Thank you to my colleague, obviously, for that great question. The reason we’re here this morning so early is to ensure our students are in class for the entire period from September to June, ensuring that they have the ability to interact with their friends in person, ensuring that they’re able to learn in class and do projects together in class and to experience everything we all remember from our time in elementary school and high school and beyond. So this is why we are here today: to ensure that our students remain in class moving forward.

We have been committed since the election—the Premier, the Minister of Education have been clear: We cannot tolerate any disruptions to in-person learning, so we will be in this House to ensure that students can remain in the classroom from September to June, Speaker.

I just want to thank the member for speaking early today. Last night, because the House adjourned, I was able to go home and hand out treats to the kids who came to the door. It was so great to see the little ones dressed up in their princess and witch costumes and Superman costumes. You know what? Seeing the smiles on their faces, being together with their friends—and we had the opportunity to chat with some of the parents back and forth as they got their little bags of chips and went along in the neighbourhood. But the biggest part was the smiles on those kids’ faces and the sociability of the kids being together.

I guess the question that I’m asking the member is, why is this so important for our children that we take care of this legislation today?

I want to relay some comments from a constituent of mine from St. Catharines, since I don’t feel that a lot of the other members on the opposite side have actually had time to read these emails, but we’ve taken the time. I just want to quote a few things: “As an education worker, I have never felt more like giving up in my field as a library technician. I worked for 10 years as a casual employee making pittance above minimum wage with no paid sick time or benefits.”

It goes on to say, “Ford is taking away the right to strike and refuses to bargain in good faith. The bullying must stop. Parents want their children to remain in school; some of these parents are also education workers. But those same workers must not be held hostage in schools to ensure that.

“Instead, Lecce must stay at the table and negotiate in good faith with the hard-working CUPE negotiation team.”

I want to ask the member from Perth: Do you believe what you have said? Do you feel that five cents to the lowest-wage earners is good and keeping up with the cost of inflation—five cents?

Thank you for the quick response.

Further debate?

Thank you to the member from Perth–Wellington for your passionate presentation. I am just as passionate as you are because the parents and students in Richmond Hill have been coming to me and they say now they are more relieved, because they thought there will be a strike. So I’m happy that we are working so hard to fight to make sure that the kids will be back in class. My question is, why is our government not tolerating even one day of learning disruption?

The next question.

I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Spadina–Fort York and the member from Windsor West.

Speaker, this bill, Bill 128, is a contemptible bill. Some bills are like a fine steak. They’re richly marbled. They’re deep red. They’re clearly an object of substance and nourishment. And others are like a hot dog that’s been on a roller grill of a 7-Eleven for 24 hours—wrinkled, mysterious and oddly coloured.

This contemptible bill is that hot dog. Not only will it give political heartburn to anyone who actually votes for it, it will make people sick who have it stuffed down their throat. And that is the government’s goal: to not only chew on it themselves, but also to stuff it down the throats of those education workers who were true front-line heroes through the height of the pandemic.

This government bill will destabilize education and shortchange Ontario families. For those who have suffered through and are suffering through the health care crisis that has been provoked by Bill 124, who have been in packed ERs—when they’re open—they know that a bill that punishes those front-line workers, that demoralizes them, that drives them out of the sector is one that undermines the critical services that we need to have in this society.

And that’s what this bill will do. It will beat up education assistants, early childhood educators, custodians and librarians. That process of driving people out has already started. I hear from parents now who tell me they are desperate to get support for their children in the classroom, but the wait for that support is backed up so that they don’t get the assistance that they need. And that’s even in a situation where those workers are doing the best they absolutely can. They are committed to the children in their care, they work hard, but they can’t keep up.

I’ve talked to those education assistants directly, at the door, who tell me about their desperation in trying to keep up with the demands, the needs of the children that they’re responsible for. But they tell me they’re short-handed and they can’t do anything, but, every day, put on the equivalent of an educational Band-Aid to try and get through the day.

So this bill is about beating up on those workers. It’s about undermining the quality of education in this province. To say otherwise is to subject the facts to the worst kind of abuse. When you decide to demoralize and drive out the very education workers that you need to make the system function, then you can’t argue that your priority is education, that your priority is children and families. And when you look at this government’s record on education over the last four and a half years, you can recognize quickly that any commitment or any claim they make to a commitment to Ontario’s children and families is not a real commitment.

