Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 4, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 323

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy

P. Milobar

S. Bond

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Merrifield

B. Stewart

B. Banman

T. Shypitka

C. Oakes

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2023

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. Osborne: I call second reading on Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR

RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. K. Conroy: Hon. Speaker, I’m pleased to stand before you today to move Bill

5, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, for second

reading.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Bill 5 will provide collective bargaining rights to the valued

civil lawyers who work in the B.C. public service. These civil lawyers

play an important role, under the Attorney General Act, in supporting

the Attorney General to fulfil her unique obligations.

This government is moving forward with Bill 5 and supports their

right to join a union. This amendment creates a clear space for

government civil lawyers to exercise their collective bargaining rights

under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

For the past 50 years, the Public Service Labour Relations Act has

supported the reliable delivery of vital public services, while

respecting employees’ and unions’ collective bargaining rights. The act

has achieved this in two ways. First, by requiring all bargaining unit

employees in the public service to belong to one of three bargaining

units: the British Columbia Nurses Union, the Professional Employees

Association or the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. Second,

by providing the three bargaining units with the structural options

necessary to allow for the effective representation of all public

service occupational groups, regardless of how big or unique they

are.

Every province and territory, except Prince Edward Island, has

statutorily designated bargaining units in some form in the public

sector. Government is amending the Public Service Labour Relations Act

to recognize the civil lawyers’ freedom of association rights, under the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to join a union that will

collectively bargain on their behalf and bargain for their own unique

needs.

The amendments will maintain the integrity of the bargaining unit

model, under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and help ensure

that the vital public services British Columbians rely on are protected.

The public service’s three bargaining unit structure has stood the test

of time and has served government employees and the citizens of this

province remarkably well.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act has the unique ability to

balance the needs of the many with the needs of the few. These

amendments will support its ongoing effectiveness by granting a new

employee group collective bargaining rights within its

structure.

[1:05 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kamloops–​North

Thompson.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to let you know, I will be our

designated speaker on Bill 5.

Just a couple of preliminary comments in response to what the

minister’s opening comments were, as brief as they were.

It’s interesting. The government continues to talk about freedom

of association, but with Bill 5, it’s only freedom of association as

long as you’re associating with a bargaining unit that the government

deems appropriate for you. That’s not freedom of association. That’s

directed association, as far as I’m concerned. That’s really at the crux

of the problem with Bill 5.

Now, Bill 5 was introduced in this chamber…. I believe it was on

February 9. Here we are with, essentially, 4½ days to go in this

session, many weeks later worth of sittings. I believe we’re finishing

up our tenth week.

This was introduced in the first week. It was shelved when it was

first introduced by this government, because the lawyers that would be

impacted by this legislation, by this directed association, not freedom

of association, were in the middle of trying to work through issues with

the labour board on exactly what they would like to do as it relates to

organizing as a bargaining unit.

Now, it’s interesting. It’s a consistent pattern with this

government and this Premier, in particular. If he feels things aren’t

going his way…. They bring in a piece of legislation to try to put the

thumb on the scales, as it were, and to try to have things the way the

Premier, specifically, would like to see things move forward.

Bill 5 is just the latest example. In fact, in this legislative

session, we’ve had examples come forward. Just a week ago we had a bill

that dealt with the Arbutus project in Vancouver. I’ll touch on that in

a little bit. Essentially, that bill said that it doesn’t matter what

the courts say; this is how the government is going to do

things.

That’s what Bill 5, essentially, is doing as well. It’s putting

the thumb on the scales, by the Premier, and saying to the lawyers: “You

must join the PEA.”

Now, there are a few problems with that. The PEA itself actually

supports the lawyers’ right to have whichever bargaining unit they so

choose represent them. Here we have the lawyers, who want the right to

form a union, and the government is saying: “Well, you must have this

organization, the PEA, as your bargaining unit.” That bargaining unit is

saying: “Well, actually, the lawyers should be free to choose who they

want to be bargaining on their behalf. We don’t need to. We’re okay if

they don’t want us to do that.”

It’s important. It’s important, I think, that there is that

independence. Part of the mindset for the lawyers and the concern — and

the concern, frankly, I have — is…. It makes you wonder what was going

on within the Attorney General’s office for the five-plus years that our

now Premier was the Attorney General. One of the issues….

I quote the president of the BCGLA, Gareth Morley: “We want to

make sure lawyers in government have that degree of independence so that

they can tell the government something they won’t want to

hear.”

I think it’s fundamentally important, if the government is going

to be asking for in-house legal advice, essentially, on behalf of the

taxpayers of British Columbia, that they actually get proper advice, not

politicized spin on what the Premier wants to hear. Why I say it’s

shocking to hear that actually come out is….

If you look at the track record of our now Premier, when he was

the Attorney General…. His batting average isn’t very good in court. It

makes you wonder how many times they were hoping to advise and maybe

would have pushed back a little more forcefully on their advice had they

not been feeling intimidated to do that. It has led, actually, to them

trying to unionize and to have protections under a bargaining unit in

providing that advice without retribution.

[1:10 p.m.]

Now, this isn’t publicly shared advice, obviously. It’s

solicitor-client privilege. So we don’t have eyes on that, but

certainly, it has created fear within government lawyers about the

repercussions that are possible towards them if they give advice that

the Premier doesn’t want to hear.

Typically with lawyers — and I know many lawyers — at a certain

point, as long as you’re willing to pay the bill, they’ll give you the

advice you want to hear. They’ll always put a bit of a covenant on that,

saying: “Well, the odds aren’t good, but yeah, you might have a case

there,” because ultimately, the client is going to do what the client is

going to do. The lawyers will always make sure they give a good sense of

the odds of success or not.

When you have a Premier or an Attorney General potentially

compromising that advice, that’s a problem. All we have to do is look at

the failed prop rep referendum that this Premier was in charge of. It

had been described as a rigged game, a rigged system. It failed

miserably, despite all the odds being stacked by the then Attorney

General, now Premier, in their favour.

It does make one wonder what advice he was trying to get given by

the government lawyers as they were developing the framework for

something as critical as a public vote on changing our democratic voting

system. It gives one pause to consider.

It gives one pause to consider, when you consider the multiple

losses in court around the TMX project — a project that, this government

proudly declared, they were going to use every tool in their toolbox to

stop, although they would admit that they were somewhat limited in legal

ways to do that. The courts showed that to be true as well. What type of

advice were the lawyers trying to give the then Attorney General, now

Premier, but were quashed from doing so?

What type of worry did they have that it led to the need to

accelerate…. This has been a discussion going on for decades about

unionizing and having a collective agreement. What type of worries were

they feeling? What type of pressures were they feeling, worries about

the work they were doing in that type of environment that would lead the

government to accelerate, while they were at the labour board trying to

get a ruling, on their right to have their own bargaining unit, to bring

forward Bill 5?

Bill 5 has some other issues with it, with the lawyers as well,

not the least of which is that the lawyers went through the processes,

which have been recently changed by this government, on how groups can

unionize. They did a card check, under the rules as laid out by the new

legislation that this government brought in not that long

ago.

