I would like to introduce my friend, Kris Rivard, who was recently elected as a councillor on the West Nipissing council. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Kris.

Thank you, Speaker. Today, I provided you with written notice on a question of privilege regarding comments made by the Minister of Education, Mr. Stephen Lecce, in reference to Bill 28, Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022.

Presuming passage of legislation has long been established by this chamber to be a prima facie case of privilege, and it is my belief that comments made by the Minister of Education over the past few hours qualify as a breach of parliamentary privilege.

As this bill was tabled on the afternoon of October 31 and the minister’s comments were made that same day, I am raising this point at the earliest opportunity and I am asking you to find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established.

After Bill 28 was introduced on Monday, October 31, the Minister of Education took part in a press conference at Queen’s Park, during which the minister stated that “... it is certainly our intention that kids will be in school, we will pass a law.” The transcripts and video recording from this press conference confirm this.

The minister was also quoted in an article written by the Canadian Press, confirmed by video recording, saying, “The government is going to pass the bill. We’re going to move forward.”

Speaker, I believe that not only has the Minister of Education presumed passage of Bill 28 on multiple occasions, but that there is precedent from previous Speakers of this House to find a prima facie case of contempt.

For example, in 1997, Speaker Stockwell made a ruling on a question of privilege on a ministry pamphlet claiming that “new city wards will be created.” Speaker Stockwell stated, “In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House.”

In that case, Speaker Stockwell laid out a very strict, two-pronged test for whether the presumed passage of legislation before this House could be deemed a breach of privilege and establish a prima facie case of contempt. To quote Speaker Stockwell, “However, I am very concerned by the ministry pamphlet, which was worded more definitely than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that ‘new city wards will be created,’ that ‘work on building the new city will start in 1997,’ and that ‘the new city of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians.’

“How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and law-making process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals—and that is all they are—been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them,” concludes Speaker Stockwell.

Additionally, Speaker Peters more recently provided examples of government language that respects the role of the Legislature and should have been included as qualifiers in the minister’s public statement. To quote Speaker Peters, “I cannot find that the language used is dismissive of the legislative role of the House. On the contrary, the use of qualifying language such as ‘we are proposing’ can only leave the impression that further steps are required before implementation is possible. I cannot find, therefore, that a prima facie case of contempt has been established.”

Speaker, as you are aware, the most recent edition of Erskine May describes contempt as follows: “Other acts, besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to 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.”

I believe that the Minister of Education’s statement was presuming that the government, on its own, had the ability that superseded the will of this entire House. Therefore, it is clear that the public statements made by the minister regarding Bill 28 meet the test set out by Speaker Stockwell and do not include any of the qualifying language cited by Speaker Peters. As such, Speaker, I’m asking you to find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established.

Additionally, as the Minister of Education has publicly stated his intent to fast-track the bill without thorough debate or meaningful public consultation, it is imperative that this ruling on this matter occur as soon as is possible. Thank you.

Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing orders 45(b)(iii) and (iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion 1 be allocated as follows: 54 minutes to each of the recognized parties and 12 minutes to the independent members as a group.

She’s just up in the visitors’ gallery; I want to welcome my mother, Mary Jo Dowie, who is watching today.

Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to bring forward a motion without notice to immediately withdraw Bill 28, keeping kids in class act, and for the Ford government to return to the table for a deal that is fair to students and workers and respects charter and human rights.

That concludes our members’ statements for this morning.

It’s my pleasure to welcome Patty Coates, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. Welcome to the chamber.

Speaker, seven confirmed deaths in Ontario in September; six confirmed deaths in August; four confirmed deaths in July—41 confirmed since November 2021. These are the women in Ontario who have died of femicide—the intentional killing of women or children—each month as recorded by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses.

About one in three women in the world and one in three in Canada will be physically or sexually abused by their partner in their lifetime.

Every woman and every girl deserves to live in safety, with dignity, free from intimidation and the threat of violence. That is why our government is investing $198 million for victims of violence and $11 million for violence prevention initiatives. We are taking action, as we should, but we must do more.

Violence against women and girls comes in many forms. All of us, particularly those in charge of keeping us safe, need to understand the dangers and the signs of abuse. Yes, violence can be physical or sexual, but it can also include threats, coercive control or intimidation. We must listen to the evidence of abused women and take them seriously. November is Woman Abuse Prevention Month, and if we as a society and those in charge of keeping us safe don’t understand the signs or the forms it takes, then we cannot bring the violence to an end.

I know they are watching today, and I wanted to welcome the Scleroderma Society of Ontario. Tomorrow is their breakfast at 7:30 a.m. in the dining room. Please join them for breakfast burritos.

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.

I thank the member for Scarborough–Guildwood for the point of privilege. Are there any other members that would want to speak to it?

I rise as the House leader for the official opposition to offer a few brief comments on the point of privilege that was raised by the member.

Certainly, we share concerns about public statements about this legislation that have been made by the Minister of Education but, more importantly, we have grave concerns about the content of this legislation. This is a bill that will have profound and lasting implications for public education and for the future of collective bargaining in this province. The use of the “notwithstanding” clause to suppress constitutionally protected charter rights is the first time the “notwithstanding” clause has been exercised in this way in Canada. We look forward to your ruling on this matter of privilege.

In spite of my colleague’s representation of qualifying statements, the minister presupposed the will of this House. It’s very clear what was said, and whether that was intended to send a signal to the bargaining table or here in this chamber, it wasn’t right and I ask that you fully consider this case.