Speaker, I want to look at some of the extraordinary elements in this bill. There is a section entitled, “Application of charter and Human Rights Code and limits on courts, etc.” This is the section that explicitly undermines human rights and constitutional protections. Now, most people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the Human Rights Code or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or our Constitution, but when governments act in a way that is abusive, they somehow know there is a backstop, that there’s legislation or laws in place that will give them protection against government acting in a way that is abusive, that is arbitrary, that is damaging.

In Canada, we have a problem with our Constitution in that we have something called the “notwithstanding” clause so that governments can declare what they brought forward is not covered by the Constitution. Legal experts have said that where this exemption is used, it should be used very sparingly. Well, I have to tell you, Speaker, this bill takes full advantage of that “notwithstanding” clause that exempts this bill from constitutional protections. When you do that, you’re saying right off the top that you recognize that what you’re doing is unconstitutional. You’re not beating around the bush. You’re not hiding this away in some obscure clause. You’re saying right off, “You don’t have any constitutional protection. We’re taking that away from you. We’re going to beat you up, and you don’t have any legal option to fight back.” That’s what’s going on. But that’s not the end of the attack on our fundamental rights, because the bill also says explicitly that the Human Rights Code does not apply.

What’s extraordinary to me is that this government stopped there. They could have said the Employment Standards Act doesn’t apply, or the Occupational Health and Safety Act. What about the Ten Commandments? Clearly, they were underperforming with this bill, because they could have tried to wipe out jurisdiction of any other law protecting workers. But I have to say, the damage they’ve done is enough.

I do want to note that the bill goes on for pages about how the government and its servants are protected, shielded, held harmless, explicitly exempt from any kind of legal action whatsoever with regard to fundamental laws in this society. You have to be doing some pretty grim stuff to put those sorts of protections for yourself in legislation. You have to be messing around at a pretty profound level to say, “We’re exempt from the Human Rights Code and from Canada’s Constitution.” You have to be very clear that you are putting aside people’s rights, that you are trampling on those rights, that you are stuffing this ugly mess down people’s throats. That’s the ground that’s cleared by these exemptions.

All of us in this society need to be protected from governments that go down the wrong road. When you use the “notwithstanding” clause, when you say that the Human Rights Code doesn’t apply, it isn’t just the workers in this case who will be harmed. Everyone in this society knows that the next time the government hits against this guardrail, that guardrail has been weakened.

So we’ve got a bill that not only undermines the quality of education and beats up on a dedicated group of people who are trying to give our children the education they need, but this bill hurts the quality of education and undermines our fundamental rights in this society. Speaker, that is simply wrong.

This bill needs to be withdrawn. It needs to be thrown out. This government needs to sit down with the education workers and actually negotiate, not dictate, and come to a deal that everyone can live with to protect the quality of education.

With that, I turn the floor over to my colleague.

It’s important, what my colleague just said—you need to negotiate, not dictate.

This is the scariest bill that I think has been before this House during the four years that we’ve been in this House.

I’m going to dedicate my time today to my grandson Shea, who is 10 months old, and to the children I saw on Halloween at CityPlace—the Halloween crawl there last year—and to all the children in Ontario, because I want all of the children in Ontario to grow up in a democracy. And a democracy means that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the fundamental law of the land and nobody overrides the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would ask the Conservative MPPs in this House: Why did you run? Did you know this government never said in their election campaign that they were going to be using the “notwithstanding” clause to override workers’ rights in this country? They never said that they were going to use the “notwithstanding” clause to fundamentally strip all of us of our fundamental rights. When people talk about the “notwithstanding” clause, most people don’t understand what that means.

In this bill, it specifically states that they are overriding sections 2 and 7 through 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 2 is our fundamental freedoms—freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. Those are the fundamental freedoms.

So to the Conservative MPPs in this House: You are under extreme pressure from your caucus to vote today to suspend the fundamental freedoms of the people of this province—

Interjections.