When the results did not turn out as the government wanted, Bill 5

appeared. Bill 5 appeared, and suddenly, trying to circumvent a labour

board ruling, the government says: “You’re free to have association with

whomever you choose, just as long as it’s with whom we tell you.” Again,

there’s a long history with this government, in their six short years of

this situation playing out.

[1:15 p.m.]

If you look at the so-called community benefits agreements —

which, we now see, are ripping off the taxpayers with bloated, excessive

costs for projects — those projects are now subject to making sure that

the workers belong to one of 19 handpicked, select unions from the

government. The problem with that isn’t about unionization or not

unionization. This is about freedom, of which union you belong to, to

apply your craft.

In a community benefit agreement, if you don’t belong to one of

those unions — even though there’s tons and tons of construction workers

out there that are unionized and that would love to work on projects —

they’re being told you’re not allowed to unless you quit your union and

join one of our 19 handpicked unions.

That’s a shame, because it doesn’t match the minister’s words of

freedom of association. Just like in Bill 5, where the government is

directing who the bargaining unit will be for the lawyers, they’ve done

the exact same thing with community benefits agreements.

We fully recognize, on this side, that unions have a place — that

the unionized workforces do great work in our communities, high-skilled,

lots of apprentice work. We just don’t believe that a contractor or

their worker should have to belong to one of a very specific 19 unions

to be able to help build a hospital or a highway. We believe that

company, and whichever union, should be able to have open access to

bidding on those projects and that work, and to be represented by

whichever collective bargaining group they want.

Bill 5 makes you wonder where else the government intends to go

with this type of legislation. When you’re telling lawyers that their

only option for a bargaining unit is a bargaining unit that says that

they don’t essentially want them to be part of their unit if they don’t

want to be, it makes you wonder who is advancing this agenda.

Why does the Premier so desperately want to advance this agenda?

When you look at the backdrop of community benefits agreements, it

starts to show a pattern. We look at the Arbutus decision in Bill 26,

that just recently came through here, to see if there is a pattern

connecting them with Bill 5. Now, Bill 5 was introduced and sitting on

the order paper since the beginning of February. Bill 26 comes in some

weeks, if not months, later. What does that say?

Although a community is actively engaged in a legal action at a

court in this province trying to get a ruling in a judgment about

process and procedures that did or didn’t happen properly in the city of

Vancouver at a public hearing process, that piece of legislation says:

“It doesn’t matter what the court rules. The court case can continue. It

doesn’t matter what the court rules. The zoning is deemed valid by this

government and this Premier, and the project can continue.”

That sounds an awful parallel to the concept of freedom of

association — as long as it’s with whom we tell you to associate for

bargaining. “You’re free to go to court,” according to this government,

“but we really don’t care what the judge has to say in the ruling,

because our piece of legislation is going to override the

court.”

It’s an interesting concept — considering this is a government

that continually says that when it comes to crime and safety, they can’t

direct courts, and they can’t tell judges what to do. They’re right

about that, unless it’s Bill 26 and the Arbutus project — a project that

the Environment Minister lobbied heavily for, to the Vancouver city

council as well.

[1:20 p.m.]

When things don’t go this government’s way, when they feel it’s

not going to go their way, they pre-empt. I guess those court losses

around Trans Mountain, or maybe the failed referendum on prop rep,

taught the Premier, former Attorney General, a thing or two about trying

to avoid future court losses and still do whatever the heck he

wants.

Bill 5 is directly connected to that same mindset. That should be

a concern for every British Columbian, because each time this happens,

it erodes people’s access to due process, especially through a judicial

review of things.

The fact that this was brought in while the lawyers were actively

engaged in the labour board, trying to get a ruling…. Then the

government turns around and says to the lawyers: “Well, we’ll pull the

bill as long as you negotiate with us.” That’s a pretty interesting

negotiating tactic when you want to talk about negotiating in good faith

when it comes to labour agreements. “Freedom of association, as long as

it’s with the bargaining unit we tell you that you can associate with.

And we want to have good-faith negotiations with you, but, by the way,

if they break down, we’ve got this bill that’s already been introduced

that we’ll bring down and pass.”

Well, here we are, after February 9, with four days to go in the

legislative calendar, and guess what this government has done. They’ve

brought the bill back for discussion. They’re flexing to say, “We really

don’t care about due process. We really don’t care that the lawyers are

worried that they don’t have the freedom to give actual advice to the

government in an unhindered way” — that the government may not want to

hear if it doesn’t align with their political ideology on a certain

topic or a certain direction. “We don’t want you to have that

protection.”

In fact, when the lawyers have recently threatened job action, the

government has warned them that since they don’t have a collective

bargaining agreement, they’ll be subject to suspensions, possible

firings, other job action against them — including if they refuse

overtime.

Imagine that. You’re a government lawyer who has now been told:

“If you’re not prepared to work weekends, regardless of a family event

that might be happening — even though it’s to give us advice we actually

don’t want to hear, so you’re going to have to rechange your briefing

note to us because we don’t actually like the way you’re headed with

that advice — you could be disciplined.” That’s what this government is

telling the government lawyers right now: “If you refuse overtime, you

can be disciplined.”

Can you imagine if somebody that worked in the food service

industry, in a non-unionized environment — as the lawyers are right now

because they’re considered exempt staff — refused overtime? Said to

their boss: “I just can’t. I can’t arrange child care. I can’t work an

extra shift.” And they were reprimanded and/or fired. Can you imagine

what an NDP government would be doing to that employer?

Just think about that — the outrage that would be happening from

the members of the NDP if that happened. I can understand why they would

be outraged, because it would be outrageous if that happened. But if

you’re a government lawyer, it’s okay for the government to threaten you

with that. Suddenly their moral outrage is gone, because Bill 5 will

make it all better. We’ll just force them into a bargaining unit they

don’t even want to belong to.

By the way, that card check they did…. Over 70 percent of their

members said they did not want to belong to the PEA. They want a

bargaining unit. They don’t want the PEA. And that’s the crux of all of

this.

[1:25 p.m.]

The problem the lawyers are having, the problem the opposition is

having and the problem many in this province are starting to realize is

there’s a building track record with this government of strong-arming

people with legislation if they’re not getting what they want —

specifically, if the Premier’s not getting what he wants.

We saw it in his leadership race. He wasn’t getting what he

wanted, so guess what. The candidate eventually got removed. There were

no other candidates. Boom. Done. “Now I’m the Premier.”

It’s one situation after another after another. We’ve sat on this

bill since February in this chamber. Talking with the lawyers as

recently as last evening, when we all started to realize this bill was

coming forward again, they shared some interesting information with me.

The only real development since February is that after many weeks of

talking, we proposed that the parties agree on a neutral expert to

listen to everyone and make recommendations on the proper bargaining

structure. It’s the only thing.

The government initially told us they’d get back to them in a

week. Didn’t hear anything from them until yesterday when they told them

that Bill 5 is back on the docket. That’s this government’s version of

negotiating in good faith with their in-house legal team.

Then they wonder why, perhaps, the lawyers might be a little bit

concerned that if they don’t have proper bargaining unit protection,

this government, this Premier might be very vindictive if they actually

have the temerity to give them up-front and honest legal opinions that

don’t match up with their political narrative as a

government.

It’s also interesting that the government waited until the last

few days of the session to bring this forward. A lot of these lawyers

actually helped with the drafting and vetting of legislation.

