Please join me in welcoming, from the Peel Regional Police, Deputy Chief Nick Milinovich. Also, Mr. Speaker, I’m very thankful for the work that our front-line officers are doing, including last week, when the deputy chief pulled off one of the largest drug busts in Peel’s history. Please join me in welcoming him to Queen’s Park.

I’d like to welcome, from my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Scott and Sheena Stoqua. They’re here for Nolan’s last day of being a page.

The member for Guelph.

I’ll now ask members to rise to observe two minutes of silence in commemoration of all those who served in our armed forces.

The House observed two minutes’ silence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I consider it one of my highest honours to rise in this House and pay tribute to those who have served in Canada’s military. As we all know, Remembrance Day occurs on Friday of next week and it is the culmination of Remembrance Week. It is the day on which we dedicated our gratitude to those who’ve given so much to this province and this country.

Before the ceremonies of November 11, the nation will also pause on November 8, national Indigenous Veterans Day, to pay tribute to the many contributions of First Nations, Inuit and Métis service people. This province has a long and distinguished record of military heroism and leadership shown by Indigenous soldiers, those who overcame cultural challenges and discrimination to serve this country with honour and distinction.

Throughout Remembrance Week, we pay our respects to the individuals in uniform who protect Canada’s freedoms with courage and selflessness. Remembrance Day is our opportunity to honour those brave women and men who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of democracy, and to recognize the military veterans who are still with us in our communities today. Every Ontarian owes a debt to these veterans that we can never fully repay.

We must always demonstrate our appreciation, not only on the 11th day of the 11th month, but every day that we step outside our homes as people free of government oppression and free of armed conflict on our home soil. The brutal war being waged by Russia on Ukraine brings into stark focus the dangers that exist in the world today, and the importance of vigilance and standing shoulder to shoulder with our partners in defence of freedom and liberty. As I stand here, brave Canadian servicepeople are stationed across the world providing vital supports including, recently, increased deployments to our friends and allies in eastern Europe.

This year also marks the 150th birthday of Colonel John McCrae, born in Guelph, Ontario in 1872. Colonel McCrae was a combat surgeon who served in one of the bloodiest battles of World War I. Seeing red poppies amid the devastation on the battlefield, Colonel McCrae was moved to write the beloved poem In Flanders Fields. For more than a century, this poem has inspired millions around the globe, and Colonel McCrae’s sentiment lives on in the poppies worn by citizens of numerous countries in honour of their own service members.

And so I encourage every citizen of Ontario to wear the red poppy with pride, to acknowledge that gift of freedom we all hold dear. It’s a gift given to us by all brave servicemen and women who have stood tall and answered the call throughout the history of our country. I also encourage every Ontarian to hold a moment of silence this November 11 in order to thank and remember every one of our heroic military members, both living and those who have sadly departed.

To those heroes, I make a solemn promise to you: We will always stand with you, lest we forget. God bless our veterans: active, retired, and the ones we have lost.

Applause.

We will remember them.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour to rise today to pay tribute to, and express my sincere gratitude for, the service and sacrifice veterans have made in this province and for our country. To those who made the ultimate sacrifice, they provide a stark reminder of what it takes to defend our rights and freedoms. We all continue to benefit from your sacrifices, and each and every one of us has a duty to defend our democracy, our rights and freedoms. As Guelph’s famous son, Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae said, “If ye break faith with us who die / We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields.” To those who served, we shall not break faith with what you fought and died for.

The scars of war run deep. I’ve experienced it in the stoicism of my own family members who served, who quietly carried memories of the horrors they experienced to protect those of us they loved. We have an obligation to not only remember and pay tribute, but to also care and support those who served and their families who carry the pain of their loss.

To the veterans and first responders of this province and this country, I say thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your service and sacrifice. We must honour it. We must remember it. Lest we forget.

On Tuesday, October 31, the member for Scarborough–Guildwood raised a question of privilege relating to comments made by the Minister of Education. The government House leader, the official opposition House leader, the member for Ottawa South and the member for Guelph also spoke to the question.

According to the member for Scarborough–Guildwood, the Minister of Education made statements in the media, as well as on his social media account, that presupposed the outcome of proceedings on Bill 28, An Act to resolve labour disputes involving school board employees represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which, as we know, is currently being considered by the House.