This is a slippery slope, because the Premier has said in the past, when they used this before, “We won’t be shy about using the ‘notwithstanding’ clause again.” In other words, he’s not going to be shy about stripping the people of Ontario of their fundamental freedoms and of their legal rights. That is extremely frightening. And it’s not just—this goes across party lines. This is not a Liberal, Conservative, NDP debate; this is a debate about the fundamentals of our democracy.

I’ll give you some quotes from other people who commented on the last time this government used the “notwithstanding” clause.

Brian Mulroney, the former Conservative Prime Minister of this country, said the “notwithstanding” clause is a grave flaw and it makes the charter not worth the paper it is printed on.

Bill Davis, the former Conservative Premier of this province and one of the drafters of our Constitution, condemned the Premier’s use of the “notwithstanding” clause, and he said it’s because you’re undermining our fundamental freedoms and legal rights. That’s not what the “notwithstanding” clause was to be used for.

Roy McMurtry, a former Conservative cabinet minister in this Legislature, as well as former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow wrote, the last time this government used the “notwithstanding” clause, “We condemn the Premier’s actions and call on those in cabinet and caucus to stand up to him.” A former Conservative cabinet minister in this House was calling on the Conservative MPPs to stand up to the Premier, and he said, “History will judge you by your silence.”

Andrew Coyne, the Globe and Mail columnist, said, “The Ford government is exactly the kind of government the charter was supposed to restrain. Handing it the ‘notwithstanding’ clause is like handing a drunk a loaded gun.”

Amnesty International, which usually doesn’t have much to do with a democracy like Canada—it usually deals with dictatorships or governments that are slipping into dictatorship, which is my big fear here, because we’ve watched, over the last 20 years, country after country slip into dictatorship, slip away from their democratic ideals. This government’s got Amnesty International criticizing it, and Amnesty International is condemning the use of the “notwithstanding” clause because it exhibits this government’s contempt for human rights.

And then the reason this government is doing this—so why use this loaded gun? Why strip Ontarians of their fundamental freedoms and of their legal rights? It’s because they want to impose a settlement on the lowest-paid education workers in our province—the ECEs, the special-needs assistants, the office administrators, the custodians, the librarians, the people who look after our children in schools all day. This is what this government wants to do.

I’ll just give a couple of examples of how low this is. One ECE says she is currently homeless, lives in her car and in shelters, and she’s dealing with pain and food insecurity—and this government is trying to impose a cap on their wages.

The member for Spadina–Fort York.

I hear the passion from the member from Windsor, and I’m just wondering if she can speak about these workers who are amongst the lowest paid in the education system. It feels very oppressive, what the government is doing to them. You’re right, we do have to speak, because this legislation effectively silences them. So if you could just talk about these rights, these fundamental rights, particularly for those workers who are female and who do need their representation to speak up for them, but everyone is being silenced by this bill.

We’ll go to questions.

Question? The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London?

Close enough—it’s Essex.

I’m a father of three. I can remember my kids going up through the school system. I still have one young ‘un. He’s still in high school, and he wants to be in high school. He wants to be in his classroom. He wants to be with his peers. He wants to be with his teachers. I know the teachers want to be there, too. I know everybody wants to be in the classroom, including all of the people we’ve been talking about here today. I think, after two years of disruptions caused by an international pandemic, everybody wants to be in the classroom. So my question to the member is this: Why is this she adamant that people should not be in the classroom?

—to bully women and to say, “We don’t value you or the work that you do. We know better.”

Speaker, I can tell you that this side of the House and the women in the education sector, in the health care sector, in developmental services and everywhere else in the province are saying to this government, you just woke a beast, because we’re not going to take it anymore.

We’re talking about school secretaries. When a child falls on the playground and gets hurt, it’s the school secretary that cleans them up, puts on a Band-Aid if needed and shows that care and compassion to make that child feel better.

We’re talking about educational assistants who deal with students with developmental disabilities, some of the highest needs in the school system. They get kicked, they get punched, they get bitten. They wear Kevlar all day long. Does anyone on the government side have to wear Kevlar or put up with that throughout their day? They do it with compassion, and they do it because they love their students.

