It’s good to be able to rise and provide some context. The member’s arguments are based entirely on a very narrow and unrepresentative selection of the comments of the Minister of Education yesterday. The minister used conditional language expressing the government’s intention regarding the bill in signifying that additional steps are required before the House. When the minister’s remarks are read in their entire context, it is clear that the minister was respectful and did not presume the will of the House.

In addition to the quotes the member has referenced, allow me to read several other quotes in which the minister was clearly deferential to the assembly and to the legislative process. For greater clarity, I will table a transcript of the entire press conference at the completion of my remarks.

The first quote, from the Minister of Education yesterday: “If we do not act today with legislation, schools will close on Friday.... If we do not introduce this law today, and pass it ahead of Thursday, CUPE will again be able to walk out of a class with hours’ notice.”

An additional quote from the minister: “The government has been left with no choice but to take immediate action today. That’s why we introduced the Keeping Students in Class Act that would establish a four-year collective agreement with CUPE education workers across the province that ensures children remain in class where they belong.”

Note here that the minister used the conditional word “would,” signifying that the bill would require passage by the assembly.

Now, an additional quote: “Because if we don’t act today, if we don’t introduce legislation as we speak, there will be a strike on Friday.”

Another quote by the minister: “This proposal, this legislation provides absolute stability for kids to the extent we can control it and ensures they remain in a classroom.”

Again I draw our attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the minister expressed qualifying language describing the bill as a “proposal,” signifying that additional steps are required before the implementation is possible.

An additional quote: The minister says, “And so we will act. We will introduce this legislation.”

Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister has gone out of his way to be deferential to Parliament.

Another quote: “And I think it would be very, very unfair to children, even after the government passes the law, which is the intent ahead of Friday, to see millions of kids pay the price again for another day of escalation by the unions.” Again, the minister says “which is the intent,” Speaker.

Clearly, from the context of the minister’s full remarks, the minister was not presuming the will of the assembly, just the opposite.

Statements like those referenced by the member opposite indicate only the government’s intention to pursue the passage of legislation and not a presumption of the will of the House, despite the fact that we hold the majority.

Now, while Speaker Stockwell is an authority, I also reference a more recent decision from Speaker Levac on May 18, 2017, in which the Speaker states in a similar matter, “The ads make bold statements, as I noted in my March 23 ruling, but they also have to be taken as a whole. The predominant links and the references to the ‘Fair Hydro Plan’ website are just as much a part of the ad as the other statements in them. The advertising and messaging on Bill 132 that has been drawn to my attention, including that provided by the government House leader, contains language that, in my opinion, is suitably deferential to the requisite and superior role of this House in first passing the legislation to enact the plan.”

That was from Speaker Levac on May 18, 2017. The Speaker went on to say, “Finally, the 1997 Stockwell ruling precedent that has rightly become so influential in the area of government advertising was made in a context where legislation was then currently before the House, though the then government advertised about its application in a way that conveyed the impression that it was a done deal. I have not had similar advertising specific to Bill 132 brought to my attention.”

In this case, the Speaker did not find a prima facie case of contempt or breach of privilege. I submit that the facts in this case are even less in support of such a finding. In this matter, there has been no purposeful government advertising, only statements made in a press conference, some in prepared remarks and some off the cuff in response to quick questions from journalists. In any case, the minister’s remarks are factual but not presumptive of the will of this House; they discuss eventualities if legislation is not introduced by the government and they discuss the government’s desire to pass such legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is no case for a prima facie breach of privilege. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I will table the full transcript of the minister’s press conference.