I have had the opportunity to review the Hansard, the written materials provided by the member for Scarborough–Guildwood and the government House leader and the relevant precedents and authorities, and I am now prepared to provide a ruling.

Before I address the substance of the matter, I would like to first note that in raising her question of privilege, the member for Scarborough–Guildwood correctly identified the underlying issues as relating to contempt rather than to one of the distinct parliamentary privileges enjoyed by the individual members of the House or possessed by the House as a collective body. Allow me to briefly explain the nature of contempt, which is defined at pages 289, 292 and 295 of the 25th edition of Erskine May as follows: “Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of their duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt....

“In the past indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been punished by both the lords and the Commons upon the principle that such acts of abuse tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them....

“Other acts, besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend to directly obstruct or impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority, may constitute contempts.”

In her written submission and the remarks made in the chamber, the member for Scarborough–Guildwood made reference to statements made by the Minister of Education on October 31 relating to Bill 28. The member argued that the minister’s comments presumed the passage of Bill 28, which had been introduced earlier that day. At the time that the minister’s comments were made, the bill had been given first reading by the House and stood ordered for second reading. Along with her written notice, the member provided copies of stories published in various news outlets as well as videos of the minister’s comments to the media. She highlighted statements that the minister had made, for example, that “the government is going to pass the bill” and that “we will pass a law.”

The issue of government statements that presuppose the outcome of House proceedings is not a new one in our Legislature—in fact, we have a substantial body of precedents on this very subject. In arguing that the minister’s statements amounted to a contempt, the member referred to a frequently cited precedent from January 22, 1997, when Speaker Stockwell found that a ministerial pamphlet concerning the amalgamation of the city of Toronto had used definitive, unqualified language which gave the impression that passing the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion.

I have carefully considered the full statements made by the minister in the case at hand, and I’ve noted a number of occasions on which the minister acknowledged that the bill had not yet passed through the full legislative process. For example, he referenced the government’s “decision to introduce legislation to provide stability,” and further, that “even after the government passes the law, which is the intent ahead of Friday.” These statements do not seem to betray a mindset that questions the role of the Legislature in enacting a necessary law.

I also note that, on the same day in this chamber, the minister also spoke about Bill 28 when it was introduced. In his brief comments after the bill received first reading, the minister explicitly recognized the role of the Legislature, saying the bill—and I quote from Hansard—“would, if passed, keep kids learning in school without disruption” and “(t)his legislation would, if passed, ensure students remain in class with a refocus on learning.” During the leadoff speech on the motion for second reading of the bill on Tuesday, the minister also used similar language. This is the type of conditional language that the 1997 Stockwell precedent has consistently encouraged and tends to lead to a conclusion that the minister’s mindset around this time was not one of contempt for the Legislature.

Let me be clear: The use of conditional language would not, in and of itself, extinguish any charge of contempt if it occurred in tandem with utterances or the publication of the type of material that was found to constitute a contempt in the 1997 precedent, being a ministry pamphlet that was produced to advertise the government’s plan to the public. In that case, where the impugned statement was contained in a government publication, Speaker Stockwell found that a prima facie case for contempt was established because “a reader of that document could be left with an incorrect impression about how parliamentary democracy works in Ontario, an impression that undermines respect for our parliamentary institutions.” That comes from the journals for January 22, 1997, at page 458.

Speaker Stockwell did not have to inquire beyond the pamphlet because he found it to be obviously contemptuous. Additionally, pamphlets, as we know, require more thought and consideration and preparation than oral remarks. This is distinguishable from the case at hand, where we’re dealing with oral remarks of the minister made in the chamber and others made extemporaneously to the news media.

Finally, I’d like to briefly address a document submitted by the member for Scarborough–Guildwood, which included a copy of a tweet from the account of the Minister of Education, posted on October 30, 2022. In the tweet, the minister referenced the planned introduction of the bill, along with the statement, “Kids will be in class. Enough is enough.” However, the tweet also included a picture which included the statement, “Because CUPE refuses to withdraw their intent to strike, in order to avoid shutting down classes we will have no other choice but to introduce legislation tomorrow, which will ensure that students remain in class to catch up on their learning.”

