quo and so that's only what could kind of be expected so for us as Marxists when we're deciding if something's moral if we're deciding if something's right or wrong we're deciding something's justified or not we don't have a kind of outside moral code but we weigh up the action with its consequences with the aim of liberating society and so Trotsky on this point says permissible and obligatory are those and only those means we answer which unite the revolutionary proletariat fill their hearts with in irrecursible hostility to oppression teach them contempt for official morality and its democratic echoers imbue them with consciousness of their own historic mission raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice and struggle so we are fighting for revolution and in that we have to weigh up actions and what effect that is going to have in the class struggle so we would see as wrong or we would see as not permissible actions which set parts of the working class against each other because that is not going to help us strive towards the aim of class struggle so we see racism as wrong and because it sets part of the working class against each other and it weakens the working class we see actions which lower people's consciousness as wrong you know things like religion we would see that as wrong because it lowers the working class's consciousness we would see is wrong actions which make the class kind of docile or dependent or blindly following leaders and again it's not some kind of fixed moral code that we then write up on our walls and follow by every day but all actions must be weighed up in the moment in the actual class struggle as part of revolutionary strategy and tactics and I guess like the other question is if we kind of hypothesize about a communist society a future communist society what would the morality of that society be again would there just be no morals and because morals is part of kind of ideology and we'd say no you know people just wouldn't think everything is right or everything is wrong and there were probably there almost certainly would be a common understanding of right and wrong there would be a kind of proletarian morality and that I'm sure would say well senseless violence is wrong and we've already said racism is wrong non-work and not participating in the running of society is wrong but I think it would be slightly different in that people wouldn't just you know like in current society people just maybe view morals as natural or eternal and just say oh that is bad because it's bad but I think in a future communist society would be a more developed understanding of morality and people would maybe say yeah senseless violence is wrong and because that destroys our fellow workers or not working is wrong because and that's the basis that we you know we hold our society together and we're building a society together or racism is wrong because it divides the workers and it's a kind of foreign idea that's being planted in our in our midst so we are more developed sense of morality that there isn't just a list of things that are right and a list of things that are wrong but we think through the consequences of the actions we think and through what's going to happen and then kind of decide if something is permissible or not with recourse to the real material world and recourse to the actual consequences and aims in a kind of scientific manner you know as I said morality is part of ideology and it's part of the illusions and illusions involved with morality are a key way in which the ruling class kind of maintains their power and that's something that we also need to work to strip away we to go out and say you know there are no eternal moral truths there are no fixed set of things which are right and wrong and but we as thinking conscious human beings have to make judgments all over where action if actions are permissible or if they're not and anyone kind of alive can see that the capitalism is hotter without it and the most moral and the most important thing that we can do is to strip away kind of illusions in bourgeois morality to kind of strip away the excuses and to kind of strip away I guess bourgeois ideology more more broadly strip away the idea that the capitalist system is necessary is useful is inevitable we need to work against that and I guess more broadly we need to get to work building a revolutionary organization which is capable of toppling this disgusting system and all of the vices that that brings with it kind of once and for all and I'd like to kind of end with a sort of longer quote in which Trotsky used to end the pamphlet and I just think it's a really good kind of somewhat of our view towards morality and he said in these immense events the Trotsky's learned the rhythm of history that is the dialectics of class struggle they also learned it seems and to a certain degree successfully how to subordinate their subjective plans and programs to the objective rhythm they learn not to fall into despair over the fact that the laws of history do not depend on their individual tastes and are not so subordinated to their own moral criteria they learn to subordinate their individual desires to the laws of history they learn not to be frightened by the most powerful enemies if their power is in contradiction to the historical development they know how to swim against the stream in the deep conviction that the new historic flood will carry them to the other shore not will all reach that not all will reach that shore many will drown but to participate in this movement with open eyes and with an intense will only this can give the highest moral satisfaction to a thinking being


It is now time for oral questions. I recognize the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, to the Premier. Over the last few days, many Ontarians have written to new Democrat MPPs to share stories of the role that education workers play supporting kids in our schools. The common threat in all of them is that, despite the best efforts of this government to starve our education system of resources, the quality of kids' education is being protected because of the hard work of education workers and their teachers. At the end of the day, it's our kids who are going to pay the price if this Premier and his minister don't get back to the bargaining table. Will the government commit to scrapping Bill 28 and bargaining in good faith today? And to reply? The Premier. Speaker, that's exactly why we want to keep them in class. We'll do whatever it takes to keep students in class where they belong. We want parents to know that we're doing everything we can to make sure their child doesn't miss a single day of class. We're at the table with a fair and reasonable offer, matter of fact a very fair, the best in the country, and yet the Union refuses to withdraw the strike notice. Mr. Speaker, we don't want to be here. No one wants to be here and have to do this. We've heard from countless parents, endless parents, matter of fact, there's never been an issue in four and a half years that I've had more emails about saying, make sure my kids stay in the class every single day, and we know how difficult the pandemic is being on our children, but we need QP to withdraw the strike threat, and I'm not going to tolerate, Mr. Speaker, students being out of the classroom for even one day. The NDP and the Liberals, either. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The supplementary question, the member. Thank you for the applause, and thank you, Speaker. To the Premier, my question is for you. Jenny, a local parent told my office, and I'm going to share her story. I am one of those parents whose child realized absolutely on those incredible education workers. They have to be toileted. My child needs to be supervised during meals to prevent choking, to walk safely down the stairs and up the stairs. Medication has to be administered, and yes, the child still has to learn. This government gave 88% of their PC MPPs a $16,000, $600 raise last June. This June, Speaker, will the Premier, will this government be willing to actually give education workers a raise that they deserve and match it to inflation? Did you reply to the Premier? To you, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. We will always support our front-line workers, plain and simple. And I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the fact is QP continues to threaten to shut down the classrooms. They refuse to back down from a strike. Our offer maintains the most generous. I'm going to repeat that, the most generous pension and benefit plan in the entire country, including 131 paid sick days, unheard of anywhere, we're seeing school boards come forward, what will close, the doors will be closed if QP goes on strike, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, we won't let that happen. Nothing matters more right now than ensuring the students remain in the classroom. We're investing over $26.6 billion in public education. The single largest investment in Ontario history, Mr. Speaker. Education funding for this year. The next supplementary question, Member for Toronto Centre. Thank you, Speaker. Talking points are cheap, Premier. And when it comes to education workers, they can't eat. That's why they're at the food banks. That's why they're holding down second jobs.   Kerry then tells me, I watched our other ECE marched down to the Kinders to the library because they had to evacuate the classroom while their education assistant was controlling a friend who was having a moment or episode. All these little ones had adorable, beautiful smiles on their faces as they passed the teacher's window and gave her a wave. They didn't even know that anything was wrong in their classroom, despite the fact that there was. A caretaker then marched down the hallway with a bucket in hand to then clean up the mess on the floor because four students got sick that same day. All of that happened within a 24-hour period or within an hour. Speaker, will this government show the fraction of emotional intelligence that we see from education workers that they exercise every single day and return to the bargaining table and give them a fair deal? That's right. Premier? Mr. Speaker, how about the students? How about the mental, emotional, and even physical well-being of two million students and therefore the. The member for Davenport will come to order. The member for Toronto St. Paul's will come to order. The member for Ottawa Center will come to order. The Premier has the floor. Mr. Speaker, parents and kids have had enough. We've heard it. I've never seen anything like it. There is only one party in this legislature that is standing up for the students and the parents, and that's the PC party. Mr. Speaker, the opposition can have it both ways. Either they support shutting down schools or they stand with this government and will support keeping kids in classroom. It's either strikes or students respond. We're with the students. Leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker again to the Premier. The government's use of the notwithstanding clause to ban workers from collective bargaining is wrong. It's something the Prime Minister and I seem to agree on, and I don't agree with him on almost anything. Here's what the Prime Minister had to say. You're a good buddy. You're a good buddy. The suspension of people's rights is something you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the notwithstanding clause to suspend people's rights and freedoms. The Premier is fond of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister. I've seen the photos. So will the Premier change tack today, join the Prime Minister, his good friend, and condemn the use of the notwithstanding clause? To reply, the Minister of Education. Let me remind the member opposite that children in this province should have rights to, and they should be in school in this province. To have been here. I can't hear the Minister. Minister of Education, that's the floor. Order. Speaking of we've been here, we've been here. Children should be in school. They have been through two incredibly difficult years. They have been through the most difficulty in modern history. We have an obligation to ensure stability. We asked the Union to bring forth a proposal that withdraws a strike on Friday. We gave them multiple opportunities to do so. And yesterday night at 10 p.m. hearing from the mediator and through the media, they're going to proceed with a strike that no one wants and no one should accept. Mr. Speaker, the Premier made it clear we shouldn't be here. The response, we obviously would prefer a negotiated settlement. But so long as a strike is on the table, the government will move forward with legislation that protects stability. Yeah, once again, if you repeatedly ignore the request of the Speaker to come to order, I will move to warnings.  Okay? Start the clock. Supplementary. Speaker, this government is damaging the education system that our children depend on. They are bullying the educators and the workers that we depend on to educate these children. They are engaged in a flagrant attack on working people and unions are taking notice, even the ones that have been friendly with this government. Leona was first out of the gate in endorsing forward-last election but had harsh words for this government. International Vice President Joe Mancinelli. On behalf of Leona, we call on Minister Leche to revoke anti-union legislation and restore the collective bargaining rights of QP members and act in good faith to reach an agreement that prioritizes both keeping students in school and rights of and respect for all workers. So to the Premier, will he listen to his friends at Leona and rip up Bill 28. Good education. Mr. Speaker, we want QP to respect the interests of children and parents who want to see their kids in school. They should not be out of class on Friday. The union was given an opportunity to rescind this needless strike. They alone have put themselves on a footing for a strike on Sunday when they announced five-day notice to strike impacting two million children. We believe that it's unacceptable and incompatible with the priorities of parents who believe stability is critical at a time of learning a disruption and the pandemic. We have an obligation to ensure they stay in class. And Mr. Speaker, so long as the union regrettably proceeds with this unacceptable strike, the government will have no choice but to proceed with legislation to order a strike and keep these kids in the classroom. Mr. Ford, Toronto St. Paul, come to order. Final supplementary. Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, when will the Premier and his ministers stop lying about the damage they're doing to the education system? The member will withdraw his unparliamentary comment. I will not withdraw. I'm telling the truth. Take a seat. Member will take a seat. Order. I will ask the member once again to withdraw his unparliamentary comment. You will be named. Mr. Tabbins, you are named. You must leave the chamber for the day. You must leave the chamber for the day. Member for Davenport. You will be named if you don't stop.  You must leave the chamber for the day. Member for Toronto St. Paul's is warned. If you continue, you will be named. Ms. Andrew, you are named. You must leave the chamber for the day. The next question, the member for Niagara Falls. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the President. Stopping is actually stripping away collective bargaining rights from workers. We've been listening to education workers in my community of Niagara Falls, Fort Erion, and Niagara and a lake. In Niagara, we spoke to Carrie, a school secretary who's been a loyal worker for nearly 20 years. She still makes under $39,000 a year. Has a second job just to make ends meet. She even considered getting a third job because of the increased cost of food, gas, and housing. Mr. Speaker, does this Premier think that education workers should have to work two extra jobs in order to avoid using food banks? And to reply, the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. We believe children should be in the classroom. They have to be in school every day after two years of disruption and strikes that preceded it just a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, we brought forth a reasonable fair offer to the union, 10% over four years, maintaining benefits and pensions and sick leave, which most people in this economy do not have. Mr. Speaker, even with that said, we told the union rescind this strike on Friday that impacts every single student in the province. They announced this strike on Sunday, even before the government introduced the legislation on Monday. The member for Waterloo is warned. It was their intention all along, and it is regretful. We should not be here. We should have had a voluntary agreement given the fair offer we proposed, but they have made clear they will strike. The government office has no other option but to move forward with legislation that protects the in-person learning our children deserve in this province. Mr. Speaker, but before I ask my next question, maybe I have respect for our veterans. Maybe the Minister of Education should put a poppy on it. Everybody else in the house has one on. Well, the charter rights are ignored by this government, and they hold back $2.1 billion in spending. We continue to hear from education workers that are struggling. Our office spoke this week to Jennifer, an educational assistant, with over 20 years on the job. She's never seen it so bad. Schools do not have EA supply staff they need. Staff are facing rising violence in our schools. They can't hold on to staff due to low wages, serious health and safety concerns. Speaker, does the Premier think that trampling on the charter rights and refusing to invest in our education system is going to fix the crisis we have in our school? And Premier, answer the question. The Minister of Education. Speaker, we believe kids should be in the classroom. We brought forth a reasonable proposal for children. And yet again, the members opposite have not spoken about the impacts on kids that this strike, driven by the union, announced by themselves, alone on Sunday will have on their... For Ottawa Centre, come door. ...and the millions of kids in this broader loo... Mr. Speaker, that is really sad that they have not raised any concern... ...agre falls, come door. ...about the impacts the children's learning. The member for Windsor West, come door. Member for Parkdale High Park, come door. The member for Waterloo will be named and she persists. You'll be named. You'll be named. Ms. Carpocia, you are named and you must leave the chamber. You will be named. You must leave the chamber for the day. You persist, you will be named. You must leave the chamber for the day. Leave the chamber for the day. He's still got the floor. The next question, the member for Stormont Dundas, South Tindere. Thank you, Speaker. The Government of Ontario has a responsibility to parents and students. This is a sacred trust. That responsibility includes the guarantee of top quality education for our children and placing the most qualified teachers in front of our students. We've heard many times about the need for students to remain in class and what students will learn in these classes. However, the individuals teaching these classes matter just as much as the subject's content. From principals and vice principals to math, art, music and science teachers and many more types of educators we have in this province, we need the most qualified individuals at the front of the classroom. Speaker to the Minister of Education, what has our government done to ensure the right educator is in front of our children? Mr. Vice-Chancellor. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the member for this question and his interest as a parent and as a leader in this House, standing up for quality education in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, it was over a decade ago the former Liberal government consented in a union negotiation to a regulation, a regressive regulation called Reg 274, a regulation that permitted exclusive hiring and promotion in Ontario based on seniority. You must leave the chamber. Mr. Vice-Chancellor. Mr. Vice-Chancellor. Mr. Speaker, a regressive regulation introduced by the former Liberals that hired and promoted educators exclusively based on their union seniority. If this was...  You must leave the chamber. Supplementary question. Speaker, it has been two years since the government revoked Disaster Regulation 274 that hindered young, innovative, and hardworking teachers from moving up in the system. This is a positive reminder of the importance for diversity in our education system. In the last year, young educators crossed my riding and veteran educators have expressed their delight in this government's revoking of Regulation 274. They are grateful that our government recognized and provided a solution to the previous hiring practices that neither rewarded hard work nor gave the best chance at having a best possible educator in front of our children. As our province population grows, our government must focus on the future to ensure that we have enough educators in places experiencing that growth. Speaker, can the Minister of Education please explain how revoking Regulation 274 encourages teacher mobility? Minister of Education. I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I want to just be very clear on our intent. This is essentially the anniversary of revoking this regressive regulation introduced by the former Liberals that allowed hiring based on union seniority. I believe that it's inconsistent with the premise that the best educator should be in the front of a child's class. And the members opposite who stand up and speak about so-called the interests of kids oppose that measure. They opposed us removing that regulation. We believe new educators, young educators, and those with the qualifications should triumph in hiring, not someone who's simply been in the union the longest. This is about quality. This is about ensuring the best staff member could inspire a child. And that's why we removed this regulation, which even the former Liberal Premier agreed went too far. The Ontario Principles Council said they supported it, parents supported it, and the government will continue to do everything possible to enshrine quality in the schools of this province. Thank you, Speaker. My questions to the Minister of Education. My office has been flooded with calls and emails from workers and parents alike and outraged that this government seeks to use the notwithstanding clause to violate the labour rights of education workers. I heard from Linda in Welland. She's been an administrative clerk for 10 years and in that time has seen only a $2 wage increase. When you factor in inflation over that time, she suffered a 10.7% wage cut. Linda says, quote, "'The Minister has no concept of the work we do. Come and see what we do in our schools. Spend one day with me.'" Can the Minister tell Linda why this government continues to forge ahead with legislation that disrespects her work, tramples on her rights, and pushes her further into poverty? Mr. Minister of Education. I want to echo the member opposite's sentiment of gratitude to the members who work in our schools. That's why, Speaker, we've hired 7,000 since we came