It’s interesting that after the government has finally got all of

their legislation brought forward that they wanted for this session,

after dragging along the lawyers with good-faith negotiations so that

job action wouldn’t happen, even under the threat of retribution…. It’s

interesting that as that timeline hits, magically Bill 5 is back in

front of us.

Again, a government who threatens with Bill 5, while trying to

negotiate supposedly in good faith, reintroduces Bill 5 back to this

chamber for debate once all of the other work of those lawyers would

have been dealing with over the last ten weeks for this House to work

on.

Seems like a pretty convenient timeline, once again, for this

Premier to have been able to manufacture and make sure that what he

wants to see happen, happens and, if he needs a piece of legislation, to

make it so, regardless of what people want in terms of access to free

and open negotiations and protections. That doesn’t matter.

If you look at putting the thumb on the scale of things right now

and when the government is picking and choosing when to do that…. They

are fully engaged with Bill 5 to disrupt a labour board ruling and

discussion and hearing that’s ongoing, and a decision. They’re willing

to not negotiate in good faith, in my opinion, when it comes to making

sure that the lawyers know ahead of time that if you take job action,

there will be punitive action taken against you, ironically because

you’re not part of a bargaining unit.

Yet at the same time, after repeated calls in the Abbotsford area

for the government to try to intervene with the transit strike that is

impacting tens of thousands of people on a daily basis for months now,

this Premier and government says: “Oh, no, we don’t want to interfere.

We don’t want to interfere. You’ve got to let bargaining happen. You’ve

got to let bargaining play out. There’s no place for us to be in there.

You have to let the two sides work it out.”

[1:30 p.m.]

Yet when the government is one of those sides, when this Premier

is feeling inconvenienced…. And this isn’t inconveniencing the Premier

to get to work. It’s not inconveniencing him trying to get to his

university classes or any activities that he might want to do, like the

Abbotsford transit strike is doing to tens of thousands of people

daily.

No, this is inconveniencing the Premier because he might get told

some hard legal advice that he doesn’t agree with because it doesn’t

match his political narrative. So his solution to that is to put the

thumb back on the scale and bring forward legislation.

I know the government is going to say that we’re overblowing this,

that we’re conflating things, that they’re not the same. But they are

the same. It’s a repeated pattern of this Premier and this government

only wanting to interject themselves into things when it’s an

inconvenience to the Premier. The rest of the population — it doesn’t

really seem to matter if they’re inconvenienced on things. This

government won’t inject themselves into that, based on their ideological

beliefs. But if it’s an inconvenience to the Premier, they will inject

themselves in it.

If it’s inconvenient to the Premier that a neighbourhood in

Vancouver wants the simple act of the right, which every British

Columbian should have, to take a dispute to a court and get a court

ruling on it, the Premier is going to inject himself into that with a

piece of legislation that says the courts no longer matter. But if

neighbourhoods want what is being dubbed catch-and-release and

soft-on-crime policies by this Premier dealt with in a different way, we

can’t interfere with the court system because that would interfere with

this Premier’s political narrative that he wants to stitch.

If the lawyers want to be part of a bargaining unit, this

government says: “You’re welcome to do that. Freedom of association.” We

heard the minister say that in her opening comments. A caveat to that is

that Bill 5 says: “Well, freedom of association as long as it’s with the

bargaining unit we tell you, you have to belong to.” The bargaining unit

your own members say — by government rules set out in law that they

followed — they don’t want to belong to. The bargaining unit that has

said: “If they don’t want to belong to us, we’re fine with that. They

should be allowed to go find their own bargaining unit.”

In fact, this piece of legislation…. Again, the government can try

to make it sound like we are being over the top on our concerns around

this and the implications of this bill. That’s not what the broader

labour movement seems to think about this bill. The labour movement in

B.C. actually agrees with us on this. They were telling the government

to shelve Bill 5; that it’s not right, what Bill 5 is standing for; that

the lawyers should have the ability to go find their own bargaining

unit, create their own one if they like.

So even the labour movement in this province, which, let’s face

it, is much tighter with the NDP than they are with this side of the

House — that’s no grand secret — has been telling the members of

government that Bill 5 is not acceptable.

In fact, Bill 5 sat on the order paper for so long — I don’t know

if it was meant as a courtesy or it just had been forgotten — we were

offered a briefing on Bill 5 again today. Now, that happened back in

February when it was first introduced, thankfully. The minister’s office

is usually very good about getting us briefings. But it had been sitting

so long that they either felt we hadn’t had one or it had been so long

that maybe we needed a refresher on what this bill stands

for.

[1:35 p.m.]

That’s how long it has been dangling over the process, the

supposed good-faith negotiations that this province has been having with

the lawyers, a process which has had silence over the last several weeks

from this government on a very simple request by the lawyers on having a

neutral expert weigh in. Not binding arbitration — a neutral expert.

That was too threatening for the Premier.

Instead of just agreeing to have a neutral expert…. Heck, at least

go through the motions if you’re the government. At least go through and

try to pretend you’re actually having some good-faith negotiations. But

that’s not what’s happening.

Bill 5 has been used as a hammer this whole time. That’s happened

with CBAs. That’s happened with the court cases. It is running across

government. It makes one wonder, when you start hearing the push-back

around bylaws, around municipalities wanting to deal with things in

their boundaries around parks and playgrounds and open hard use drugs.

The government doesn’t want to go there. It makes you wonder what the

push-back from this government and this Premier will be if that’s being

done in a way that the Premier deems to be not acceptable for his

political narrative.

We saw it in Penticton when the Premier, who was the Attorney

General at the time, pushed back against the Penticton council because

they didn’t want to extend a shelter. The response was: “Well, I’ve got

1,000 tents and sleeping bags I can shift to Penticton.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’d remind you that we’re speaking to Bill 5.

P. Milobar: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And that’s the problem. That’s the backdrop that the lawyers are

dealing with. Remember, these are the same lawyers that would have been

advising the Premier on things like shipping 1,000 tents and sleeping

bags to Penticton, when they were talking about using paramountcy to

tell the city of Penticton: “It didn’t matter what you wanted to do or

not. The province is coming in and doing what they want.”

The Premier would have been getting legal advice. Bill 5 takes

away the ability for the lawyers, in their own words, to make sure

lawyers and government have the degree of independence that we can tell

government something they won’t want to hear.

Again, solicitor-client privilege. Perhaps the Premier wasn’t very

thrilled with the advice he got about threatening to ship 1,000 tents

and sleeping bags to Penticton. So you can see why the lawyers are

worried about Bill 5.

Now, Bill 5 is a pretty light document. It’s one page, one

section. Well, two sections if you count the commencement date. That’s

one section. But it does not create the freedom of association that the

Finance Minister has indicated. And the interesting thing is, as history

has shown with this Premier’s track record in court, when he tries to

ram things through to get his own political way, it usually blows up in

court on him.

The lawyers have already indicated that they’re likely going to

challenge Bill 5 in court. It will be interesting to see, and drag the

process out even further and sour the negotiations even more, how the

courts will respond based on a minister saying freedom of association

when we’re dealing with the bill that very clearly does the exact

opposite.

[1:40 p.m.]

