In the province of Ontario, all collective agreements are settled by 98% without a work stoppage, including the last time the CUPE workers were at the bargaining table. Bill 28, however, becomes the first instance where a seldom-used “notwithstanding” clause is used to suppress constitutionally protected labour rights in this country—the first time in our history. Why are you not at the bargaining table where you should be and not here right now?

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.

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.

I’d like to thank my colleagues for their excellent presentation, and painting a very clear picture of the impact of Bill 28 on everyone, but, most importantly, on students and families. I’ve heard from many constituents in the last couple of days really expressing their concern. These are parents, family members, people with kids in their schools, who understand that this legislation is going to hurt everybody. One constituent wrote to me saying that “Using the ‘notwithstanding’ clause to keep people in poverty in a climate of record inflation is an affront to the principle of democracy and basic human decency.”

I’d like to ask the member from Niagara Falls what he is hearing from his constituents, parents of children in schools.

I rise as the House leader for the official opposition to offer a few brief comments on the point of privilege that was raised by the member.

Certainly, we share concerns about public statements about this legislation that have been made by the Minister of Education but, more importantly, we have grave concerns about the content of this legislation. This is a bill that will have profound and lasting implications for public education and for the future of collective bargaining in this province. The use of the “notwithstanding” clause to suppress constitutionally protected charter rights is the first time the “notwithstanding” clause has been exercised in this way in Canada. We look forward to your ruling on this matter of privilege.

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?