to office. That's why in this proposal, we're going to hire 1,800 more. We're going to increase their wages every single year, 2.5%. Every single year, 10 points over four years. We're going to maintain their pension and their benefits and their sick leave program for 131 days. That is a demonstration of commitment to their workers. And we believe children in this school, in this province, should be in school. That should not be a position which we disagree with. And the Premier asked a simple question. Will you vote for a bill that ensures stability for the kids we all represent in this problem? A supplementary question. Speaker, that answer is not satisfactory for the 55,000 education workers whose rights he is abusing. Ella Marie from Welland said to my office, the minister should come work a week in each of our positions to see if it's worth the pay we get, the abuse that EAs endure. Many of the EAs can't make meetings because they're at a second job. If you're a single person trying to find an apartment in Welland, you're looking at anywhere from 16 to $2,100 a month plus utilities. I don't even bring in 2,400 a month. When you're a single income person, how do you expect someone to live off that? Speaker, can the minister tell Ella Marie and her colleagues, most of them women, how they are supposed to live on wages that don't cover the bills and an insulting pay increase that plunges them further into property?  Steve, members of this draw has done parliamentary comment. Selective bargaining, and I won't withdraw. One more chance. Mr. Birch, your name, you will leave the chamber for the day. Senator, we'll come north. Member for London North Centre is worn. The seat will be named for the duration of the day. Steve, on the next question, the member for Essex. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. In their final economic outlook, the previous Liberal government announced that, and I quote, Ontario would shift from goods producing to service producing sectors and shifting from goods producing industries, in particular, manufacturing, to service sector industries. End of quote. Mr. Speaker, those are direct quotes. For families in Essex, the message from the Liberals was clear, get out of manufacturing. Now, my constituents want to know that this government will do things differently. And so my question to the Minister is this, what is this government doing to help support economic growth and tap the amazing workforce that we have in the County of Essex? Thank you. Economic jobs, job creation and trade. When we were elected, our government made a commitment to support the province's regional manufacturing economies. And in 2019, we delivered by launching a $100 million regional development program. So to date, we've attracted $716 million in investments and 1,300 jobs in Southwestern, Southeastern and rural Ontario through that program. We were there with the member in Essex recently at MC3 Manufacturing and at another company, Idol Core. These two companies are investing $11 million and creating 29 well-paying manufacturing jobs with the total investment of $1 million from the province. Speaker, this is how we're supporting economic growth and those skilled workers in communities like Essex because these companies are showing the world that Ontario is open for business. Supplementary question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the Minister for the response. Investments like the ones made at Idol Core and MC3 Manufacturing show investors that Ontario supports businesses and supports creating jobs. That's why when he was in Germany and Austria, the minister repeatedly heard from investors that Ontario is viewed as a stable, reliable and supportive business environment. But businesses also want to know that our government is removing excessive red tape, barriers, obstacles to success. And so my question to the minister is this. What else is this government doing in Essex County and in Ontario to ensure economic growth and opportunities and jobs for my constituents? Thank you. Minister of Economic Development. Speaker, businesses need a skilled workforce, investment support and a place that's open for their business as well. And Ontario has it all. Our government continues to lower taxes, lower hydro costs and lower the red tape burden on businesses. In fact, costs have been lowered by $7 billion every year. This is attracting record numbers of investments and entrepreneurs to Southwestern Ontario. In Essex, our automotive program attracted over $500,000 in investments from industrial fasteners, B&B Tool and Mold and Windsor Industrial Services. And with a further $631,000 invested in the small business enterprise center there, their entrepreneurs have all the tools they need to start and grow their own businesses. And another $182,500 for their summer company, that helps students and young entrepreneurs start their businesses because, Speaker, this is how our government is driving growth in Essex. Next question, the member for Algoma, Lene Thule. My question is for the Premier. Someone in retirement came to my office yesterday. She works in a school for six years and she's thinking to go back to work because she was not sure that they were able to keep their house with the salary of her husband who worked at the school taking care of everything. And she worked there for a lot of time without until he could not continue. And they thought they could retire after 35 years of work. What does the Minors think that they do not deserve a quality of life that they're respectful of? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman who served a career of service for our children. And I know that for many of these workers, they want to be with their kids. It's why I'm urging the leadership of the union to withdraw this strike that will impact that member, the children in his riding and all of our ridings. Two million kids will be out of class Friday because the union has decided alone to proceed with the strike that no one wants or should accept. These kids should be in school. They have been through incredible difficulty of pandemic disruptions and strikes that preceded it. And at what point does the government say enough? These kids deserve to be in school. They have rights to, and we will stand up to ensure stability for every single child in this province. Thank you. Thank you. Supplementary to the member for Rishke Gawak, James Faye. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here's a story of a constituent with two young children and his teacher's aide. And she has to have two works to survive. And these are all the bills, $130 for their groceries to pay the, it has to pay for the car as well, the insurance. They have $2008 salary, but they have, for the deficit of $1,000. So they cannot survive. Stephanie is a force to work elsewhere. So my question is simple. Mr. Premier, when will you stop lying to the population? Go negotiate with the union what they're supposed to do with the rights of workers. Last member to withdraws on parliamentary comment. With all respect I do to you, I will not withdraw my comment. All the work is in this province. When I don't withdraw my comment. I will not withdraw my comment. You must leave the chamber for the day. The member for St. Catherine's is warned. If you persist, you will be named. Ms. Stevens, you are named and you must leave the chamber for the day. The next question, the member for Kingston in the islands. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ontario has wielded the notwithstanding clause only three times in history, but all by this government. In 2018, the conservative government changed Toronto City Council districts right in the middle of an election. In 2021, this conservative government overrode a judge who said that their own witness admitted there was no reason for extending the restriction period for third party political ads. And now this conservative government is cutting inflation-adjusted real wages for education sector workers struggling with the cost of living. This is a sorry pattern. It's an abuse. Section 33 of our charter, the notwithstanding clause, is being wielded as a sledgehammer to take care of their problems. To the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, is Bill 28 just the start. Are you planning to trample rights to dispose of other tough issues? APPLAUSE For education? We've been abundantly clear we would have preferred a voluntary option. It was our government that got a voluntary agreement with every education union just two and a half years ago. Mr. Speaker, when the union on Sunday announces unilaterally that they will strike on Friday, what are the options before government other than introducing legislation to avert a strike and deliver stability for children? If the Liberals and New Democrats' position is to hope for the best with a deal, if the union does not withdraw a strike, then we're putting kids in a perilous position and, clearly, this union is going to strike. It was their intention all along. We have an obligation to stand up for children, to keep them in school, and to provide some stability for their families, for their working parents, and for the kids of this problem, Speaker. APPLAUSE Mr. Speaker, rights help protect us, especially the least among us, from tyranny and injustice. Using the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution means cancelling Section 2, fundamental freedoms, cancelling Section 7, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and cancelling Section 15, equality rights, just so that this conservative government can head off court challenges and impose its inflation-adjusted real wage cut on education workers. Many of these education workers are the ones most struggling with cost of living, given today's inflation. Will the Premier accept that it's wrong to smash our charter rights instead of using arbitration to settle a wage dispute with the people who keep our schools open, and will he withdraw Bill 28? Mr. of Education. Speaker, we're calling on the members opposite to stand with us, Governor, in urging Hupy to withdraw this needless strike, impacting 2 million children. We have an obligation to speak up for them. This union decided on Sunday, before the government even introduced legislation on Monday, that they're going to strike. The reason why we're here having this debate as we speak is because they alone decided to proceed with a strike impacting 2 million kids.  We're hiring 1,800 more. We've hired nearly 7,000 a date. We are committed to investing more in public education. 680 million more dollars this year compared to last year. What we also are committed to, Speaker, is standing up and keeping kids in the classroom. The next question, the member for Sarnia Lampton. Well, thank you, Speaker, and to you and through you to the Minister of Labor, the skilled trades are vital for the communities in my riding of Sarnia Lampton and across Ontario. Right now, we have a shortage of skilled tradespeople across this province. We need their highly valued and specialized skills to continue to build this province and my community, of course. Every on-field job in the skilled trades represents unmet economic potential. Our government needs to take further action now to address the skilled trades shortage. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. What is our government doing in response to the skilled trades shortage in Ontario? My question. Minister of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the member from Sarnia Lampton for being such a champion in his community for people in the skilled trades. Speaker, our government is on a mission to get more young people into these careers. Right now, in our province, nearly 400,000 jobs are going unfilled. By 2025, one in five new job openings will be in the skilled trades. Our skilled trade system was neglected under the previous Liberal government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that's why today the average age of an apprentice in our province is 29, but we're changing that. That is why this fall, we're hosting skilled trades career fairs for the first time in history to encourage more students in grades seven to 12 to enter the trades. Mr. Speaker, as the Premier often says, when you have a job in the trades, you have a job for life. We agree. Well, thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the minister for that answer. In my writing, I'm proud of the many bright and talented young people who are eager to work. While our government is making gains to help prepare young people for in-demand careers, there is still more that we can do. Many local employers have job vacancies and work opportunities that must be filled. As part of the skilled trade shortage, there's still a prevailing stereotype that these jobs are only for men. Speaker, my question is, once again, to the Minister of Labor, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. How is our government showing leadership to increase female participation in the skilled trades? Great question. Mr. Glamour? Great. Well, thank you again to the member from Sarnia Lampton for this question. Speaker, our government is committed to helping women enter the trades so that they too can find better jobs and earn bigger paychecks while filling the jobs we desperately need to build a stronger interior for all of us. Our Skills Development Fund is supporting nearly 400 projects that are helping nearly 400,000 people get the training they need to start rewarding careers close to home. One example is our $3 million investment in ACON's Women in the Trades program, which is training 350 women for jobs in construction as welders, border makers, insulators and laborers. Speaker, we're giving women a hand up to purpose-driven careers in the trades because it's true, we need all hands on deck to build a stronger Ontario. You're very good. Question to the member for Scarborough Southwest. Thank you very much, Speaker. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I have been hearing from Scarborough Southwest constituents and constituents across Scarborough, actually, who have non-stop for the past two days called and emailed us with stories. And I can assure this Premier and this government that it was not just education workers or union bosses as they would like to claim or point fingers at to blame. In fact, it's parents like Christina, who is livid with this government's blatant disregard to protect workers and ensure that her child has the quality support that he needs, that the child needs in the classroom. It's parents like Rachel, who is a parent, a volunteer and an educational assistant. It's parents like Judy, Speaker, who is a grandma to a kindergarten student who volunteers at a food bank and she herself has seen education workers who come to those food banks because they do not make enough speaker. So my question is simple. Why is this government and why is this minister ignoring these voices of these parents and so many others across this province? Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, we are listening to the priorities and voices of parents who demand their children are in school. That is why we are here today, reacting to a union's decision to strike on Friday, a strike which I would hope none of us would support. And the fact is, Speaker, they are proceeding with a strike on Friday against the interests of two million children even after the government urged them to withdraw the strike, to bring forth a reasonable offer and to negotiate a deal that we can all live with. But here we are, Speaker, two days before a strike that will impact so many of the kids of this province, many of whom are vulnerable and should be in our schools. And so, Speaker, we are bringing the flood installation before this House that will provide stability for parents, realizing, Speaker, that the preference of government is a voluntary option when unions continue to discuss a path to a strike, we will move forward on a path to provide stability for kids. Can you supplement your question? Speaker, this government had the worst record in the country and across the world when it came to dealing with COVID in our school system, in our education. 