That’s why you’re likely going to see Bill 26 still challenged.

Not only will the bylaw process, the public hearing process, in

Vancouver continue with a court case; you’re likely going to see Bill 26

challenged in court too. It essentially says, by this Premier, that you

have no recourse to go to the courts in British Columbia. It’s going to

be what the Premier decrees is the way forward.

If you’re a government lawyer, you have no way forward with Bill 5

unless, as decreed by the Premier, you join the PEA. Then you’re free to

negotiate all you want. Then you’re free to have association all you

want, as long as it’s with the PEA.

Now, just for those at home, it makes it very clear the way this

bill is worded…. The minister alluded to it, as well, in her opening

comments, accurately alluded to it. You have to either be a member of

the BCNU — which is the nurses’ union, so there’s no way that fits for

lawyers, obviously…. The BCGEU — that doesn’t seem to fit either. So at

first you go: “Oh, the PEA, the Professional Employees Association. That

makes sense.” It’s professionals, and it covers off things like

engineers and others within the public service that have a bit more

specialized area. It has some flexibilities.

At first blush, you would think that government is being fairly

reasonable with Bill 5. They’re letting the lawyers get what they’ve

been asking for, for some time now, admittedly, even while we were in

government: the ability to have a collective bargaining group. But it’s

a half-measure. It’s not allowing them to pick whatever collective

bargaining group.

It would probably be an easier pill to swallow for the lawyers if

the government just flat-out said: “We’re not changing anything. You’re

not part of and you can’t be part of a collective agreement.” At least,

that’s very certain. “Your job classification is such that you cannot be

part…. You’re going to be considered exempt staff.” They wouldn’t like

it, and they haven’t liked it for decades, but they would at least

understand where they stand.

Instead, with Bill 5, it’s waving a carrot in front of them and

saying: “Yeah. You can finally have a collective agreement, but only if

you do it the way we tell you to do it.” To sweeten the pot: “If you

have any job action, we’re going to be punitive on you. And oh, by the

way, we’re going to have open and fair and transparent, good-faith

negotiations, but we’re going to keep this bill dangling over your head.

Thank you for your suggestion of having a neutral expert to listen to

both sides. We’ll now ghost you for the next several weeks, and our

response will be to re-engage Bill 5 on the floor of this

chamber.”

That’s the process that we’re at. As much as the minister wants to

mutter at what I am saying, she knows this to all be true. She knows

that it was being billed, when it was first introduced, as this great

step forward. And she ought to have known — I’m sure the Premier knew

because he was the Attorney General for 5½ years — that this was not

what the lawyers were looking for. But it was billed publicly as it

was.

In fact, when we first saw it, we thought that lawyers might be

happy with this. Then we saw a comment or two. A few of us reached out,

as well, and lo and behold, no, the lawyers weren’t overly thrilled with

Bill 5. I wonder if any of them actually had to write it on behalf of

the government. I guess we can get into that in committee

stage.

There’s just this overwhelming track record of evidence of

overriding. Bill 5 is the most recent example — not chronologically from

when it gets introduced in this chamber; it was introduced in the first

week we were back — the latest example of what we have in front of us to

deal with. We saw the Premier run roughshod over issues with ICBC. We’ve

seen issues within B.C. Housing, don’t want to be confronted, and now we

see issues in Bill 5.

[1:45 p.m.]

The words simply are not matching the actions. The words of “free

association” aren’t matching what Bill 5 will action. Bill 5 will action

a very clear decision that the lawyers will be left with. You can either

have a bargaining unit that will be the PEA, or you will be exempt

staff. If you are exempt staff and have a family issue — can’t get

babysitting and we need you to work overtime — we have the right to

discipline you. Whether or not it’s true job action or not, we reserve

that right. It was made very clear recently by government that that’s a

hammer they hold if the lawyers choose to engage in any type of job

action when they do not have a bargaining unit protecting

them.

Again, I would love to hear what the Labour Minister would have to

say if this side of the House had brought forward a private member’s

bill that is structured like Bill 5. Because you know what big labour

says about Bill 5. Big labour says it’s not a good thing. Big labour has

been saying the province needs to withdraw this and actually start again

with the lawyers.

So it would be truly interesting to see and hear…. Of course, the

government would have to call a private member’s bill for debate at some

point. So that’s never going to happen. I guess we never will actually

hear what they have to say.

But the characterization…. The most concerning part about this

whole bill is the way the government has been characterizing this bill

all the way through, from its introduction to today. It was introduced

as almost a housekeeping-type bill. Minor amendments will enable

collective agreements for the lawyers. Then you scratch the surface, and

you find out there’s a lot more to Bill 5 and the consequences of Bill 5

moving forward.

Then you put Bill 5 up against the backdrop of what’s happened

with community benefit agreements and how that process unfolded and was

ramrodded through — not to the betterment of the taxpayers, because

we’re paying way more for projects than we ever have, not for the

betterment of unionized workers, because way more of them are excluded

from projects than are included in projects.

With Bill 5, the concerns are endless. The track record of this

government is mounting — of this Premier. And it’s really a shame. It’s

really a shame that — as we saw with Bill 36, where closure was enacted

with two-thirds of the bill not even debated — this bill will likely see

the same fate. It gets brought in at the last possible minute. I fully

anticipate evasive non-answers, long waits in between questions when we

get to committee stage.

It does a disservice to the 350 or so government lawyers that

simply wanted to be treated with a bit of respect from their employer.

I’m sure they never envisioned that an NDP government would be the ones

bringing down the hammer on them like this.

Mutual respect in the workplace you would think would be an

important part of any bargaining process. But when the power imbalance….

The power imbalance is great in this case, given that the Premier was

the Attorney General, the top law officer in this province for 5½ years,

overseeing these lawyers — massive power imbalance already.

Now the Premier is saying: “Well, we need Bill 5. We need Bill 5

to actually have even more power imbalance happening in negotiations.

But don’t worry, public; we’ll call it good-faith negotiations. We won’t

actually talk with the lawyers for weeks on end. We’ll call them

good-faith negotiations.”

[1:50 p.m.]

“We won’t even tell the lawyers we don’t agree with their latest

suggestion of a neutral expert weighing in. Our response will be, weeks

later, to say that we’re going to advance debate on Bill 5 instead, as

the House shuts down, winds down its business.”

There are a couple of motions left for us to debate next week.

There are one or two sets of estimates left. That’s when this gets

brought in. In fact, the government expectation was that we’d only have

one or two speakers to this bill, that it would move through.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: No, it’s actually been the government’s expectation, just to be

clear to the Finance Minister, who’s seeming to think that she was

assured we’d only have one or two speakers. We’ve never confirmed with

the government we’d only have two speakers. In fact, the government

seemed a little surprised yesterday that we might actually have a few

speakers. So she may want to chat with her House Leader about the

process around Bill 5.

But as we’ve seen time and again with this government and with

this Premier, the last-minute introduction of legislation that they try

to slough off as nothing usually has pretty potential, significant

ramifications moving forward.

If they’re willing to treat their own internal legal advisors this

way, just imagine what it must be like to be a non-profit who might want

to tell the government they don’t agree with what’s happening or a

non-profit trying to give their honest opinion of a policy or a way

forward that the government is talking about.

