You know, Speaker, there’s a lot of catcalling over there. I ask them to respectfully listen to this, because I’ve said many times, and I say it again: Read Bill 28 very carefully and read the charter very carefully and read the history of how the charter came to be.

The very first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is really about this very fact: that as citizens, we cannot trample on each other’s rights. We must live together in harmony. That means no one can trump somebody else’s, and there are competing interests often at stake. So section 1 of the charter begins with this: that the rights in this charter are guaranteed “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That must be read in the context of the rights enumerated that follow and in the fact that under section 52, that the charter, including section 1 and the rights listed therein, and including section 33, is the supreme law of Canada—that part of what the charter permits is both judicial review and a conversation between our courts and the legislative branches of government, the Parliament of Canada, the legislatures of the provinces. All are part of the conversation.

Section 33 is really a conversation clause. It’s about balance. When it comes to a conversation about defining the rights in the charter, the rights of all citizens, even when those rights clash with each other, when it comes to that conversation, as professor Peter Hogg wrote in his constitutional law text, which is a leading authority on constitutional law—I was honoured to be one of his students at the Osgoode Hall Law School from 1984 to 1987, and he just passed away at the age of 80 last year. He wrote that courts are not always correct when it comes to their rulings on matters of charter rights.

Our Supreme Court of Canada in 1929 in the Persons Case legally reasoned its way to the determination that women are not persons for purposes of Senate appointments under the Constitution Act of 1867. Back in 1929, thankfully, there was still a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a committee of the House of Lords. That route was abolished in 1949, but 20 years earlier, in 1929, there was a right of appeal, and mercifully, thankfully, the JCPC overturned the Supreme Court of Canada on that ridiculous ruling. The Supreme Court of Canada, with respect, in that ruling, was spectacularly wrong, was on the wrong side of history, and yet somehow legally reasoned its way, wrongly, to the determination that women were not persons for purposes of Senate appointments. So the courts are not always correct, as the late professor Peter Hogg indicated.

So we need a conversation about rights. We need to have a conversation that is civil and respectful and understands the unique nature of our Canadian Constitution. That conversation means that the elected representatives of the people in this House and in every other Legislature in the Dominion of Canada and in the Parliament of Canada can enter the conversation before or after a court has started the conversation. Our part of the conversation is the bills we propose, debate and enact into law and the conversation before the courts or the cases that come before it leading to decisions. That’s an ongoing conversation. It’s a vital aspect of a free and democratic society—the independent judiciary, not elected by the people but appointed by the executive council and the elected representatives of our Parliaments. When we have that conversation about defining and limiting and balancing competing rights under the charter, then we have true free and democratic conversation.

So section 33, in my respectful submission, although it is itemized as override and has repeatedly been called the “notwithstanding” clause, simply because that’s one word in section 33, is part of the supreme law of Canada, is part of the charter. We would not have the charter without it. It’s part of the fact that there’s a conversation that can and must go on with a bill like this that does reference the charter, in section 13—and because it’s about balance. It’s about saying we need to somehow balance the right of freedom of association, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2015 decision—balance that interpretation by a court with the right of students and children to be in class and not to face disruptions, for parents to be able to rely on a stable education system where their children can learn in the best possible undisrupted environment. That’s what this is about.

As we speak here, negotiations can be ongoing. There is no strike yet. There is no reason why another type of conversation can’t occur. As we know from the history of the negotiations, this government actually bid against itself in the face of an unmoving position from the union leadership.

This government was open and is open to continued discussion, just as we should have a discussion in this House—a conversation about balancing rights, because we do not live in a vacuum. We cannot say, “My rights trump yours.” We cannot say that collective bargaining and the right to freedom of association always trump the rights of students to not be disrupted in their educational experience. That’s the kind of society we live in. We live together. We must live in harmony. We must converse civilly.

I’m very delighted that the catcalling has stopped, because that means my friends on the other side are listening. We can learn from each other. I happen to believe that if we always speak of balance and fairness and trying to get along in a civilized way, we can achieve a just society. That’s what Bill 28 is trying to do. But when we misunderstand the nature of how our nation is governed, when we use phrases and labels that do not accurately describe what our Constitution is all about, then we mislead each other, and then we stop listening to each other. We can always learn from each other, and we can learn from history.

A little bit of history: In 1982, we did achieve patriation of Canada’s Constitution. It was the original British North America Act of 1867 that created the Dominion of Canada and the four original provinces and our federal system of government. It was renamed, in 1982, the Constitution Act of 1867; rightly so, because the British North America Act was an act of the UK Parliament. Until 1982, we had to go to the Imperial Parliament just to make simple amendments. When employment insurance and jurisdiction over it—or then we called it unemployment insurance, in 1940, in the final, dying years of the Great Depression. When it was established as a matter for federal jurisdiction, that took a constitutional amendment to the old BNA Act, and we had to go cap in hand to the UK Parliament to do that, even as we were sending our young people off to a war in Europe. We were a nation by then, and yet we still were dealing with a colonial, outdated approach to governing ourselves.