Taken as a whole, one statement in the tweet is tempered by another, which does acknowledge the necessary role of the Legislature. As with the minister’s oral statements, I am not persuaded that the broader picture supports the case put forward by the member for Scarborough–Guildwood.

For all of these reasons, I am unable to find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established.

I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Guildwood for raising the question, and the other members who contributed to the discussion.

The member for Scarborough–Guildwood, point of order?

It is now time for oral questions.

Point of order, Speaker: I do want to thank you for your careful consideration of my point of privilege to this Legislature. As a Legislative Assembly as a whole, we have taken oaths to do our duty and to serve. I raised this point of privilege because I believed that the minister’s comments, as well as the actions of stepping away from the bargaining table at the time, on Monday, provided enough of a concern as to the role of the Legislature vis-à-vis a government that is in majority. Speaker—

The question is for the Premier. Bill 27 invokes the “notwithstanding” clause to violate sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code, and that is a disgrace. The Premier says there is no other option. I disagree. It doesn’t have to be this way. The Conservative government doesn’t have to stop kids from going to school on Friday. There are more options. For example, the minister could continue negotiating. CUPE came back to the table yesterday with substantial changes. The minister could offer to extend the deadline and continue to bargain. The minister could offer binding arbitration.

My question: If the Premier is dedicated to keeping kids in class, why not use all the options? Has the Premier directed the minister to issue binding arbitration or to offer to continue bargaining beyond the deadline, and if not, then why is the Premier choosing to force the strike?

Ma question : ce gouvernement va-t-il se remettre à négocier une entente équitable afin que les travailleurs comme Trixie puissent retourner auprès des élèves et faire le travail qu’ils aiment?

To reply, the Premier.

The supplementary question.

Premier.

Premier, please reply.

Final supplementary.

The member for Ottawa Centre will come to order. The member for Sudbury will come to order. The member for Davenport will come to order. The member for Windsor West will come to order. The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s will come to order.

Start the clock. The member for Sudbury.

Member for Sudbury, supplementary.

Supplementary? The member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

The Minister of Education.

Actually, the Premier does have a choice. He could make a good offer. He could make a difference in the lives of our children and our education workers.

Speaker, the Premier says education workers are little guys, little gals. This government thinks it’s okay for them to have to use food banks. The Premier is acting like a bad boss. When bad bosses disrespect and underpay people for long enough, those people quit; they walk. It won’t be just Friday or next week that parents have to worry about if education workers leave the profession; it’s the future of their kids’ education.

If the Premier won’t rip up his anti-worker legislation for the sake of kids, parents and education workers, will he do it to avoid getting booed in public again for acting like a bad boss?

Interjections.

If the Premier won’t rip up his anti-work legislation for the sake of kids, parents and education workers, will he do it to stop embarrassing his own labour minister?

Mr. Speaker, we insist that kids are in class. We believe we are here because CUPE decided on Sunday to put this province on a strike footing for Friday, and that is unacceptable. These kids have paid enough of a price with the pandemic and the recent strikes just three years ago.

Interjections.

Interjections.

We have an obligation to keep kids in the classroom. I urge the members opposite to stand up for kids and work with this government to keep kids in class, where they belong.

Interjections.

You don’t avert a strike by refusing to negotiate. You avert a strike by bargaining a deal. But this week, the minister has stubbornly refused to negotiate. Yesterday, the government rejected a new proposal from CUPE that could have ended this whole situation. The government has failed to ask for binding arbitration.

The Premier claims they’re doing all they can for our kids, so why, when there are so many other things the government could have done this week, have they virtually guaranteed schools will be disrupted tomorrow?

Interjections.

It’s nice to see the opposition is changing the message to they’re actually worried about kids, because they were worried about the unions yesterday and the day before and the day before.

From the beginning, I’ve been very clear that we will do whatever it takes to keep Ontario’s two million students in class. We will do whatever it takes to give students and parents certainty. After two years of pandemic disruptions, enough is enough. We need kids in the classroom, learning. This is about the mental, emotional and physical well-being of two million students and, therefore, their respective families after two very difficult years brought on by this pandemic.