27 weeks, our schools were closed. They did not have proper instructions for COVID. And inside come the order. And that's what happened under this ministry and this government speaker. And they have the audacity to talk about bringing back students to classrooms. Do we have anybody on strike right now? No, we don't. You are preemptively introducing a legislation that temples on the rights of workers across this province. And this legislation make no mistake. Everyone knows this, including unions that have supported you. They know this because they're on the side of workers today. You know why? Because this kind of legislation, they heard, they make question for future, for all workers speaker. And I stand in solidarity with the teacher who stood there, who taught for 30 years. I stand with all these parents. I stand with the students who suffered and right now are suffering through so many mental health issues. They need educational workers speaker. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To reply, minister of education. Mr. Speaker, the member options to stand up and vote for this bill and keep children in the classroom. But we know the NDP and the Liberals regrettably will not do that. Member for University Rosedale will come to order. I want to share a story speaker from Kelly. The member for University Rosedale is Warren. To ask you to continue to protect the rights. If you persist, you'll be named. Ms. Bell, you are named. You must leave the chamber for the day. Member for Spadina, Fort York will come to order. The member for Spadina, Fort York is Warren. If you persist, you'll be named. Mr. Glover, you are named. You must leave the chamber for the day. Everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, faith, and expression. Just to say, so I'm passing all of the conservative NDPs standing up for the Charter Rights and Freedom of Justice do not vote for Bill 28 today. The next question. Member for Simple Grade. Good morning. Speaker, reports about new home buyers being victimized by unethical developers have gone on for far too long. Questionable and concerning practices were developers of canceled contracts only to resell the same property at grossly inflated prices have left new home buyers scrambling and helpless. The previous Liberal government refused to act by providing protection and recourse for honest, hardworking people just looking to buy property. My office has received emails from constituents of Simple Grade who experienced this unscrupulous practice firsthand. Speaker, can the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery please explain how our government better protects new home buyers against these unethical practices? And to reply, the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the Member for Simple Grade for the question. Mr. Speaker, hardworking Ontarians deserve to be treated fairly when making one of the biggest purchases of their lives a new home. The Premier has said this type of appalling behavior is unacceptable and our government has it is a zero tolerance approach to it. That's why, Mr. Speaker, Minister Steve Clark and I announced that we are doubling the maximum fine for unethical builders who unfairly cancel contracts. And for the first time ever, anywhere in Canada, money from these penalties will go back to the victims. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle, we are taking action to stop this appalling behavior and getting it done for new home buyers. Thank you. That was a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the Minister for that response. And while I appreciate our government stepping up and protecting honest, hardworking home buyers, we must ensure that anyone trying to make money by victimizing people is held accountable. It is unfair that individuals and families purchasing property should become victims of dishonest and unethical practices. Our government must take immediate and decisive action to punish unscrupulous developers in the housing market. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister please explain what measures our government will implement to punish and deter unethical builders and vendors who try to victimize our hardworking citizens? Minister. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, progressive conservatives on both sides of this chamber has zero tolerance approach that will deter anyone attempting to make extra money off the backs of new home buyers. We are arming the home construction regulatory authority with more tools to directly punish the bad actors as well as empowering the courts to severely punish those who want to rip off Ontarians. This includes a policy that will ensure Ontarians who have been victims of unethical pre-construction home cancellations will receive payments from those who tried to rip them off. We know the vast majority of builders and vendors of new homes in Ontario follow the rules and would be unaffected by these changes. We are making life easier for the many Ontarians builders that fulfill their contracts honestly and will no longer have to compete with unethical competition. Thank you. The member for Nickel Belt. Merci Monsieur le Président, ma question. Thank you, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. My members of OSSCF and Opsu, including medical, lab technologist, teachers, social workers, educational assistant, early childhood educator, and many other essential workers, they are calling for immediate action to respect all of those public workers. Premier, will you listen to those professional other unionized public sector workers withdraw Bill 28 and go back to the bargaining table with Cupid? Thank you, Speaker. I thank the member of OSSCF for the question. I will agree that these members from education, health, and across the enterprise do really important work for our society and for our public services. And I appreciate what they do. We have hired 7,000 more education staff, specifically Cupid educators in our schools today. We're going to commit to hiring 1800 more education workers and 800 more teachers in our schools, part of the proposal before the House. Now, Mr Speaker, let us be clear. We didn't want to be here. We would prefer to voluntary option. We gave the union a path to avert a strike that they themselves put the province on in response to their action of striking on Friday with millions of kids in the crosshairs. We brought forth the bill as a last resort to ensure children remain in school. And I would hope that those members, their leadership, and the people of Ontario will understand we are committed to their work, but we're also committed to keeping kids in school. Member from Nicollet, supplementing. Thank you. This government has established a pattern of disrespecting and devaluating public sector workers. We are seeing it in healthcare. We are seeing it in education. And they seem to have a particular disdain for sector dominated by women workers. Speaker, we have seen it with the devastating impact of this government low wage policy with bill 124. Education worker helps their workers, they're exhausted, they're demoralized, and they're leaving their job. Yet the government continues to deny that people want this government to respect