If the lawyers, the government lawyers, are nervous about doing

that for fear of retribution from this government and the response from

the government is to introduce Bill 5, imagine how little honest

feedback this government’s probably getting from non-profits and other

people that rely on government funds to operate in this province. Just

imagine the tone that sets across a wide range of areas that this

Premier is trying to dabble his fingers into.

The government can laugh that off, and the government can shrug it

off and say that we’re just fearmongering, and that’s not really

happening. Well, I can tell you: I hear from organizations that have

felt that pressure. Now we actually have verification through the

lawyers that it does happen, because it’s happening on something as

critical as legal advice to this government.

One only has to look at E-Nationalize to see how the Premier was

trying to force that case to be brought forward again with the way he

reworded it to ask the special adviser to look at that, who even still

came back and said: “There’s no more court case here for us to

pursue.”

The track record’s long with this Premier doing things like we see

in Bill 5. It’s disappointing to see. It’s disappointing to see, yet

again, this government and this Premier decide to be so heavy-handed

with a piece of legislation.

Again, the lawyers have been asking for this for decades. The rush

on this government’s part to bring in a piece of legislation to bring

down a hammer on the lawyers, instead of continuing to just have those

discussions, really defies logic. But I’ll tell you: it does make you

wonder, when you see the mounting court losses under this Premier’s

watch as both Attorney General and Premier, what type of legal advice

are we just ignoring in the first place?

The fact that the government is so anxious to bring down Bill 5

and circumvent a labour board, circumvent fair, open and proper

negotiations…. As I referenced, literally while we were watching them

take a total hands-off approach to a transit strike that stretched on….

Well, Sea to Sky transit was the longest in B.C. history, just recently.

Government didn’t want to interfere there either.

[1:55 p.m.]

But when it’s their own direct legal advice, the Premier comes in

with Bill 5 to put the thumb on the scale and say: “I’m going to

interfere. This is inconveniencing me. This is inconveniencing my

political narrative I’m trying to set through the courts and through

other areas.”

We need Bill 5 to just quash that. We need Bill 5 to make sure

that the lawyers are brought to heel one way or another.

They’re either going to organize under Bill 5 rules and be part of

the PEA, which they don’t want to belong to, or they’re going to stay

exempt staff, and we can continue to make sure that they work in an

ever-building toxic work environment whose employer has no problem

suggesting retribution for refusing overtime, for working your strict

hours that you’re actually paid to work.

Those are the two choices the government lawyers are going to be

faced with once Bill 5 passes. The option for free association is gone

once Bill 5 passes. Bill 5 is going to fundamentally take that

away.

The interesting thing is when you have a group of lawyers saying

that they’re prepared to challenge Bill 5 in court and they’re the same

ones that have watched this Premier lose court case after court case

after court case, they might actually know what they’re talking

about.

They’ve had a front row seat to this Premier/Attorney General

losing in court time and again, and the only conclusion you can draw is

that they haven’t been willing to receive or listen to and follow the

actual direction they’re getting from the government lawyers that Bill 5

is going to directly impact.

That’s the only conclusion you can render. Employees don’t put in

writing, in the middle of negotiations, that they’re worried about

providing honest feedback, honest opinions, especially when they’re

professionals guided by professional standards, to their employer for

fear of retribution if it doesn’t align with the views of the employer,

especially when it’s confidential advice.

They’re not giving the Premier legal advice at a podium. They’re

giving the Premier and this government legal advice that’s subject to

confidentiality. Even in that setting, they don’t feel they have the

ability to give the straight goods of a legal opinion.

Yeah, I think it does have significant bearing, Bill 5, on how

community groups and non-profits and business organizations, you name

it, will view how they’re going to be treated by this Premier and this

government moving forward, the chilling effect it will have.

Now, that might be great for the government, because they can live

in a bubble, just like they do in question period, when the only people

in the province clapping for them are in this chamber, with their

non-answers. The outside world is shaking their heads, saying they

didn’t even come close to answering that.

That might work for them, that their ministers and this Premier

will keep going into all these rooms and being told what they want to

hear about how wonderful and great they are. That doesn’t make it

reality, though.

Telling the lawyers, as you introduced Bill 5 for debate, that

it’s about respecting the right of free association but not pointing out

that Bill 5 is anything but that, because it actually tells you that you

have to be part of group PEA, just backs up that whole narrative. And

it’s a problem.

As I say, we’ve seen this time and again. We’ve seen this Premier

use this tactic, as we’re seeing in Bill 5, over and over and over

again. We saw it in his leadership race. We saw it in Bill 26 recently.

We saw it with ICBC. We saw it with the transit strike, where they took

total hands off.

[2:00 p.m.]

We’re seeing it across the board, and Bill 5 is just the latest

example. Shockingly enough, I probably would’ve had more respect for the

timing of Bill 5 coming forward if it had happened when they first

introduced it.

It’s going to pass. I say this all the time. News flash to the

government. They outvote us two to one. That’s not a great secret. It’s

going to pass. Why didn’t they bring it forward right then? Oh well,

labour rose up against it.

Remember when there was that slight delay in us getting any

legislation brought forward, and everyone just assumed it was the new

House leader that didn’t quite know…? I don’t know. Maybe it was just

that the House leader was still learning the ropes. Could be. It is a

steep learning curve. I’ll give him that. But it could’ve also been that

there was a slight slowdown of legislation coming forward. We’ll never

really know. It could’ve just been that the ministers weren’t signing

off on the legislation they were supposed to have ready to go. We’ll

never know.

Bill 5 was introduced on February 9. Is the government worried

that passing it would mean that there would be that slowdown of

legislation moving forward for the rest of this session? Possibly.

Timing would indicate so. They now only want to deal with it with a few

days left in the session.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Rest assured, and I’ve assured the lawyers, that we’re going to do

what we can do to try to shine a light on this as opposition. We’re

going to do our jobs. We’re going to hold the government accountable.

We’re going to hold this Premier accountable for his actions that have

led to Bill 5 being debated here today instead of good-faith

negotiations continuing on with the lawyers. That’s what the taxpayers

are paying us to do as opposition: be here, hold the government to

account and stand up for those that don’t get to stand on this floor and

speak. So we’re going to do that.

The government has backed down once. Frankly, we’re hoping the

government backs down again. They’ve pulled this bill for debate once

before in this session. They can do it again.

They just introduced exposure bills. Now, for those at home, they

might not know what those are. The lawyers would know what those are. An

exposure bill is just a bill that won’t be debated in this session, but

it’s ready to go for the fall.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. Sorry, I see another member.

A. Singh: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Singh: In the House, I’d like you all to welcome the grade 10 students, with

Ms. Matheos, from McRoberts high school, which is in my riding. They’re

about to leave and meet me outside. I just wanted to say welcome to them.

Welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome.

A. Olsen: I’ll take this opportunity to seek leave for an

introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Olsen: I’d like to introduce a special guest from the B.C. Government Lawyers

Association. In the gallery is Margo Foster, secretary, doing an excellent

job on behalf of British Columbia. Would the members here please make them

feel welcome?