Unfortunately, CUPE refuses, absolutely refuses, to withdraw their strike action. They refuse to back down from shutting down schools. CUPE has left us no choice but to use legislation to ensure stability—

Mr. Speaker, we will always, always support the front-line workers. Our offer includes increased wages, the largest in the entire country, and maintains the most generous pension and benefit plan, again in the entire country, including 131 paid sick days.

The fact is, CUPE demanded a nearly 50% increase and threatened a strike if they didn’t get it. They have left us—

Interjections.

Interjections.

My question is to the Associate Minister of Transportation. While winter is fast approaching and more people are using public transit, their schedules are busy and they just want to get to from point A to point B as conveniently as possible without any hassle. Unfortunately, after two decades of transit mismanagement and neglect by the previous Liberal government, our government inherited a transit system in the GTHA that pales in comparison to the ridership experiences of other jurisdictions.

Speaker, through you, I’d like to ask the Associate Minister of Transportation what our government is doing to improve the ridership experience of my constituents, many of whom travel from the Oakville GO station, which is the busiest transit station in the network outside Union Station.

Speaker, through you, I’d like to ask the Associate Minister of Transportation how our government is delivering on an improved transit experience for my constituents and all the residents of the GTHA.

Thank you to the member from Oakville for the question and for his tireless work in advocating for transit in his riding. It is indeed true: The Liberal government left Ontario unprepared for both today’s and tomorrow’s transit needs. Fortunately, this government is making the largest investment in public transit in Canadian history and bettering the rider experience all along.

On August 11 our government began offering riders on GO, Brampton, MiWay and Oakville Transit the ability to pay their fares by tapping their credit cards on Presto readers. I’m glad to let the members know that the technology is working and that commuters are choosing this option. They’ve tapped over 255,000 times using credit cards on these four agencies since we launched in August.

Enabling riders to simply tap with their credit cards is yet another example of how our government is bettering the transit experience, respecting taxpayers’ money and helping people get to where they need to go.

We’re not going to stop until we connect the entire grid with these payment options and better experiences for riders so that they can go more conveniently from work, school or wherever they need to be. When you combine this with our GO affordability pilot, our youth and post-secondary student 40% discount, our elimination of double fares for riders in the 905 connecting to and from GO on their local transit, it’s clear we’re getting the job done. We’re not only delivering record transit investments, we’re delivering a better experience all the way.

My question is to the Premier. Education workers—a largely women-led profession—are earning an average of $39,000 a year or less and often have to access food banks. Many need a second or third job to keep a roof over their heads.

I ask the Premier this: When will he actually put students first by investing in these low-wage education workers—the backbone of our schools—and stop undermining our public education? Rip up Bill 28.

My question is to the Premier. Speaker, this government is desperately trying to paint caring adults who work in our kids’ schools as the bad guys. Everyone else knows they work hard and deserve their rights, fair wages and respect.

James is a school custodian who writes: “I now barely earn enough to support myself, let alone help my mom who’s 75, also still working as a part-time custodian because she can’t afford to retire....

“My school board job doesn’t pay me enough to pay for the rising costs of living. My co-workers and I earn on average $39,000 and can’t afford to live on that. We want our students to have the services they need in our public schools.

“I am asking you to give us the improvement on wages and working conditions that I need, and not support legislation that takes away our right to negotiate those improvements.”

What would this Premier like to say to James?

Erin is a frustrated education assistant and she writes: “The schools are on ‘fire.’ In all my years I have never seen the challenges the schools and students are facing each day.

“We need to fight to ensure no more dedicated, effective workers leave their profession because they need to pay their bills.

“We need to fight to protect the students’ rights to the proper resources and supports that they need to be successful in the classroom.

“We need to fight to ensure that the students get the education system they deserve. They should not have to pay privately for a proper education.

“All I want is a liveable wage. I want resources and money put into our education system so that all our children, including my own, have the best chance at a positive and successful future.

“I want the government to respect us and our roles and that is shown through true collective bargaining. The bully tactics the government is using is not only an attack on education workers, but on all unions.”

What on earth would this Premier like to say to Erin?

The member for Davenport will come to order. The member for Windsor West will come to order.

The Minister of Education.

Minister of Education.

Start the clock. Supplementary question.