We’re talking about ECEs, who are supporting the youngest learners through some of the toughest developmental—

I agree with the member for Essex: Everyone involved wants to be in the classrooms, including these education workers. But this government, rather than bargaining—because there are still bargaining dates available; these workers aren’t on strike. You still have the opportunity to come back to the table. You didn’t have to bring this in.

But I have a question for the member from Essex: Do you think that it’s acceptable for these workers in our region to have to go to the food bank to feed their families? Do you think that’s acceptable?

This piece of legislation that the Conservative government is putting forth will not keep students in classrooms. What it will do is hurt education workers. It will hurt students. It will hurt parents, quite frankly.

I am wondering why the government thinks it’s okay for them to have a salary that allows them to buy a home, rent a home and have groceries for the month, and why education workers need to be at food banks. Why is this government allowing for education workers to do unpaid labour in a sector where they’re leaving in droves because of the abuse they’re facing?

The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

We’re going to go to further debate.

As a parent, I too have faced the same issues as other parents in this House. I have watched as my children have faced isolation and the challenges that have confronted them over the past two and a half years. It has not been pretty. I think we can all understand and respect that. What I’m saying right now as a mother of a son who is going to be, hopefully, in school on Friday is—

Interjections.

Good morning, everyone. You know, I was leaving from Scarborough to come down and it was foggy. I remember my dad, who was a truck driver, would always get up very early. He used to say he got up with the fog, and that’s how I felt this morning, coming into this Legislature.

Why are we here? We’re here to debate this bill. Bill 28 really feels as if we are having a conversation about—in fact, it really feels, when I listen to the minister’s remarks, that we’re having a constitutional debate about the right to collectively bargain. That’s how I feel this morning.

Yet we know that this is a well-established right given to Canadians under the charter, which is part of Canada’s Constitution, which is the supreme law of this land. Yet this government chooses to table legislation that negates those rights. With the stroke of a pen, 55,000 education workers no longer have the opportunity to exercise their right under the supreme law of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I received an email from Rose, a resident who says: “The right to free and fair collective bargaining is a fundamental freedom, protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not a crime to fight for good jobs, decent wages, or a better life. I support the right to free and fair collective bargaining in Ontario.”

Yet this government has tabled legislation pre-emptively. In fact, when I look at the explanatory note of this bill, which was obviously not drafted in haste—do you notice the size of this bill? I have seen many very thin and flimsy bills from this government, but not this one. It was deliberate.

In the first line of the explanatory note: “The act addresses the labour disputes involving school board employees represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees.” What labour dispute? We were supposed to be in mediation today. We were supposed to be in mediation tomorrow and Thursday, yet the government—instead of showing up at the bargaining table, instead of doing its duty by negotiating with the representatives of 55,000 workers in this province—decided to pre-emptively table this legislation which is before this House today.

I have received—and I’m sure others did, as well. This is from Chris, another resident. “As a proud veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, I expect my governments, at all levels, to act with honour and respect the charter. By denying citizens of this province basic freedoms that many have fought (and died) for, the provincial government is failing miserably in this fundamental requirement.”

Madam Speaker, we are having this discussion and this debate because the government has put forward a draconian bill that overreaches with its authority and its power. And I am pretty sure that we haven’t heard the end of this decision by the government to move forward with this bill. I think this is just the beginning, and it’s unfortunate.

Nima, another resident in my constituency, writes to me often, and she offered some solutions for this government: “Pay workers better, guarantee increased services for students”—which is embedded in the negotiations that CUPE has put forward at the table. I know a lot of our conversation is about the wages, but there are many other improvements to our education system that have been put forward for increasing services to students—“make significant investments into our schools, and ensure adequate staffing levels. Focus on building our schools, not issuing subtle threats to those who keep them working.”

Madam Speaker, it really breaks my heart when I see the consequences that this government has put forward over the heads of the 55,000 workers—our custodians who clean the floors and the washrooms and the classrooms, our EAs who help the most vulnerable students, our ECEs who work alongside the classroom teachers in our JK and SK full-day kindergarten classes.

I went into a junior kindergarten class just last month, and when the principal took me around to that classroom, he noted that many students are coming to school not as prepared—their social, emotional and even physical development is not what it was. The pandemic has taken its toll. In that class, there were six of our youngest learners who were not toileted; they had to be taught. Who is responsible for teaching them that? Of course, that’s the fundamental responsibility of the parents and the home. But when they end up in the classroom, we don’t send them back. That is where those supports are—the ECEs are there, the EAs are there. And they were vigilant with those students. They were caring. They were compassionate. They were trained. And they showed up.

