I appreciate the comments from the member for Durham. I also appreciated your comments yesterday about the charter rights, with regard to another bill.

You started your comments talking about the legacy of Bill Davis, and there is a very strong legacy in our education system with Bill Davis, but there’s also a strong legacy of standing up for human rights. When this government brought forward another bill implementing the “notwithstanding” clause to strip Ontarians of their charter rights and freedoms, he took a strong public stand, asking this government not to do that. Again this government has got a bill before the House using the “notwithstanding” clause. I would ask you to honour the legacy of Bill Davis and not support using the “notwithstanding” clause in this House. And I would also ask you—

The normalization of the use of the “notwithstanding” clause should alarm all of us. Prior to this government, the “notwithstanding” clause had never been used in Ontario. At its inception, no one could predict a government that would override fundamental freedoms in such a cavalier manner. It was designed to be a nuclear option, not a convenient loophole when the work of governing is difficult.

In 2018, this government threatened to use the “notwithstanding” clause to reduce the size of Toronto’s municipal council. And it used it in 2021 to uphold a law that limited the ability of third parties to advertise during an election—an election that happened this summer and had the lowest voter turnout in Ontario’s history.

Bill 28 will fundamentally change labour rights in this province. Governments in Ontario throughout history survived strikes; this government has halted collective bargaining before that bargaining even reached an impasse. Today is a day in constitutional history, a day when this government threw us into a constitutional crisis simply because it was inconvenient for them to bargain in good faith.

What other matters will be too inconvenient for this government to respect charter rights? This government has put legislation before this House that sections 2 and 7 to 15 are notwithstanding. Section 2 is the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; section 7, life, liberty and security of the person; section 15, that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection without discrimination.

I urge every government member to sit down and think about what they will be voting on today. Party discipline is not a matter of law. The fundamental freedoms of the people of this province are. Do not support Bill 28.

Now we know why Premier Ford didn’t have time to appear before the Emergencies Act inquiry: He was busy preparing his latest assault on the charter of rights. Bill 28, which prohibits education workers from striking, also prevents them from petitioning a court to restore the right that was just taken from them; that is, it invokes the Constitution’s “notwithstanding” clause, exempting it from the charter’s scrutiny for the next four years.

This move builds on a record of distrust by not releasing the mandate letters. The principle of transparency would demand that the Premier release these letters. He has chosen not to. He has gone to the Divisional Court, he has gone to the Court of Appeal, he has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, and he’s even gone to the courts to prevent the people of Ontario from finding out how much all of these court visits are costing. We are learning that his choices against transparency go deeper. This Premier went back to the courts this week to keep the cost of all of these battles a secret.

I bring this up today because the Premier has been asked to testify at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa. Appearing would be a simple act of transparency. Once again, he has gone to the courts to not testify. But as a basic act of responsible government, he should choose to release the mandate letters, reveal the cost of the court cases around them, and appear before the emergency commission in Ontario. If you want to restore trust and accountability, you actually have to show up and do the hard work.

The question is for the Premier. Bill 27 invokes the “notwithstanding” clause to violate sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code, and that is a disgrace. The Premier says there is no other option. I disagree. It doesn’t have to be this way. The Conservative government doesn’t have to stop kids from going to school on Friday. There are more options. For example, the minister could continue negotiating. CUPE came back to the table yesterday with substantial changes. The minister could offer to extend the deadline and continue to bargain. The minister could offer binding arbitration.

My question: If the Premier is dedicated to keeping kids in class, why not use all the options? Has the Premier directed the minister to issue binding arbitration or to offer to continue bargaining beyond the deadline, and if not, then why is the Premier choosing to force the strike?

Ma question : ce gouvernement va-t-il se remettre à négocier une entente équitable afin que les travailleurs comme Trixie puissent retourner auprès des élèves et faire le travail qu’ils aiment?

Speaker, the Premier and this minister are too weak to face education workers. Instead, they are relying on using the “notwithstanding” clause against the fundamental rights of all Canadians to negotiate, instead of negotiating with education workers who are waiting right now at the table for this government to show up. Why are they not doing their work? Instead, they are diminishing the collective rights of all Canadians. This is shameful. Do your work. Settle the agreements.

As the former education minister, I settled nine agreements with all of our education tables, with zero disruption. It is possible. Why can’t you do your work, instead of introducing pre-emptive legislation? These workers are at the table right now. Where are you? Why are you not there? Why are you not giving them a fair offer? Why are you not proposing a fair deal—

Interjections.

I rise on a point of order to correct my record. This morning during my question, I said that Bill 27 invokes the “notwithstanding” clause to violate sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code. It is Bill 28, Speaker. I apologize for the error.