On Tuesday, October 27, 2026, the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Ted Hsu) rose on a question of privilege to express concerns about remarks made by the Premier on August 24, 2026, while the House stood adjourned. According to the Member, the Premier’s remarks to the media diminished the authority and dignity of the House and, therefore, constituted contempt of the Legislature.

I have had the opportunity to review the Premier's remarks, Tuesday’s Hansard, the written submissions from the Member for Kingston and the Islands and the House Leaders for the Government and the Official Opposition, as well as the relevant precedents, practices, and authorities, and I am now prepared to rule on this matter.

I would like to first note that in raising the question of privilege, the Member for Kingston and the Islands correctly identified the underlying issue as relating to contempt rather than parliamentary privilege. Privilege exists as a defined set of rights and immunities, but there are many potential offenses that would obstruct or undermine the functions of the legislature that cannot be categorized as breaches of privilege. Any action or conduct (including words) against the authority or dignity of the legislature is considered “contempt.”

In the Canadian House of Commons, on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser explained the difference between privilege and contempt in the following terms (at page 4459 of the Hansard for that day):

"[A]ll breaches of privileges are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege. A contempt may be an act or an omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results. Matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts."

Let me now turn to the substance of this matter.

During a press conference, the Premier was asked whether he would consider the Official Opposition’s requests for a recall of the House in order to deal with matters relating to the imposition of tariffs. The Premier’s response to these questions included, among other statements, use of the term “gutter politics” and a comment that “If they have suggestions, call me up. Everyone else calls me up.”

In his remarks in the House and his written submission, the Member for Kingston and the Islands shared his interpretation of these comments. He contends that the Premier equated the request for the House to be recalled so that Members may perform their parliamentary functions to “gutter politics”. Additionally, the Member advances that the Premier’s suggestion to “call him up” was offered as an acceptable alternative to parliamentary proceedings, and a reduction of the role of the Legislative Assembly to a means of communicating suggestions to the executive. The Member for Kingston and the Islands submits that these statements amount to contempt because they “diminish the authority and dignity of this House and its proceedings.”

If the Premier did in fact degrade the proceedings of the House and undermine its functions, it would raise grave concerns. It is well established that an attack on the dignity or authority of the institution of parliament can constitute a contempt. As the Member highlighted in his submission, my predecessors in the Speaker’s chair have found prima facie cases of contempt on those grounds.

The Government House Leader, in his submission, offers another interpretation. In his view, the Premier’s statement was not that phone calls should replace parliamentary proceedings, but rather provide an additional opportunity to make suggestions, akin to the meetings that all Members regularly conduct with constituents and stakeholders. He claimed that the phrase “gutter politics” was used in reference to the actions of political opponents, not the legislature itself. The Government House Leader also noted that in his comments the Premier referenced the return of the House and requested support for the government’s proposals upon that return.

I have reviewed the video of the Premier’s press conference, and I do not know with any degree of certainty what his intention was in making those statements.

The Speaker’s role in ruling on questions of privilege and contempt is to determine whether prima facie, a case of privilege or contempt exists. The second edition of Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada provides the following explanation (at page 221):

“A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter…”

In the present case, although I do not know precisely what the Premier intended, my own genuine interpretation of his comments is that they do not directly challenge the dignity or authority of the legislature. All Members are honourable, and in the absence of sufficiently strong evidence to the contrary, I am reluctant to attribute negative motives to any Member. My ruling is that the comments made by the Premier on August 24 do not amount to a prima facie case of contempt.

I want to thank the Member for Kingston and the Islands for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.