Sometimes I envy those people who think in black or white because I often think in grey and at times that becomes complicated. It means that I don’t always agree with people or politicians (I guess they are people too) whom I would otherwise support. I also believe it is important to speak up when that occurs.
I do not believe in blind loyalty. I actually think that can lead to poor governance, the acceptance of “alternate facts,” corruption, and at its height, anarchy. I believe real loyalty is speaking truth to power, even when it is uncomfortable.
And so, the kerfuffle this past week over the Ford Government’s enactment of the notwithstanding clause, intended to keep children in school, has raised a number of issues in my mind.
In a nutshell, I think enacting the notwithstanding clause by the Ford government is a serious mistake. I agree that a top priority of the Ontario Government should be to keep children in school. I think CUPE has overplayed its hand in making demands the government cannot possibly meet. I believe the Prime Minister of Canada is endangering the unity of this country through his hypocrisy in dumping all over Ontario’s use of the notwithstanding clause but barely lifting an eyebrow at Quebec’s use of it on numerous occasions.
So, let’s look at these issues one at a time.
In my view, enacting the notwithstanding clause in Ontario to prevent a strike of education workers was a poor strategy for the Ford government. It is using the nuclear option when there are other alternatives available. It also opens the door to a constitutional battle.
I have spent enough time in the back rooms of political theatre to believe that in this instance there were more downsides than advantages to the government moving ahead with this particular initiative. For one thing, they guaranteed the anger of unions whose support they had gained during the last election. They were picking fights that could only lead to division and confrontation. Any win for the government would be at the cost of this disruption and the victory itself would be a narrow one with bitterness and discord remaining. And of course, using the notwithstanding clause, for an issue it was not intended for, opens up a whole other can of worms.
It would have been better, in my view, for the government to use other tools at its disposal if and when it believed it had run out of options for a negotiated settlement. It could have ordered compulsory arbitration. It could have considered defining people who work in the education field as essential workers, preventing them from striking but providing them with tools to negotiate fair wages.
Invoking the notwithstanding clause was overkill, inviting charges of trampling on people’s rights and, as things stand at the moment, not even keeping kids in school which was its intended purpose.
I do believe, however, that this is not a time to take children once again out of the classroom. It is not fair to them. It is not fair to parents, and it is also not fair to teachers who have a job to do in a limited period of time.
I have heard the argument that it is hypocritical of Ford to have closed schools during the pandemic but gone to the mat to keep them open now. I disagree. The COVID pandemic was at its height, basically a plague, where tens of thousands of people died, and others got very sick. Extraordinary steps were needed to keep people as safe as possible and closing classrooms was one of them. What we are facing now is essentially a labour dispute and there is a palpable difference.
This is not the time for a strike of education workers. Children’s lives have been disrupted enough during the past two years. They need to be in the classroom now. The Ford government is right about that. I simply believe there are better ways of going about it than invoking the notwithstanding clause.
As for CUPE, given the reality of the world we are presently living in, their demands, in my view, are not achievable and have made it impossible for the Ontario government to agree to a fair settlement. It guaranteed a stand-off, and one has to wonder if that was the intent from the get-go.
According to Statistics Canada, the average union contract increase in most sectors in the last year was 1.8 per cent per year. The education workers represented by CUPE, custodians, administration staff, cafeteria workers, and in some cases teacher assistants, and so on, generally receive a wage of $24.50 an hour. CUPE has been demanding an 11.7 per cent increase in this wage category every year for the next four years. That would be close to a 50 per cent increase over four years for about 55,000 workers, totalling about $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Were the Ontario government, or any other government, to agree to anything close to this, can you imagine the lineup of other bargaining units demanding similar parameters?
I believe strongly that everyone who works deserves a fair wage for the work that they perform. When it comes to education, I do not believe students should be held hostage to that process. Nor do I believe that the public purse is bottomless. And so, I support back-to-work legislation where necessary, with safeguards for reasonable compensation. But I do not support using the notwithstanding clause to achieve that.
Finally, a word to Prime Minister Trudeau. When it comes to the notwithstanding clause, please apply the same standards to Quebec that you do to Ontario. This issue is too important to talk from both sides of your mouth. You have described the Ford Government’s use of this clause as “an attack on fundamental rights.” You have said that your government is looking at “all options” to address this.
You are aware Sir, that the notwithstanding clause was a controversial lynchpin in the 1981 constitutional negotiations required to get a deal with the required number of provinces. You know it was intended for extraordinary circumstances and not for normal operational issues at the provincial level.
The federal government has the constitutional power to override or “disallow” the use of the notwithstanding clause when it is deemed unacceptable. You did not use that power when Quebec used this clause to strip away English-speaking language rights or the right of government workers to meet requirements of religious clothing and symbols, or the move by that province to declare itself a “nation.” But you are considering “all options” for Ontario. How hypocritical. How potentially dangerous and how wrong.
And so, the use of the notwithstanding clause in Ontario this past week has raised a number of important issues. Some of them I can agree with.