In 1982, we achieved patriation, which means the provinces and the federal government could decide for themselves how to amend our Constitution, and we got a Charter of Rights, with section 1 telling us that all rights are not absolute—we must live together in harmony and balance competing rights; we can’t have it all for ourselves—and a conversation clause in section 33 that said not just the courts but the elected assemblies, the elected Parliaments, can be part of the conversation about defining rights, how they will work in practice and even, yes, balancing or limiting the rights so that we can live together, because if only one group has all the rights and another group does not, then we have chaos and disharmony.

That’s why Bill 28 is about harmony. It’s about fairness. It’s about balance. It’s attempting, in one respect, to implement a fair wage increase, fair benefits, and at the same time to make sure there is no disruption. So the bill reflects listening and conversations with the union leadership, saying, “You are asking for this. We were offering this. Now we’re offering more, and we’re going to implement that as part of the bill, because we believe, on behalf of the people of Ontario, that it’s fair.” And at the same time, we respectfully are implementing this bill to say we cannot trample on the rights of students and parents by allowing strike action that would disrupt education.

This bill comes on the heels of an attempt at not having to bring in such an act, but the point of leadership, the point of governance, is that when we face a roadblock, when we face a crisis, when we face that moment where a decision is required, leadership is required. So we all gathered here yesterday at 5 a.m. to begin the conversation, the debate, and I realized as I sat among all of the members of this House yesterday that parliamentary democracy is alive and well. Yes, there are strong disagreements about the merits of this bill, and I greatly appreciate being able to be heard on my characterization of the bill in the context of the Constitution, the charter and that need to balance rights.

There are ways to implement good policy. We are first and foremost a Parliament, but yes, we must vote. We must divide. There are times when this House is unanimous, and in this instance, from what I am hearing on the other side, we will not be unanimous, but in the end the majority of the members of this House will decide.

And dissent is welcome. Dissent is part of democracy. It’s part of the conversation. And we believe—the members on the government side—that the time for decisive action has come, but in doing that, one can be decisive and yet implement a bill such as this, or propose to implement a bill such as this, that is based on being harmonious, being balanced, being fair.

Note, Speaker, that this bill does not attempt to legislate an agreement based on earlier offers but rather its improved offer. I happen to be a lawyer and mediator and negotiator, as well as a trial lawyer in my former life before I was a parliamentarian, and I know the meaning of the phrase “bidding against oneself,” but sometimes, for a greater good, representing one’s side, that’s what one does in negotiations: One says, “I’m very disappointed that the opposite side did not move from its position. I’m very disappointed that they are saying, ‘Well, we’re leaving. We’re taking our last offer and going home and not moving.’” Sometimes the right call is, “I’m sorry to hear that, but we’re actually going to make our next offer anyway. We’re going to bid against ourselves.”

That’s what our government, in good faith, did, and yet still we have no movement from the CUPE leadership. So this government is trying to be fair, and this government, in proposing this bill, has proposed that agreement where it bid against itself, not out of weakness but out of respect, as a sign that we do wish to be balanced, we do wish to do everything that we can, within the limits of government fiscal limitations.

With taxpayer money, there is no money growing on trees. There is no bottomless pit, right? We hear about a surplus, but we have a massive debt that was tripled under the Liberals, doubled under the NDP. When we speak of children and rights, what kinds of debt and deficits will we leave to our children and grandchildren if we spend unwisely? They have a right not to be burdened with debt.

Again, there are rights for many of our fellow citizens involved in this debate, and rights that are being respected by this bill. Balancing competing interests is what leadership is about. That is what this government bill proposes to do. That is what Premier Ford is leading us toward: respect, harmony, fairness, balance.

I urge this House to support Bill 28 and swiftly pass it into law.

This proposed act, Bill 28, has two main features to it: It’s about fairness and balance. There is much talk about rights, and we believe in the rights of all citizens. We all must live together. We are on a journey in our short lives here together, and we have to respect each other. Students and children have rights to an in-person education. Parents have the right to expect that their children will have the best learning and educational environment possible, and they have the right to stability and the right to be able to rely upon all aspects of the education system.

And yes, our wonderful, dedicated CUPE employees have the right to a fair wage and the right to a safe workplace and the right to respect, but no rights are absolute. And when we speak of the charter, the very first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms indicates that the rights in this charter are guaranteed—

Interjections.