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.

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 rise today to join the debate on Bill 28, legislation that follows a long line of anti-worker bills that this government has brought forward. We saw that in their first term of office, when they introduced Bill 124, when they did a complete override of collective agreements with the emergency orders, so in some ways this legislation is not all that surprising.

What is concerning, however, about Bill 28 compared to those previous acts of this government, is its unprecedented use of the “notwithstanding” clause and the override of the human rights protections that are included in the Human Rights Code. This is the first use in Canada of the “notwithstanding” clause to suppress constitutionally protected charter rights. The courts have been very clear that freedom of association includes the right to fair and free collective bargaining, as well as the right to strike. This government removes those constitutionally protected charter rights and will engage this government for years in court fights about the government’s use of these provisions.

Just last week in this place, we eulogized Bill Davis, who was a part of the group who repatriated the Constitution. Bill Davis brokered the deal that brought us the “notwithstanding” clause, and he was very, very clear that it was to be used very, very sparingly, and it was to be used to provide new benefits for disadvantaged or marginalized populations, not to use the heavy sledgehammer of legislation during collective bargaining.

As my other colleagues have mentioned, it is clear that this bill took some time for the government to write. This was not a bill that came off a word processor in a couple of days. They have been working on this bill for months—for months, Speaker—as CUPE members have been sitting at the table waiting for the government to negotiate in good faith.

And who are these CUPE workers? They are education assistants; they are early childhood educators; they are custodians; they are school secretaries. They are the backbone of our education system and they are the lowest-paid workers in our education system, and so low paid, in fact, Speaker, that many are relying on food banks, as we have pointed out time after time. There was a survey that CUPE undertook of its members which found that half of CUPE members struggle to pay their bills each month. The paycheque won’t cover basic necessities of food, of utilities, of transportation. They’re not getting a sufficient salary to meet those financial obligations that they have to feed their families and maintain some semblance of a quality of life. One quarter of CUPE members said they couldn’t afford gas or public transportation on the wages that they were being paid. More than two thirds of CUPE members said they had to stop setting aside money for savings because there was no money to put aside at the end of the month.

So these are not workers who are being well compensated and are asking for unreasonable wage increases. They are workers who are asking to be paid what they are worth. And we saw during the pandemic how very crucial these workers are to the health and safety, to the academic success, to the well-being of children in this province. Do children matter to this government? Does it matter to this government that there are caring adults in our school system who are able to support kids in schools?

This government talks about the fact that they want to bring stability and end disruption in our school system, but if they watched what happened after Bill 115 under the Liberals, when a collective agreement was imposed on education workers, the aftermath of that legislative action lasted years, Speaker. I was one of those trustees who was there at the time of Bill 115. I saw the complete demoralization of education workers across the education system. I saw parent frustration higher than it had ever been because of the dismal atmosphere in our schools. We saw students who were losing opportunities that they needed to engage in education and be successful and go on. That is the legacy that this government is going to be bringing to public education with this action.

There is speculation that maybe this is all part of the government’s plan to privatize more and more of our public services, and that the direct payments to parents that have been flowing out during this pandemic and the $345-million catch-up payments to parents is all part of a backhand way of privatizing public services. The government says that parents should be trying to chase down tutors to help their kids in school, but parents are saying that they know that what will help kids in school is having early childhood educators; it’s having educational assistants; it’s having custodians; it’s having school secretaries who are compensated appropriately and there to support their kids.

I just wanted to read a couple of emails that I have received from parents. One parent wrote to me, “The lack of support for educational staff is callous and unforgivable. I have two primary school-aged children and frankly no amount of mental health support can prepare us for yet another year of disruptions and virtual school. The kids need to be in school, and educational staff need to be adequately compensated.”

Another parent, with two elementary school-aged children, says, “If a strike is necessary for these workers to be treated fairly their right to strike should absolutely not be taken away! Our children have had a lot of disruptions these last few years but we cannot agree with the idea of the government taking away the right to strike. It shows us that the government is not working to bargain in good faith.”

I implore this government—there are several days left before November 4—withdraw this bill, get back to the bargaining table, talk to CUPE workers, negotiate a fair deal, give our kids the supports that they need in our classrooms and help preserve quality public education in Ontario.