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?

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?

The supplementary question.

I realize this is out of order, but I want to welcome the schoolchildren who are here in the east and west public galleries. We’re glad to have you here to observe question period.

I know all members will join me in wanting to impress those schoolchildren today.

Start the clock.

Next question.

Les travailleurs et les travailleuses en éducation ont soutenu nos enfants chaque jour pendant les deux dernières années. Ils étaient à l’école, même quand les écoles étaient fermées, à cause du travail important qu’ils font. Ils aiment leur travail. Ils veulent continuer de le faire. Mais ils ne peuvent plus le faire et payer leurs factures en même temps.

Le projet de loi du gouvernement attaque ces travailleurs si importants qui ne peuvent plus joindre les deux bouts. Pourquoi le premier ministre insiste-t-il pour imposer une politique de faibles salaires et les forcer à recourir aux banques alimentaires, au lieu de négocier une convention juste et raisonnable?

Crystal, who lives in Ottawa West–Nepean, is a library tech, supporting over 600 kids at two different schools. She works long, exhausting days, then comes home to a diet of canned beans and rice because that’s all she can afford. She does yard duty in shoes with holes in them because she can’t afford to replace them. She still loves her job and she can’t fathom doing anything else, but this government is driving workers like Crystal away.

Instead of trampling on the rights of workers like Crystal, will the Premier actually step up to support Crystal and the 620 kids she supports by scrapping this shameful bill and coming to the table to negotiate a fair deal?

Le projet de loi 28 est de l’intimidation envers les travailleurs et les travailleuses de l’éducation. Il limite leurs salaires et, dans certains cas, les force à aller dans les banques alimentaires. Les actions de ce gouvernement vont enlever des adultes de nos salles de classe, et ce sont nos enfants qui vont en payer le prix.

Le premier ministre va créer une crise des ressources humaines dans nos écoles, de la même façon qu’il l’a fait dans nos hôpitaux, avec leurs politiques de bas salaires.

Est-ce que le premier ministre va faire marche arrière avec le projet de loi 28, soutenir les travailleurs et les travailleuses de l’éducation et retourner à la table des négociations?

I want to thank the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore for that question. He’s absolutely right. We know that the status quo is not working. The members opposite have even acknowledged that fact. If we continue down the path that this province has been on, there is going to be a generation that will never realize the dream of home ownership.

The proposed legislation takes several very important steps to make sure that Ontario has the additional housing supply it needs, by permitting more gentle intensification, through allowing three as-of-right units. Our proposed changes will lay the foundation for more missing middle housing.

Additionally, we’re reducing building costs to incentivize the construction of affordable housing, not-for-profit housing and inclusionary zoning units right across this province.

What we’re asking is that the opposition put partnership over partisanship and stop—

While the NDP and Liberals sit on the sidelines, this government will stand up for students and keep them in class. That is what a responsible government would do.

Mr. Speaker, we believe in a simple principle, as communicated by the Premier: that children should be in the classroom. It has been a very difficult past few years. It started with strikes, followed by a global pandemic. We have a moral obligation to ensure they are in school, in front of their teachers, with their friends, learning skills—not at home on a Friday or any day this school year.

We’ve been very clear in our intention to stand up for students—and parents—and ensure they’re in school every day.

We are very committed to keeping kids in school. We’ve heard the voices of parents who have told us of the difficulty and the hardship they faced with respect to the pandemic and the strikes that preceded just a short few years ago.

While we remain committed to getting a deal with any willing partner in education to provide stability, we will not tolerate impacts on kids. We will not accept a child being out of school for even one day. We’re taking action to stand up for children while we continue in good faith with our labour partners to get a deal so that we can all bring forth a program that is fair for workers, whom we respect. It’s why we are hiring 1,800 more of them in this program. It’s why this Progressive Conservative government has hired nearly 7,000 more education workers, to date, in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, we’ll continue our work, listen to parents, stand up for students and keep these kids in school.

Interjections.

The Premier is right: We stand alone on this issue, and we will fight every day to ensure these kids remain in school.