Debate Continued

P. Milobar: As I was saying, I just wanted to touch on, briefly, the

timeline of Bill 5 here, as I wrap up my comments. We could have the

government pull this bill again. It’s totally within their right to

do that, and it would be the right thing to do. We’re back in the

fall, assuming the Premier doesn’t call a snap election, and he

keeps saying he’s not. Maybe, for once, we’ll take him at his word

on that.

But exposure bills have been presented already in this

session. An exposure bill is simply a piece of legislation the

government tends to advance. There’s not enough time to debate it

right now. It provides for longer scrutiny by the public, by the

critics and by affected agencies and stakeholder groups. Then it

comes back in the fall, and the government has something to work on

right as we start the session up. We’d start right back into debate

where we left off.

That could happen with this bill. It already has, since

February 9. The fact is that this has been going on for decades with

the lawyers, back and forth, as to: should they be exempt or not? At

least the government’s relented and said that, no, they don’t have

to be exempt if they don’t want to. They can have a collective

agreement, a collective bargaining unit.

[2:05 p.m.]

They could pull Bill 5 until the fall and actually have

meaningful, real engagement with the lawyers over the summer. Then

they can always pass it if need be. That’s as basic as it gets,

quite frankly. But this Premier doesn’t seem to be willing to do

that type of thing. This Premier seems to want to ram things

through, bring in legislation to override things and proper due

process to suit whatever timeline he deems is important to him and

him alone.

This government can pull this bill. They have already pulled

this bill until now. I would ask him to seriously consider it

between now and when we get to committee stage, so we don’t leave

second reading on this bill, and actually, meaningfully engage with

the lawyers, not ignore them like they have been doing over the last

several weeks.

This isn’t high school. You don’t have to ghost them just

because you didn’t like something they said at gym the day before.

Just engage and actually negotiate in good faith. Do the exact same

thing with the lawyers, as the employer, that you’re expecting the

transit company to do with their transit employees in

Abbotsford.

Let the process play out. I’m not seeing any legislation here

demanding that the transit workers get back to work or that they

have to have a settlement. So just let the labour process play out

the way it’s supposed to play out and let the labour board do their

work, just like we should be letting the courts do their work in the

case of Vancouver.

There are these systems in place that have been developed over

a lot of years to safeguard and provide rights to British

Columbians. We don’t need to trample on them, one small piece of

legislation after another, just to fit this Premier’s agenda. It’s

not appropriate. It’s not right.

Bill 5 is a heavy hand that is not needed at this particular

time. What is needed is real, true, meaningful, good faith

negotiations with the lawyers. Let this sit on a shelf, like it has

been since February 9 anyway. It would be ultimate if you pulled it

completely, so it wasn’t hanging over their heads. But that’s…. I

was going to say it’s left the bus station, but certainly not in

Abbotsford.

That would be the simple thing to do. That would be the right

thing to do. That’s what a good employer would do. They would work

with their exempt staff to find a way forward without threats and

literal legislation to fit a Premier’s personal agenda. The power

imbalance in this situation is massive, and Bill 5 makes it even

worse.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to

hearing other people’s comments.

S. Bond: Well, it’s back. Here we are with four days left in the session,

and the government has decided to bring Bill 5 back to the Legislature.

I think the concern that we have is the growing pattern of this

government that Bill 5 represents.

It’s certainly not the only time we’ve seen that. In fact, my

colleague — and I appreciate the comments that he made today — has

pointed out a list of situations similar to that with Bill 5 where the

government has decided that, regardless of what anybody has to say about

it, we are just going to march it through the Legislature.

People might be wondering why there is such concern. One of the

things that I’ve learned in my time as a legislator is that the length

of the bill doesn’t really indicate, necessarily, the implications. This

is a short bill. In fact, there is one page with an explanatory note,

and, as my colleague pointed out, there is one section, and then there

is the commencement section. But what this does is

significant.

[2:10 p.m.]

This government has heard concerns not just from the B.C.

government lawyers, but from a number of labour organizations, not just

in British Columbia, but from across the country, in fact. I think it’s

really interesting that we have the Minister of Finance being sent in to

defend this bill. I look forward to hearing comments from the Minister

of Labour, who has been a champion of worker rights for most of his

life. I look forward to the Minister of Labour defending this action

and, frankly, he should. So should other members in the chamber

today.

Let’s talk about what is happening here today. The government is

going to use their majority to unilaterally move ahead with this

legislation. If it was the first time, that would be one thing, but over

and over again, we see this government behave this way. Talk, more talk,

create legislation, ignore the talk, ignore the advice, ignore the

concerns, and then ram it through. Why? Because they can. That is simply

unacceptable.

In the case of Bill 5, many British Columbians may not be aware,

because they’re just busy getting through every day, trying to figure

out how they’re going to feed their family or get their child a child

care space. But this bill relates to the ongoing situation with the B.C.

Government Lawyers Association and their right — not their “maybe I’d

like to do this” or “maybe we should,” their right — to choose what

union they belong to. This government has decided — this government, of

all governments, has decided — they are going to remove that

right.

The Finance Minister tried to give an explanation the other day

which simply didn’t line up with what the bill was doing. It wasn’t

accurate.

There are two issues for discussion here. One is the content and

the impacts of the bill, and we’ll certainly talk about that. My

colleague has done a great job of walking through the bill. But let’s

talk about the process, because that’s my concern.

We have four sitting days left and, to our surprise, we find out

that there’s going to be a debate on Bill 5. Guess who else was

surprised. Well, that would be the government lawyers.

Think about it. Gareth Morley, president of the British Columbia

Government Lawyers Association, said he was informed late Tuesday that

the NDP planned to bring forward the bill for second reading. How on

earth is that a way to have constructive, thoughtful conversation about

an issue that has been ongoing for many years? Suddenly, this government

has decided that: “Nope, we’re bringing it back to the Legislature.

We’re going to ram it through” — despite all of the concerns that they

have heard, and they are not insignificant concerns.

Here’s what the British Columbia Government Lawyers Association….

One would assume that they have a sense of what might be constitutional

or not. Here’s a quote from them: “We’re convinced the bill is

unconstitutional, and once it’s in force, we’re going to take legal

action in the courts. We’re certainly open to continuing discussion, and

I’d be willing to talk to the Minister of Finance or the Premier, and

they said no to that.”

So here we are, Thursday afternoon, debating a bill where there

are significant concerns. People have expressed their concerns. They’ve

even offered to sit down with the Finance Minister or the Premier and

say: “Let’s sort this out.” What was the answer? No. One has to ask

themselves why.

The most difficult thing…. I thought it was really interesting

when B.C. government lawyers summed up the legislation and the NDP’s

approach by saying this: “This would be appalling for any government. It

is galling from one that claims to respect workers’ rights.”

[2:15 p.m.]

Not my words, The words of lawyers who, in this province, believe

that there is a government who constantly talks about the importance of

worker rights. Yet on a Thursday afternoon — surprise — we’re bringing

back Bill 5, and we’re going to ram it through.

As we’ve said earlier, not the first time we’ve seen that happen.

We certainly saw that happen with Bill 36 — similar to Bill 5, except

the difference was the fact that Bill 36 had over 600 clauses. In the

same way that Bill 5 is being treated, Bill 36 was brought to the

Legislature with the intent of passing it no matter what.