But not all.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
I am a Conservative. I would like to repeat the qualities of ‘Conservatism’ as outlined in a comment by David Harrison, here on Doppler.
-Belief in individual responsibility.
– Fiscal responsibility by a small government, incurring little or no debt.
– Compassionate.
-Morally grounded
-Tells the truth.
-Defends right and justice.
-Open government; working to strengthen the democratic process.
These points may be somewhat paraphrased, but I believe they contain most of the original intent. And they are what I, as a Conservative, believe.
So I don’t find the party we have in power, in Ontario, is conservative. I see a spoiled bully leader, with a trailer load of nodding ‘bobble-heads’ in tow.
Were voters in Ontario told that this shower would turn on labor the way they have? They will again unless the unions stand against them.
Were people in the cities and country-side aware their rights would be swept aside, so this bunch can swell the coffers of developers?
Did they stand before us and state that their intent was to drown in concrete, and pave over, thousands of acres to build houses?
Removing thousands of acres from food production, will give people a place to go hungry, but indoors!
Some may feel this is just sour grapes. I was opposed to DoFo from the ‘get go’.
I sure as hell wouldn’t have voted for him given the chance. And I never voted for the local ‘conservative’ we got. He may be a fine person, but once part of the herd, they seem willing to do bad things. Are we to understand that they all support this locust loose in our province?
Then I submit, they never represented themselves truthfully, or were up front about their intentions, when they stood for election. When they asked us to believe and trust them.
Refer to the points listed above and see if they tick any of the boxes.
Not in my estimation.
And I don’t believe or trust them.
Doug Ford and his evil plans is what happens when 57% don’t bother to vote.
“None of the Above” won in a landslide.
Only 17% voted for Ford’s “majority.”
Funny how removing Charter and judicial rights and using NWS on a simple contract negotiation wasn’t part of his platform.
Or $400/day charge if you refuse to move to a LTC far from home.
Or reneging on preserving the green belt.
Pavement it is.
Or overriding municipalities and allowing developers to buy your neighbour’s house, knock it down and put up a triplex.
Affordable? Of course not.
Developers will get 3X the money for a triplex than they paid for the original house.
I’m a product of the Ontario educational system so my logic here might be flawed but I’ve always wondered why we persist in starting a school year without a valid contract that runs for the whole year or longer?
There are about two months in the summer when contracts could be negotiated without holding students hostage. My logic is do the contract then.
If no contract is in place for Sept. start up of the school year, simply do not start. Let the lack of starting put the pressure on the negotiators on both sides to get a solution before this happens.
It seems that every time there are to be negotiations, they don’t take place, we start the year without a valid contract and then, we close the schools while everyone argues part way through the year. This impresses me as a stupid way to do this negotiation yet we persist in doing it this way. Do school administrators not take notes, learn and all that good stuff? That is what the teachers they hired years ago told me to do! They even tested us all to see if we had retained any of the ideas they taught.
Endlessly re-running the same problem would seem to indicate that in this case the school administration does not learn well. I wonder if this really is the case.
In labour negotiations, the sides usually start far apart and agree to something in the middle. Ford’s decision to invoke the notwithstanding clause to prevent CUPE from legally challenging the imposition of a 4 year contract at an insultingly low pay raise backfired in his face. Polling over the weekend indicated that the majority of parents, students and other unions, both public and private ( a few of whom supported him in the last election) supported CUPE who represents the lowest paid educational workers. Faced with the possibility of province wide strikes in many sectors and pledges of monetary support from unions across the country, Ford magnanimously said he would “put water in his wine” and asked the “folks”to come back to the table. What a hypocrite. When the head of CUPE announced that the educational workers would go back to work on Tuesday, union leaders from across the country stood behind her.
Ford folded like a lawn chair.
Of course CUPE would rather collect full pay with kids in school while they negotiate a big raise.
Except Ford tried to take that right away.
Last week Ford and Lecce claimed they had “no choice” but to impose a contract, remove Charter Rights,
to keep kids in school and that would be the end of it.
Except kids weren’t in school.
Until Ford totally caved. Again.
Just like he caved on his planned cuts to education in 2020.
Turns out there was another choice besides unprecedented draconian legislation.
The “no choice” was never true, of course.
If there was an agreement the strike wouldn’t have happened.
There is still no agreement so CUPE could legally go on strike again if needed.
2 things a government of any stripe needs to do…….Protect the taxpayers money which they often extract in excessive amounts and keep the Kids in school . It would seem that one of these goals has bee achieved by the Government’s actions , for the time being , a win, and they are now tasked with spending Taxpayer money wisely .
Doug Ford accuses Trudeau of being selective in his defense of the notwithstanding clause. I would say it’s more a case of being smart enough to pick your battles. There are always more potential battles than any government can handle, and smart leaders weigh the consequences to society and the political calculus when deciding which battles to fight. It’s safe to say that the immediate threat of 2 million students out of school on Monday morning would outweigh the threat of maybe a hundred people wearing a face covering in a government job somewhere, or maybe a few of Quebec’s 7% anglophones getting upset about losing some language right because they are too stubborn to try speaking the language of the 80% majority.
