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.

My question is to the Premier. This government has shown contempt for the Charter of Rights and Canada’s Constitution, the highest law in this land. This government has shown contempt with legislation that is really bullying—this bill is a bully bill—for the front-line education workers and the students that they support. This government has shown contempt for all of our government workers with Bill 124.

The Premier and his minister have single-handedly created chaos in our education system and confusion for parents in our communities. Their heavy-handed approach is forcing an agreement upon 55,000 CUPE workers, 70% of whom are women. They are the lowest-paid workers in our education system, and this is just the beginning of negotiations.

Speaker, can this Premier tell this House what he has next for the other education workers? ETFO, OSSTF, all of the other education workers: What do you have in your back pocket for them?