The “no matter what” in that case was: “It doesn’t matter if we

get to discuss all 600 clauses. Oh, no. Let’s just ram it through.” No

matter how this government tries to twist its story about that, that is

precisely what happened. That bill, like Bill 5, was brought to the

Legislature, and there was not an opportunity for fulsome

debate.

We recognize the concerns that B.C. government lawyers are

expressing. But we’re concerned also about the process. This government

has the opportunity to do things in a collaborative constructive way,

and instead it chooses to ask for advice, quietly pulls the bill out of

the Legislature and then unceremoniously drops it back in after saying:

“Nope, we don’t want to talk about that anymore. We’re just going to ram

this through.”

Is it significant? Yes, actually, it is. We have heard — and the

government has heard — loud and clear that there are concerns from many

organizations. But let’s just talk about whether or not this legislation

is just about forcing members to join a union that none of the lawyers

had ever voted to join.

Let me provide the Finance Minister with another quote that talks

about the process. “This is also about a government that has decided to

change the rules of the game and impose legislation that denies a group

of government employees their chance to have their case heard and

decided upon by the Labour Relations Board. It’s something that has

never been done in Canada.”

Never been done in Canada. We have an NDP government in British

Columbia that, in fact, absolutely stands up and touts their record

supporting workers’ rights, while they’re leading the country again….

Again, another first. We look at some of the other firsts this

government has managed to rack up: highest rents in the country, you

name it.

Here we have a situation where a government that is expected to,

and one would assume would, stand up for worker rights…. Instead they

are changing the rules of the game and imposing legislation that denies

a group of government employees their chance to have their case heard.

In their words: “It’s something that has never been done in Canada.”

Let’s see what a few other organizations had to say.

Well, the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel actually wrote a

letter to the current Attorney General. That was in February, no less.

Here we are; we’re in May. These concerns were raised specifically with

the Attorney General in February. Again, we’re talking about the

Canadian Association of Crown Counsel. Let me quote from their letter.

“We are of the view that Bill 5 is both unconstitutional” — oh, where

have we heard that before? — “and draconian.”

Now, members can react to the fact that the word “draconian” is

being used, but it isn’t my word. It’s the word of the Canadian

Association of Crown Counsel. This is why, they go on to say: “First, it

imposes a bargaining agent upon employees that is not of their

choosing.”

As I recall, when we think about the community benefits agreements

— agreements that were mandated by this government — there was a similar

process. In fact, the government chose specified unions that workers

needed to join so they could work on infrastructure projects in British

Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

Bill 5 continues the pattern. Apparently, government knows best,

despite the fact that the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel calls

this bill “unconstitutional and draconian” because “it imposes a

bargaining agent upon employees that is not of their

choosing.”

Here’s another, and this is unprecedented, in the same letter:

“Secondly, it circumvents the certification process that was ongoing

before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.” It circumvents a

process that this government purports to support. But when it’s

convenient and when the government wants to get it checked off their

to-do list before the session ends, we end up with the bill back in

front of the Legislature, despite significant concerns being expressed

not just by our B.C. Government Lawyers Association but many other

labour organizations, all falling on deaf ears.

I can hardly wait to see which members of government are going to

get up and defend this bill because I’m thinking it’s probably slim to

none.

The letter goes on to say this. Honestly, I found this actually

hard to read as I was reading the letter: “We are advised that part of

government’s rationale for opposing government civil lawyers’ right to

choose their own bargaining agent is that there is purportedly ‘nothing

unique about the role performed by counsel for the legal services branch

or the obligations imposed on them’ and that ‘the job of lawyers in LSB

is to take instructions from government as opposed to Crown prosecutors,

who are to be aloof from instructions of government.’”

What does the letter say? “This is a false premise. Government

civil lawyers are the guardians of the rule of law in western

democracies. Their work is crucial to ensuring that governments

implement policies and enact legislation which is in keeping with the

rule of law.” I would suggest that that is a fairly substantive

argument. And that is why the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel

calls this bill unconstitutional and draconian. But then, of course,

this government would know something about losing cases because the

current Premier, former Attorney General, had a streak of

losses.

Here we stand with the people who work extraordinarily hard to

provide advice to government and who are threatening job action. And a

vast majority, a large majority of their members, agree with taking job

action.

The letter goes on to say — by the way, it was copied to the

Premier, the Finance Minister, the Minister of Labour, leader of the

Green Party and others: “A majority of all associations of government

civil lawyers and Crown prosecutors in Canada presently enjoy bargaining

rights. The few that do not are well on their way to securing those

rights, as the Charter demands. Of those associations that presently

bargain collectively, all of them” — in the letter, I should point out

that the word “all” is underlined, capitalized and printed in bold —

“are allowed to bargain under the banner of an agent of their choosing.

The B.C. government’s civil lawyers deserve nothing less. We strongly

urge you to reconsider your course of action in this matter.”

We add our voices, as my colleague previous to me did, to the

government to ask them to reconsider this course of action. There is

plenty of time to have constructive and meaningful discussion about this

issue. But instead, a surprise drop of the bill on the floor of the

Legislature.

It’s not just the Canadian Crown counsel organization. No, indeed.

It is typically people that are significant allies of the government

that are also raising concerns. I can imagine how it must have felt for

the government to receive a statement from the B.C. Federation of

Labour.

[2:25 p.m.]

Here’s what that statement said: “This month, the Labour Relations

Board was to hear the BCGLA application under the Labour Relations Code

for recognition for collective bargaining purposes. However, on February

9, the B.C. government introduced Bill 5” — the bill that’s back in

front of us today — “to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

This legislation will circumvent the LRB and assign these workers to an

existing union.”

Here is the kicker. “The B.C. Federation of Labour is disappointed

that the government has chosen this path instead of letting the Labour

Relations Board complete its work. It is important to protect the rights

of working people to join or form a union of their choosing.” Instead,

the B.C. government has chosen to actually call the bill back, force

legislation through the House, before letting the Labour Relations Board

do its work.

Bill 5, introduced by this government, essentially negates an

ongoing Labour Relations Board hearing in which the LRB was to rule on

whether the BCGLA can form a union to represent its members who work for

the government. It is shocking to think that that has never been done in

Canada before. Members don’t seem to understand the hypocrisy that this

represents from a government who constantly reminds us and British

Columbians that their mandate is to protect worker rights — apparently

except in the case of B.C. government lawyers.

It is time for this government to rethink this process. As my

colleague prior to me articulated, it’s not the only time. There is a

complete lack of recognition by this government about the process that

they continue to engage in: listen, talk, ignore, ram through the

legislation. It happened in Bill 36. Believe you me, I know, because I

was on my feet for the first 232 clauses of that bill. But the

government decided, oh, that was enough time. Session was ending. We’re

just going to close debate and ram through the bill. I can assure you

that members on that side of the House heard about that and continue to

hear about that. Yet here we are again. We’re back at it.

You know, it was interesting to read in some of the articles about

what’s taking place here, people asking themselves the question. It is

unclear to many as to “why the NDP is picking this fight” and taking it

to significant “extremes, rather than…letting civil lawyers organize

into whatever union they want.”

