Today it’s my honour to talk about an amazing organization operating in London–Fanshawe. This past summer, I had the honour of touring the Wright Clinic, a dental clinic founded by Dr. Ken Wright and the London Community Dental Alliance to provide affordable dental care to low-income individuals and families. Dr. Wright’s vision for this clinic started many years ago when he saw the need in our community for affordable dental care.

Operating out of the Glen Cairn Community Resource Centre, the clinic is able to serve some of the most vulnerable members of our community. While social assistance programs often provide coverage for dental care, the allotments fall short of most fees. The Wright Clinic offers truly affordable care, regardless of resources. This clinic is a one-of-a-kind model, able to hire a full-time staff and supplement their services through volunteer dentists and hygienists. The clinic also works with Western University and Fanshawe College students, giving them valuable training opportunities.

This model of service is what compassionate care looks like. The Wright Clinic is a testament to the power of community and what can be accomplished through vision, determination and co-operation. This clinic is a beacon of hope to many who previously believed oral care was beyond their reach. I am so proud to have this dental care clinic in my community.

Congratulations to the Wright Clinic.

Again, I’ll remind members to make their comments through the Chair, not directly across the floor of the House.

I rise today to speak on behalf of the many residents of Don Valley West who have contacted me to ask this government to reverse course on two bills. Last week, they were asking this government to reverse course on a housing bill that could see many residents who rent in Don Valley West lose their apartments if Bill 23 is enacted as is. This week, they are writing to say “what can we do” to stop Bill 28 and protect the wages of education workers, many of whom care for our kids every day for less than $40,000 a year, and their charter right to bargain, which this government will simply punch out by using their version of the “easy” button: the “notwithstanding” clause.

Ontarians, including the workers employed by this government in our schools and hospitals, many of whom are women, are struggling with an affordability crisis. Yet this government is more focused on fighting with workers than addressing the issues, using easy tactics like writing $100 cheques instead of working hard to strike a deal which would help workers’ families cope with inflation. The government strategy is to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to fight in court, instead of talking at the bargaining table, while the province records a $2-billion surplus.

The finance minister talked yesterday about the need to be prudent. Of course we need to be prudent with taxpayer money, but prudent doesn’t mean unfair. Not paying education workers a fair wage hurts them and their families.

We have seen the crisis created by this government by not paying nurses fairly, which caused a shortage of them. Let’s not repeat that with education workers.

Social assistance recipients in Ontario deserve to live with dignity, but the current rates do not reflect this.

Constituents across my riding have shared their stories with my office about their experience living on social assistance.

One family granted me permission to share their story. It’s a parent and their child, and they’re both currently living on ODSP. They told me how their monthly income is impossible to live on. These are some of their stories.

“I have had to borrow money to buy groceries or meds or food for my cats. I cannot pay for everything all in one month.”

“I cannot pay any of my bills in full each month or I would not be able to put food on the table every day.”

“People on ODSP cannot move in with their boyfriends/girlfriends or their ODSP will be cut drastically or eliminated all together…. So someone on ODSP cannot move in with their partner or marry them if they make more money than ODSP gives monthly.”

“We deserve to be able to hold our heads up high and be proud of our lives.”

“With the amounts people get right now, we all feel like dogs begging for scraps at the feet of people in charge. It’s degrading and pointless for anyone to feel like this in their life.”

This family is not alone. It’s absolutely heartbreaking. Their voices need to be heard, and today we need to make the decision, the government needs to make the decision, to double the rates for OW and ODSP.

Today I am extremely excited to share with you that, after the long period of isolation and concerns, Markham–Unionville has seen a very active, lively and festive October, one of the highlights being the first Downtown Markham Charity Exotic Car Show, where many sponsors, philanthropists and abundant spectators came together for a great cause. The event was a great success. It raised $50,635 to support the SickKids Foundation for their new hospital and patient support buildings. We hope that more children will get better treatments and live the happy lives they deserve. I’m extremely proud of Speedstar and Saturns Drives for organizing this event.

This highly anticipated event took place in our downtown Markham, where we celebrated Canada Day on July 1, and now showcased some of the world’s greatest sports cars and classics. That afternoon, I saw many car lovers come with their whole family and enjoy seeing those unique and beautiful vehicles up close.

I’m very proud of the Markham–Unionville communities coming together to help one another and to help build a more resilient, more cohesive and more caring Ontario. I cannot emphasize enough that Ontario is indeed a world of experiences, and I’m thrilled that Markham–Unionville is a part of such. What a fast and fabulous experience.

I’d like to take this time to congratulate the recipients of this year’s Hamilton 40 Under Forty Business Achievement Awards. This program celebrates the accomplishments of 40 young adults who have demonstrated an exceptional level of success in the private, public and non-profit sectors. The 40 Under Forty is one of Hamilton’s most prestigious business awards. These recipients are role models for business and the community at large. They have shown an exceptional level of accomplishment in their respective fields. They have demonstrated an extraordinary level of success and leadership within their workplace.

Throughout the pandemic, these young entrepreneurs faced challenges and proved they could overcome some difficult obstacles. They have shown resilience, tenacity, strength and community spirit.

It’s an extraordinary accomplishment to receive a Hamilton 40 Under Forty Business Achievement Award. That is why I am so proud to tell you that one of this year’s recipients is a young woman named Rachel Green, who owns and operates two successful businesses in Hamilton. She is a mom, entrepreneur and philanthropist, and she is my daughter-in-law.

Congratulations to all.

As we approach Remembrance Day, I am honoured to rise to recognize the men and women who sacrificed so much for our freedom and democracy we enjoy today.

I would like to thank the Royal Canadian Legion members and volunteers, not only in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock but those all across our country, for their time and effort spent supporting veterans, their families and our local communities.

In my riding, there are 16 Legions who look after 21 cenotaphs. This year, the Sir Sam Hughes Legion Branch 67 of Lindsay and the Sunderland Legion Branch 141 of Brock township are celebrating the 100th anniversary of their cenotaphs.

Cenotaphs are important historical symbols, as they represent those who died in war who are buried where they fell. They stand as a reminder of our commitment to honouring the sacrifices of brave men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

During World War I, there was great emphasis on communities large and small. Everyone knew someone or a family whose members were overseas. They were local farmers, schoolteachers, shop owners, fathers and sons who headed to the front lines to fight for everyone. While back at home, these communities supported the efforts, with women working the farms, the factories, knitting socks, making bandages and pyjamas and quilts, writing letters and cards with support of the Women’s Institute and the Red Cross.

Let us take time to remember all those who served and continue to serve our country this November. Lest we forget.

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.

I’d like to welcome my friend Michau van Speyk back into the Legislature again today. Nice to see you, Michau.

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.