.svg)
Calandra at a school in Toronto.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.
SCOOP — The Ford government invited labour leaders to a closed-door call on Bill 33, which would make it easier for the province to seize control of school boards and ramp up in-school policing.
But before they could join the 30-minute call, labour brass had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a “prerequisite to [their] taking part in the meeting” — a move which, according to those in the industry, is far from standard.
“Given the nature of these discussions, we will be asking participants to sign a non-disclosure agreement,” read an invite. “Please sign the disclosure and return it to [a member of the Ministry of Education] prior to the call.”
In black and white: According to a copy of the one-page secrecy agreement, participants had to acknowledge that signing was a condition for allowing “frank discussion.” The government warned that it might disclose “non-public, confidential or proprietary” information during the call and made clear that any leak could harm “the interests of the Ministry and/or the public.” Those who signed on agreed to alert the government if any breach had occurred.
Unless required by law — or unless reporting obligations were disclosed prior to the session — participants agreed to keep all information and material confidential. “I will not disclose it to anyone or make any copies,” it warned.
Some viewed it as an “olive branch” from the Ford government — but for many, it didn’t sit right. “I would suggest that requesting stakeholders to sign NDAs, which limits their duty to report to their members, boards or clients, is very problematic,” said one senior industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s clear that this government doesn’t understand nor desire consultation — and while they talk about transparency, they are going above and beyond to prevent it.”
Indeed, the agreement tied unions’ hands — limiting their ability to speak publicly or, in at least once case, even debrief internally about what was discussed. At one union, according to a source, only the president joined the call — and the rest of the organization heard about it second- or third-hand.
Mum’s the word: Of the unions we reached out to, only one — L’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO) — responded, but declined to weigh in.
“As you are aware, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) obligates all parties to maintain confidentiality regarding certain information until its official release,” a spokesperson said. “In this context, AEFO is not in a position to share any additional details at this time.”
At least one union declined to participate altogether. The Ontario School Board Council of Unions opted not to sign the non-disclosure agreement, according to three sources familiar with the decision, arguing it would make it impossible to report back to members about the bill.
The decision not to sign the NDA, according to Fred Hahn, was “based on a fundamental principle” — that unions gather and share information in service of improving their members’ lives.
“I was well aware of the decision they took and completely supportive of it,” the president of CUPE Ontario said in an interview. “Being subject to a process where the government is telling us ’you can’t say anything to your members about this’ runs counter to that [principle].”
Hahn pointed to the Ford government’s clash with education workers in 2022, when it tabled a controversial bill to force a contract and stop a strike.
“The ability for our members to challenge what the Conservatives did in the last round of bargaining [wouldn’t have been possible] if it hadn’t been for the capacity that [OSCBU] built where they told members everything that was happening and built trust between the workers represented and their representatives.”
Déjà vu: Still, it’s not the first time the Ford government has turned to a non-disclosure agreement. The practice began during the pandemic, though it’s been dormant ever since.
“At 3 p.m. we’d get an email inviting us to a meeting. They would say, there’s an NDA you need to sign in order to get access,” Hahn recalled. Back then — with everything so “deeply challenging” — the union went along.
“What we discovered,” Hahn explained, “was that we were told things that were made public two hours later.” “There was no opportunity to have a dialogue. This was not for the purpose of consultation.”
In this case: “The same thing happened here,” he said. “They want to be able to say ’we talked to them first.’”
Put simply, according to one expert: “Requiring a non-disclosure agreement is certainly atypical and should be viewed as an attempt to restrict open dialogue and public scrutiny of government policy,” said Dr. Larry Savage of Brock University, who warned that they risk eroding trust not just between unions and government, but between leaders and the members they represent.
“Transparency and accountability are important principles that union leaders are expected to uphold — and signing a non-disclosure agreement could impede them from communicating and advocating for their members.”
If secrecy’s meant to allow a give-and-take, Savage said, that implies the unions have a shot at swaying the government. Instead, gagging union leaders only weakens their ability to advocate. “The government is just trying to manage the message,” he said,” and they [didn’t] want the union leaders to be able to create their own message about what Bill 33 would mean for the education system.”
The approach: Both the academic and union boss described it as a classic “divide and conquer” move. “Isolate union leaders from union members — and try to speak directly to the members,” Savage said.
“They want to do everything they can to separate unions from the workers they represent — and what better way to try to do that than using legal instruments that bind the unions to not speaking,” Hahn explained.
That doesn’t mean dialogue shouldn’t happen, he said — but unions need to be able to share those conversations with their members.
“It’s not something any other government has done. It’s not something our union has encountered previously, save and except the pandemic. It’s a deeply dangerous practice.”
While CUPE sat this one out, other unions showed up. Does that weaken the message? “I think that it’s important for our movement to operate from the same set of principles,” Hahn, whose relationship with the Ford government has been strained, noted. “We’d all be better off if we were in the same boat, paddling in the same direction.”
What the opposition is saying: “It’s not appropriate,” said NDP MPP Chandra Pasma. “It didn’t happen before this government and it shouldn’t be happening now.”
A day’s notice doesn’t count as consultation, Pasma said, calling it “gasemanship.” “It’s nothing but a power game from a government that isn’t interested in working with education partners, whether it’s teachers, education workers or the school boards,” she explained.
What should the government do? “They should be consulting when they actually develop the legislation,” she said, “from the people who are actually on the ground delivering it every single day.” “And then, once you’ve tabled your legislation, a proper briefing on what’s in it and what it does.”
The government’s response? We reached out to Paul Calandra’s team for comment but didn’t hear back.
Thank you for reading POLICORNER. If you’re new to the Pink Palace: yes, it’s always hell-level hot. Got a tip, a gripe or a desk fan that’s saving your life? I’m all ears — and I’ll keep you anonymous. We’re back in your inbox on Friday.