Yet our government has put forward a bill, Bill 28, with fines. If these workers decide to defy this legislation, should it pass, they will be subject to fines—$4,000, each person. That adds up to $250 million per day. That is what the government seeks to extract from the lowest-paid workers, who are largely female, if they stand up for their fundamental rights as Canadians—the right to collectively bargain, the right to have freedom of association and representation. It is their fundamental right, and if they stand up for their right that was hard fought for, they are subject to the draconian fine put forward in this legislation by this government. How does the government even anticipate that they will be—these people are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. They are showing up every day, and this government is threatening to silence them with fines. And it says that if anyone supports them—it actually says that in this bill—they are also subject to that fine. And their representation from their bargaining units, which they are constitutionally able to participate in, they will be fined $500,000. I think this government should be absolutely ashamed.

The other labour unions and the labour community are gathering in support of CUPE. They recognize that this is a slippery slope. If you do it to one, you could do it to others—you could do it to all of us. By invoking the “notwithstanding” clause in this instance, it diminishes the use of that clause for all Canadians. This is the second time that this government, should this pass, has utilized that here in Canada. It’s absolutely disgraceful.

I want to read you what Barb Dobrowolski said: “The Ford government’s decision to legislatively impose a contract on education workers and to invoke the ‘notwithstanding’ clause for the second time in Ontario’s history is another flagrant abuse of power.”

Even this gentlemen, Courtney—he’s not a member of a union and has never been one: “But I do recognize the role unions have in improving employees’ work lives. A lot of people forget that before unions, employers treated their employees terribly. Safety standards and a fair living wage were non-existent. It was the collective bargaining of employees that allowed a middle class to form in Canada and around the world. The wage and safety I enjoy is because of unions.

“I am a PC-voting citizen, but will not be voting for a political party that removes the rights of workers.”

It’s not too late, government members. You’re the majority in this House; we are the sober second thought. Doing this to these workers is not right. It is not right. You have three days that you could be at the table bargaining and doing your best effort to come to a deal. Instead. you’ve chosen to impose this legislation. It’s not right.

I want to go back to the member from Windsor West and talk about one of those individuals who are speaking up. Her name is Carol Boulianne and here are her words, which are much better than mine: “I am disgusted and appalled by the Ford government’s latest ‘generous’ offer—1.25% is still below the cost of living. I am tired of working for peanuts. What is wrong with you people? Get rid of the bill that caps government workers at 1%. I am sure Lecce and Ford would never accept a 1% wage freeze. And for them to legislate us back to work? I have not been able to buy new clothes for work in years. I barely have enough money for gas and food. I am tired of” bleeping “Ontarians with your $250 cheque for parents. You” bleep “Ontarians before the election with your licence renewal fees that you were giving back. Shame, shame, shame on you both.”

These are comments that I’m receiving, that all of you are receiving. This is the reality of what people are facing across Ontario.

The reality is that these workers that the government is now attacking went for three years with 0%—0%—and every year after that it’s been below inflation. I don’t think that any parent in this province, especially those whose children have developmental or intellectual disabilities and are supported by these workers, think that it is fair or reasonable for this government to keep these workers relying on food banks. They just don’t.

I know that the government side of the House gets the same emails we do—people opposed to this. They pick and choose the emails they want to share. But the reality is, the government spin on this is not how the people in this province feel. It’s not how the families feel. It’s not how the kids feel.

At no point have any of us said that we’re advocating for a strike. We’re not—although we respect the workers’ right to strike. We do. But you’re not even to that point yet, and you’ve brought in this heavy-handed legislation.

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear: When my kids were in school, the Liberals brought in Bill 115. There were students and parents province-wide who staged walkouts in protest. I proudly stood with my daughter, who was one of those students, because the kids and the parents value the work that these education workers do, even if this Conservative government doesn’t.

But I think it’s also important to point out that it’s not just about having kids in school; it’s about having the staff there to actually support them, and to compensate them—