I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Guildwood for her written presentation as well as her comments this morning. I also thank the member for London West, the government House leader, the member for Ottawa South and the member for Guelph for their submissions and their comments.

I will consider the matter carefully and report back to the House as soon as we can.

The Premier.

I realize that members care passionately and deeply about this issue, but I need to be able to hear the member who has the floor, and I’ll ask the House to come to order.

Start the clock.

The next question.

My question is to the Premier. But before I ask it, I’ll just assure the Premier that the members of those unions, who are providing our children the support today, want what has been put forward, and any suggestion that their wishes aren’t being represented is simply not accurate.

Speaker, education workers are critical to our schools. They’re the librarians who help our kids develop a love of reading. They’re the educational assistants who go above and beyond to help those children who are dealing with disabilities. They’re the secretaries who keep our schools running. But instead of valuing these workers and paying them a fair wage, listening to what they want and actually meeting them at a fair point, the government is determined to drive them right out of our schools.

Why does the government have such a hard time recognizing the important role education workers play in our schools?

My question is to the Premier.

Good morning, Premier. It’s good to see you here.

Yesterday the Minister of Education said he was tabling Bill 28 because it was in the best interest of students. Let me say, Speaker, that’s pretty rich coming from a government that has shown time and time again how little they actually care for our kids and our students. They’ve underfunded our schools, increased class sizes, forced kids into online classes, and kept kids out of classrooms longer than any other jurisdiction. That is not the behaviour of a government that cares about kids—and neither is Bill 28.

Will the Premier stop this, roll up his sleeves and work with education workers to invest in our students?

Ontarians want to know why this Premier is not standing up for the custodians and the maintenance workers who are keeping our schools clean and safe or the educational assistants supporting our students with special needs, or the ECEs who are teaching our littlest kids. Speaker, this government—they have all the power and the privilege. All these workers have is their union and their right to bargain collectively.

It is not too late. Fix the mess you’re making today.

Will the Premier speak up and stop this bill?

The Premier is forcing these workers to accept a shameful deal while they starve our classrooms, and they’re sitting on billions of education dollars at the same time.

And do you know the irony, Mr. Speaker? The irony is that this bill—this government—is going to force the education workers out. That’s what’s going to do it. This bill is going to close our schools—this bill right here.

Will the Premier stop coming after workers, tear up this terrible bill and return to the bargaining table today?

Mr. Speaker, we’re making sure that the students stay in class. I’m going to repeat that: They’re going to stay in class. We want parents to know that we’re doing everything we can to make sure students don’t miss one single day in class.

We’ve been at the table, we put a very fair offer, and the union continues to charge ahead with a strike action that would affect this province this Friday. That means there would be two million students sitting at home and probably a million parents who would be taking work off.

I want to be clear: We will never, ever waver from our position that students remain in class, catching up with their learning, surrounded by friends, with a full school experience, including extracurricular activities.

The Liberals and NDP want to make sure they stand up for the heads of the union. Our party differentiates between labour and labour leadership. We support the front-line labour folks. We support the fact that the front-line folks get 131 days of sick days; we’re okay with that. But what we don’t support is the unreasonable request from CUPE leadership that they demand a nearly 50% increase—a 50% increase.

Mr. Speaker, the union refuses to withdraw their strike notice even after we put forward a very generous offer. We’ve already—

They talk about 54,000 workers; we’re talking about over a million parents who would take work off because you want to feather the nest of the heads of the union. That’s unacceptable.

We want to take care of the front-line, hard-working educational workers, and we’ll always have their backs. But do you know something? We aren’t going to feather the nest of the head of CUPE.

Again, we differentiate between labour and labour leadership. I think the labour needs to find new labour leadership.

Interjections.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of the member from Scarborough–Guildwood in her point of privilege today. I believe the member has established that the comments made by the minister presume passage of Bill 28. But I also contend that the minister’s actions, in addition to the minister’s words, presume passage of the bill, because the government has simply refused to go back to the negotiating table. If the government were not presuming passage of the bill this week, I believe it would be in the best interest of the government and the people of Ontario for the government to continue to negotiate with education workers in this province.

All of us have an important role to play in this House. Yes, we are members—well, most of us are members—of political parties, but at the end of the day—

Interjections.

At the end of the day, we represent our constituents. We represent the people of our ridings, the people who elected us. To presume that partisan politics plays a larger role, and then that role of us as members of this House—

Interjection.

It is an important role to play. We’re looking at the first Westminster government—Parliament right now has shown what can happen when you presume passage of legislation that your own party members don’t support. That’s an important role that governments play, that’s an important role that individual MPPs play in this House.

The government may be taking a chainsaw to charter rights with this bill, but they should not violate parliamentary privilege by presumption of passage of legislation before every member of this House has had the opportunity to vote on it.

Again to the Premier: Let’s be clear, if this government cared about children in our schools, they wouldn’t beat up on the people who are looking after them.

Yesterday was a dark day for Ontario workers. Bill 28 not only disrespects education workers but also tramples their collective bargaining rights by imposing a contract, denying them the right to strike and levying fines against those who dare defy the Premier’s orders. This government’s use of the “notwithstanding” clause is massive overreach and a clear message to workers that their concerns just don’t matter.

New Democrats call on this government to reverse course, withdraw Bill 28 and return to the bargaining table to bargain in actual good faith. Will the government commit to doing that today?