Feds Weighing Possible Options Against Ontario Government’s Use of Notwithstanding Clause: Trudeau

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responds to a question from the opposition during Question Period in Ottawa on Nov. 2, 2022. Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

The federal government is weighing possible courses of action it can take against the Ontario government’s use of the notwithstanding clause to prevent 55,000 provincial education workers from striking, says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

He briefly made the comment in French to reporters on Parliament Hill on Nov. 2, one day after he said that “using the notwithstanding clause to suspend workers’ rights is wrong.”

“Suspensions of people’s rights is something you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances, and I really hope that all politicians call out the overuse of the notwithstanding clause to suspend people’s rights and freedoms,” he told reporters on Nov. 1.

Trudeau and Ford discussed the issue together on Nov. 2.

“I spoke with Premier [Ford] today. I emphasized the importance of standing up for Canadians’ rights and freedoms, including workers’ rights–and I reiterated that the preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause is wrong and inappropriate,” Trudeau said on Twitter.

Ford added his own account of their talk on Twitter, saying: “I spoke with Prime Minister [Trudeau] and made clear that shutting down classrooms would have an unacceptable impact on students. I reiterated that Ontario is determined, if necessary, to pass legislation to keep classrooms open and ensure stability for parents and students.”

Strike

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) gave a five-day notice to the Ontario government on Oct. 30 saying that 55,000 educational workers in the province would strike if not granted wage increases.

The Ontario government responded the following day by introducing legislation that would force a four-year contract on the educational workers threatening to strike starting on Nov. 4. The provincial government’s preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause would allow for the legislation to stay in effect despite any possible constitutional challenges.

Speaking about possible federal action against the Ontario government’s use of the clause, Justice Minister David Lametti said on Nov. 2 there are “a number of different things one might do.”

“I’m not going to discuss options here,” he told reporters, adding that using the clause “guts Canadian democracy” and “means the Charter doesn’t exist.”

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh on Nov. 2 called upon the federal government to take action against the Ontario government for using the clause.

“We’re seeing right now a clear attack on workers, on vulnerable workers, and on workers’ rights. There has to be a response,” Singh said.

“We’re open to any solution to be put on the table and to evaluate if it will work or not and if it will help workers’ rights,” he added.

‘All Options’

NDP MP Matthew Green said Wednesday that the NDP wants “to put all options on the table.”

“Obviously, the disallowance would be at the discretion of the prime minister,” he told Parliament Hill reporters on Nov. 1. “But ultimately what we’re most concerned about is the impact this is going to have on workers.”

The Ontario government said on Nov. 1 that it would continue its negotiations with the union while still passing the legislation into effect in order to “keep kids in school,” as provincial Education Minister Stephen Lecce said.

“Because CUPE refuses to withdraw their intent to strike, in order to avoid shutting down classes, we will have no other choice but to introduce legislation, which will ensure that students remain in class to catch up on their learning,” Lecce said.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford invoked the notwithstanding clause for the first time in the province’s history in June 2021 to restore parts of the Election Finances Act that had before been declared unconstitutional.

A reporter asked Conservative MP Mark Strahl on Nov. 1 if the Supreme Court should review the notwithstanding clause.

“You’re opening up a can of worms if you’re asking the court to rule on the notwithstanding clause,” Strahl replied. “I think it goes back to the 1982 agreement on how the Charter was passed in the first place.”

“I think that electors—voters—will hold governments accountable if they feel that they’re abusing the notwithstanding clause.”

The Canadian Press and Marnie Cathcart contributed to this report.