the charter of right and freedom. They want them to go back with QP, get an agreement that nobody likes, you won't like it, QP won't like it, but everybody can live with. Will you withdraw bill 28, go back to the negotiations table? Mr. Speaker, we never left the negotiating table. We always remain willing to meet the unions so long as they withdraw their strike on Friday. I mean, honestly, do you agree that there should be a strike in the backdrop of a negotiation when we're trying to provide stability for kids? Our simple ask is withdraw the strike, allow kids to be in school, ensure children have the stability they deserve. And that's a reasonable request, especially knowing, Speaker, we are increasing their pay every year over the course of the program. We're hiring 1,800 more, we're preserving benefits and pensions and 131 days of sick leave, which most people in this economy could only dream of. This is a competitive offer. What we're asking for is for students to come first in this debate. Let's make sure they stay in school on Friday and every day of the week. The next question, the member for Scarborough Center. Speaker, my question is to the Ministry of Energy. Did Russia unprovoked an illegal attack on the Ukraine means? And growing international economic instability due to rising inflation rates, the cost of living and energy affordability are significant concerns for many individuals. Mr. Speaker, with winter approaching, people are thinking more about how to heat their homes affordably. Mr. Speaker, for those in rural, remote and northern community, our government's natural gas expansion has ensured this option for many. Yesterday, the liberal member for Kingston and the island introduced legislation that proposed limiting natural gas access across the province. Mr. Speaker, can the minister please share with us what his reaction is to this proposed legislation? Minister of Energy. Thanks to the member from Scarborough Center for the question this morning, I appreciate it. And I can't believe that the opposition liberals want to strip the options away from people to heat their homes across rural Ontario and on the face of it, it seems that that was the bill that was introduced yesterday does, Mr. Speaker. Do you know that over 67% of homes, families in Ontario, heat their homes with natural gas, Mr. Speaker? And more communities, not less, want to have natural gas as an option. My parliamentary assistants and I met with many of them at the Ontario Municipalities Association and the Roma Conferences earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, that's why phase three of our natural gas expansion program is so important. At a time, at a time when energy security and affordability are top of mind, not just here in Ontario, but around the world, Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that the Liberal Party wants to reduce the options for people to heat their homes across Ontario. And a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the minister for that answer. I was also perplexed by what the Liberal member proposed in his legislation. I'm sure many people remember that under the previous Liberal government, news reports circulated about their consideration of phasing out natural gas in Ontario. Under the watch of former Liberal Premier Catalanuain, Ontario's family face the highest energy rates in North America. Mr. Speaker, because of their destructive and ideologically driven policy, many individuals had to choose between heating and heating during the Liberal times in government. Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure my constituents and this legislator that our government will not support fail Liberal energy policies limiting consumer energy and homes heating choice? Mr. Energy. Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. You know, we're not going to go back to the days of skyrocketing energy prices and threats to ban furnaces in people's homes. The previous Liberal government did that, Mr. Speaker. Our government under the leadership of Premier Ford is focused on more customer choice and making life more affordable for the people of Ontario. That's why we've introduced new electricity pricing plans like the ultra low overnight rate, Mr. Speaker, and also the green button standard, which is actually going to give residents across Ontario more control over their energy bills, potentially saving 18%. That's why it's sad to see the Liberal Party that was actually decimated in the 2018 election and then repeated decimation in the 2022, largely because of their energy policy. You know, the title of Bill 29, and I can't believe the members of the Liberal Party that have been through this before, is titled, Think Twice Before You Choose Natural Gas. That's the name of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I want to know, did the Liberal members opposite think twice before they brought it? Thank you very much. That concludes our question period for this morning. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has a point of order. Thank you very much, Speaker. Today across Canada, people are showing their 4-H colors by wearing green, and I would like to thank everybody in this chamber today for wearing green and supporting 4-H members across Ontario. Thank you. Point of order. The member for speaker. Thank you very much, Speaker. I also want to show solidarity. I'm wearing purple, and I know many of my colleagues are. I just heard a 13-year-old boy was asked to change his t-shirt because he was doing it in solidarity with workers across the province. Unfortunately, he could not, but to those of you who tried and who are trying to, thank you very much. It comes from here, and we are standing in solidarity. No further business this morning. This House stands in recess until 1 p.m.


So. So, attention everyone, the talk on this slot has changed, so Thorsten is not doing his talk, so I jump in with talking about two features we did in the last few months. Good things come to south for a rate because it's going about stuff which took some time to appear at all in the world. And it's about border frames and writer graphics, so I'm splitting this in two parts. So, it's about to show ongoing changes in LibreOffice and it's resides from work for CIB customers and it's possible to do so. It's quite important, deep changes from my point of view and thanks to the customer to support this. So, it was hard to decide what to show but I show the two most important which from my point of view and I will use examples as far as possible to show you that it's really working stuff like that. Maybe try to use live demonstration but as you have seen in my talk before it didn't work too well so I will try to be careful. So, border frames, better title would be frames for cells and tables in the office. So, used in various places, Kalk of course, tables and writer, tables and draw inputs but also in the UI. So, the border defining custom widget is also using this stuff already. So, all of them use their own model implementation as usual. All use their own visualization processing and all look bad and were somewhat broken. I'm not sure for how long, maybe two, two and a half, three years. I don't know how it happened. I resisted to look into Git blame or something. I had no interest in that. Who cares? So, I just got this as a bug report. Checked what's happening and saw that a lot of stuff is broken. So, I just started to fix it. So, you see left version, old version, right version, new version. So, here I think I can dare to go to the live. Okay, let's end this presentation mode for a while. So, you can see this live. It's the 5.2 version and you see it looks horrible, not rounded or adapted or something. At least taking merged cells into account. No, not too bad. When you change the cell appearance