I lived and worked in Quebec for 12 years and count that time as a good part of my life. Almost everyone there (including me) learned to speak enough of the other’s language to get along fine. But I knew a few stubborn people on both sides who refused to try. The 6 million Francophones in a North American sea of 364 million Anglophones are trying desperately to preserve their language and culture. Personally, I want them to succeed because bilingualism is an important advantage that makes Canada pleasantly unique. Millions of people love visiting Quebec City, and Montreal. But notwithstanding efforts by the Quebec government, francophones are rightfully worried that they are gradually losing ground.
While 44.5 percent of the total population of Quebec reported being bilingual in 2016, this figure rose to 70 percent for those aged 14 to 17. Trudeau is wise to keep his powder dry and not waste it over non-urgent concerns that are gradually resolving themselves. Other parties would love to goad him into doing something they would not do themselves.
Mr> Whillans: If you google the question, ” What is the disallowance power of the Federal Government?” you will get the answer to your question. In a nutshell, it is containeed in a little known section of the Constitution Act -1867. – The Disallowance Power. It allows the federal government to kill a provincial law by requesting the Govonor General to do so. It has not been used in 75 years but the Trudeau Government was urged to use it in 2019 when the Quebec Government passed Bill 21 related to the wearing of religious attire and declined to do so.The federal government does have the power to override the Not Withstanding Clause, legislated by a provincial parliament, if it chooses to do so. I was not advocating the use of the federal government’s disallowance power. I was saying that since Mr. Trudeau said he was considering “ALL OPTIONS” related to Ontario using the Not Withstanding Clause, it should similarily be applied to Quebec.
While clearly none of us are constitutional experts. Mr MacKenzie was stated that the federal government has the constitutional power to “override” or disallow the notwithstanding clause when it is deemed unacceptable. He then goes on to chastise the Prime Minister for not using it…
I am wondering where Mr MacKenzie gets the idea that the federal government can override or disallow the use of the notwithstanding clause that it deems unacceptable…….I can find no such authority in either the Charter nor the 1981 background papers.
Please respond
I do not know how much education workers are paid, so I can not comment on that aspect of the conflict.
The bottom line is that by invocation of the notwithstanding clause the Ontario Provincial Government has waded into the dangerous waters of fascist governance.
Poor Doug Ford. What to do, what to do, what to do about CUPE (this year’s union flavour) – you can hear it in his plaintiff voice. (e.g. “come on folks”).
If Ford Conservatives continue to create chaos for Ontarians (health, education, as examples) by using the notwithstanding clause (though legal) with each and every sector as collective bargaining arises, one ultimate solution is a general strike.
The educational support staff represented by CUPE keep schools clean, safe and assist students to stay in school and to succeed. They keep schools open and operating. They have been taken advantage of, by governments that do not respect their contribution with liveable wages, when they deserve more. Is it because many of them are women?
The old boys do not seem to value their work and do not seem to know these educational workers’ earnings are needed to support their families. Like the human resources crisis in healthcare, underinvestment weakens the schools’ ability to provide the foundation for young people to build a future economy. Repeal Bill 28. It achieves the opposite of its stated purpose to keep students in school.Use of the notwithstanding clause is a chilling abuse of power.
For the past 10 years, the support workers have been seen raises of 8.5%….Inflation has been 17.8%….The average provincial public sector worker has seen raises 10.8%; municipal workers 16.9%; and private sector workers 22.9%……And minimum wage has gone up has gone up 50%…….
So if your want to blame someone for the kids being out of school, try blaming Ford and Lecce who after 10 years of screwing the education support workers by various governments are now offering a raise of 2.5 % and is equally unwilling to budge.
You are correct. Arbitration of course is the answer, but this governments realizes that arbitrators will find in favour of the union (after the past decade of wage suppression). And I believe that is why this government was willing to override Section 2 of the Charter which relates to the freedom to associate.
But get use to it….we will see the same scenario play out with nurses in a year’s time.
Ford and Conservatives in general need to get over the fact that Canada’s only Charter of Rights and Freedoms concedes collective bargaining as a “protected right”
I agree with almost everything you have said here Hugh. I have always admired your ability to think for yourself snd speak truth to power even when it goes counter to your own party lines. You clearly care!!
It’s so unfortunate that the hard working good people who are in government-funded professional workplaces–health and education in particular–have been treated so poorly and disdainfully by the Ford government in the last few years. The underlying contempt for working people’s unified, organized concerns is palpable from both Lecce and Ford and just adds fuel to what are already very emotional, and in my opinion, justified concerns that have been simmering in the trenches for a long time. Our health workers and education workers deserve better.
yes this is a complex issue with many different points and perspectives.
however one thing that need not be difficult is the labour law aspect.
legislation gives education workers the right to strike as a means of resolving negotiation disputes.
if government does not wish these workers to have this right, then they need to change the law to have these disputes sent to arbitration instead of going on strike