to something like double line, it's just horrible. So, and it's pretty much the same in draw, impress and stuff like that. So, this is the example you see. This is a table example in writer, table example in draw, impress, before and after the fix. And even in the UI, the implementation in the UI. It's a custom widget in the UI that did horrible things to render the interaction stuff. So, let's see. I can now take the current master version. So, oops. Where is it? No, doesn't run in parallel. So, let's take the Kalk example. In the current master you see it looks already better. And if you change the cell stuff, it just looks like you would expect. So, this is pretty much fixed. You can do different border stuff and things like that. And the overlapping is now changed in basic geometry below the rendering level. And more details soon. Writer also looked very bad. So, now table properties. Let's do something fancy quickly, whatever. And oops. You have these nice three-color things in writer. Stuff like that. And when you zoom in, you see, it's all there now. And it's also exported in PDF and print and stuff like that. So, this is fixed, I hope, for the next few years. So, next time I will check a good blame. And if someone breaks it again, you will hear from me. So, back to the talk. So, this is just the examples again. So, what was changed? Just some short development internals. No change to model data. So, the next thing is still a very long process. The most expensive to do is just every application is doing its own thing. But I adapted all visualization processings in the URI using primitives as far as possible. Line matching solved on model geometry level as I just said. So, rendering should work.   Wir werden sie sehen, also wir haben etwas, was wir machen können, wo man etwas Funniches machen kann.  Also, das ist bequestered, seit der Age.  Miklos hat es in der Zwischenstelle und hat 90-Degrees Rotationen. Danke für das, du hast es nicht gemacht.  Ich bin sehr sorry, ist Thomas hier? Nein, bitte sagen, ich bin sorry für die Video-Rekordung. Ich sollte ein paar fragen.  Es war, ich weiß nicht, aber anyone seemed to have tried this before. So, first version shown as pre mosque, Libre Office conférence and I collected feedback. This was very interesting because I got a lot of feedback from different people what should happen and stuff like that. In the Roman version, it was in between step and it was all rotated inside the frame. nicht verändern oder expandieren das Frame. Also edit Persistenz-Ui-Elemente, no longer modify graphics, preserve unchanged original. It's not so important, because the 90° rotations we had before did not really change the graphics, but only changed flags on the graphics, for example for JPEG. But they supported only three formats. So no you can, even with 90° you can rotate any graphic. So first version still rotate a graphic inside. I talked about not acceptable as final solution, of course not. So continued internal development. I had to isolate all places which needed to be adapted to make the frame expand on the image rotating. So this is writer layout. Writer layout means to have to deal with writer frames. Writer frames means you have SV erect. This SV erect is handed out from the structure, controlling it as const reference, but also as reference. There were 1400 places changing this values. I isolated this 1400 places to get control over. The staff renamed all of it and isolated change to helper classes which do the change in their destructors. So all completely isolated to get control over. This was urgently necessary to get this new kind of transformation into writer. In principle, you can see the SV erect as a transformation if you like, but it's missing the rotation and shear stuff and of course the mirroring even with errors that width and height can be negative as usual in the office which makes a lot of problems. I limited the rotation to around center which makes it simpler for the user. Also, so wie es bei der SV ist, mit UI, also, our big competitor do this, it's just easier for people. So made this version work including print, PDF in good quality and stuff like that. So, live example, we can do in a moment. So I have a screenshot for you. You just have no text flow defined in the top right. I just edit mask with existing mask editor in the top left you see it rotated with frame on and on the top right a little bit different rotated with the same frame on to show the expansion. But we will do this live in a moment. So development internals huge changes I told about. Go to homogene transformations so homogene transformations are now available at the right of frames. So if someone implement something new, please directly use the homogene transformations. Of course, not all places doing geometry stuff in right of frames were adapted. It's just impossible to much stuff. So providing alternatively transformations at each right of flame no need to adapt, but please use. Please use in the future. So, now let's go to the live what the master is doing in the 6.0 So, let's just use a writer zoom out DT F3 get a chair select some text paste it make it smaller to get a good flow method insert graphic Einstein, for example. So, what you have now is first position and size is expanded to rotation. So you can just start rotating your image. You can also of course use this one to reset or stuff like that. It's completely in the undo buffer stuff like that. You can still mirror the original you can have a frame around it and let's make the frame a little bit wider where is it now area may borders have a little bit more as you have seen this is also fixed so we can use something to big for the screen and to make the text flow like you would intend to do of course you can use the stuff which is here and with enable control you get the same like you get without rotation so I don't like standard behavior like it is currently but it's not dependent from the rotation it's also what currently happens when you have a frame so I think it's an error but I didn't change it yet what you can do is now is to edit contour and you just add contour for the full image and that's all you need to do to get your text flow so of course you have to switch off the frame you also have controls huh? ja give me a moment you see this expanding frame with everything and persistence and as far as possible backwards compatibility with older versions be surprised when loading it no it's not that bad it's just not what you hate when you load it in an old office so it's working pretty well so next steps will be to make the background rotatable too because the reason I cannot update missing should get in color ja whatever the reason I cannot rotate the frame with it currently is the frame is using primitives already rotate the frame but the fill and the shadow of the right of life frames are still rendered more or less by feet like it was for 20 years so I have to transform this part to also use primitives and when we have it all to primitives you can just transform it as it is sort so after 6.0 I already talked with Veguina after 6.0 we will need some kind of flag or change to default by default rotate it with the frame but be able to load 6.0 files unrotated and to give the user the chance to choose what he wants to do yeah questions go ahead rotation point you mean something right it's a pure user my decision it was even work to not show the movable center point but that's by purpose really because our competitor does not do this without thinking about it and I think for normal users it's just easier okay we can make another switch okay okay that's the presentation of this stuff so for now let's ah now the filling ah you see the filling is dependent from the from the style running from the from the text flow that's strange okay whatever time house time okay