There certainly have not been specific answers about that, but

there’s been lots of speculation. The Finance Minister has attempted to

answer the question, which no one found credible. Let’s quote the

Finance Minister. Discussions are underway, and “we believe that things

will work out.” Well, apparently, they didn’t work out, but somebody

forgot to tell the B.C. Government Lawyers Association, even after they

said: “We’ll come and sit down and talk to you.” They offered to talk to

the Premier, to the Finance Minister and probably anyone on that side of

the House that would actually listen to them.

It is astounding to me. This is the first time this has happened

in Canada, and we have silence on the other side of the Legislature. No

one prepared to jump up and defend this. Well I can tell you, being a

long-time legislator, I don’t think I can remember when I’ve seen B.C.

government lawyers having to protest on the front lawn to get

attention.

[2:30 p.m.]

Here’s something else. I think that the government thought this

was just going to slip on through. But what happened? Labour

organizations are rallying, even organizations that are considered

friendly to this government, to say: “This is not acceptable. You have

intervened in a process.” Again, I look forward to having the Labour

Minister stand up in the Legislature and defend this bill. I’m not sure

how he would do that, and perhaps that’s why he isn’t going to defend

the bill.

But it doesn’t stop there. The Minister of Finance and the

Attorney General got a letter, this time from the Canadian Bar

Association. So we have the B.C. Federation of Labour. We have Crown

counsel. We have the B.C. Fed. Everyone is standing up and saying that

this must not take place. Again, they point out the fact that Bill 5

circumvents BCGLA’s LRB application for union certification and, if

passed, compels most of B.C. government’s in-house lawyers into an

existing bargaining unit of the government’s choosing, rather than being

able to exercise the freedom to choose their association.

Legislative counsel, who are included in the certification

application, are noticeably absent from Bill 5, which potentially leaves

them with no right to collective bargaining.

The Canadian Bar Association said to the Minister of Finance that

it was their understanding that the legislation was tabled without

consulting the BCGLA or legal counsel within government. “The only

communication from government appeared to be an invitation to the

BCGLA’s president to meet…regarding an undisclosed policy ‘project’ that

would affect BCGLA and its members.”

It’s going to affect them, all right. They are going to

potentially…. Well, when I say, “if this bill passes,” we all know that

it will. That is the intent of this government bringing it on a Thursday

afternoon with four days left in this session and other items that have

to be debated and dealt with. We still have estimates to finish as

well.

Let me quote the letter from the Canadian Bar Association: “The

short time frame and limited communication is not the full and

transparent discussion the development of this legislation warranted.”

Is that not enough for this government to take a sober second look and

say: “Look, we rushed this through. We tabled it. We pulled it out. We

dropped it back in here”? It would be the responsible thing to

do.

How difficult could it be to say, “You know what? We’re going to

take some time, and we’re going to stand on the principles we believe

in,” which I’m sure every member over there got elected on, which was to

stand up for worker rights in British Columbia. This does not do that.

This removes worker rights, and not a peep from members on the other

side of the House.

The Canadian Bar Association president said: “We urge the province

to reconsider proceeding with Bill 5 and…allow BCGLA’s application for

certification…to proceed.” Again, someone else is saying to this

government: “Take the time necessary to do the right thing. Pull back

the bill again, and make sure that this is done properly.”

When we look at what happened on February 14, the government

agreed to hold off on Bill 5 to provide space for meaningful discussions

about Bill 5. What did the B.C. government lawyers have to say? “We went

into negotiations in good faith. After ten hours of discussions over two

weeks, it is clear there is no point in continuing discussions in their

present form.” Here’s the important thing. “We remain open to

negotiations about alternatives to Bill 5, but we are not going to agree

to our employer choosing our union for us.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Gareth Morely goes on to say: “Our membership is solidly behind

potential job action. In free societies, employers don’t choose unions;

employees do.”

That’s what the heart of the debate is about. It’s about a

government that says one thing and whose actions are completely contrary

to what is a fundamental belief of the New Democratic Party — that

worker rights are critical, essential. Well, apparently not for the B.C.

Government Lawyers Association.

After Bill 5 was introduced, the BCGLA’s members voted 97.1

percent in support of taking job action if necessary. I can say this to

the government members that are listening. It doesn’t have to come to

job action, but it will if the government insists on this course of

action, if they insist on ignoring the concerns that have been

expressed. We have articulated a whole list of organizations that have

said: “This is not what we should be doing.” But here we are, the

government forcing this action to take place.

Promises were made to the B.C. Government Lawyers Association by

the previous Premier that there would be fair discussion and that their

right to choose a union would be paramount. So it’s not just: “Let’s get

the legislation through the House.” It’s disrespect for a process that

puts this government in the embarrassing position of making this the

only time this has ever happened in Canada.

B.C. government lawyers believe that this bill is

unconstitutional, yet here we are. It is unbelievable that we find

ourselves in a position where we are going to watch this government

force through another piece of legislation. That’s just not how this

place is supposed to work.

If the government is going to get up and tout how they believe in

consultation and how they listen and how…. That is what we hear

endlessly, yet example after example — Bill 36, community benefits

agreements, engaging with parents of children who have autism…. “Oh yes,

we’re going to listen. We’re going to pause. We’re going to engage.” Yet

all that is for naught when we stand in this House and this government

has an intent to ram through this legislation.

Well, the opposition is going to do its part, including the Third

Party. I’m sure they’re going to do their part. My colleague is eagerly

waiting to get up.

The government has time to do the right thing. The right thing

would be to put this bill on hold, engage in the consultation that it

promised and make sure that British Columbia isn’t embarrassed by an

action that is the first time this has happened in the

country.

A. Olsen: It’s kind of like the twilight zone in here right now,

frankly.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Yeah, thanks for the soundtrack. It’s like the twilight zone in

here to listen. Who would have ever thought — anybody who’s been

tracking British Columbia politics over the last 20, 30, 40 years — that

they would have heard B.C. United, formerly known as the B.C. Liberal

Party, quoting rather damning press release quotes back at the B.C. NDP

government.

It’s not just the B.C. Federation of Labour, as has been

pointed out by my colleagues in the opposition. It’s other labour

organizations and other lawyers who are criticizing the B.C. NDP for

attempting to ram through legislation that undermines workers’ rights to

freely negotiate with who they wish to organize with.

[2:40 p.m.]

Bill 5, the B.C. Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act,

permits the government lawyers to unionize with the B.C. employee

association against the wishes of the B.C. Government Lawyers

Association. It comes after years of back-and-forth litigation, debate

and bargaining between the BCGLA and the government to allow the BCGLA

to represent government lawyers. BCGLA has an active case before the

Labour Relations Board, and the government has changed the rules of the

game midway through those proceedings.

The BCGLA represents approximately 300 to 350 civil lawyers in

government and has been around for three decades, 30 years. They have

had ongoing attempts to unionize with the B.C. government over the past

decade. It started in 2013, when the BCGLA received a mandate to seek

the status as a bargaining agent. In 2014, the former Premier Christy

Clark said it was inappropriate for lawyers to bargain collectively,

even though the Crown Counsel Association had been doing it for years.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Charter protects the

rights to collectively bargain. From 2015 to 2022, delays and ongoing

discussion.

In 2022, the former, I guess interim, Attorney General met with

the BCGLA following the current Premier’s commitment to do so. They then

sought a card mandate under the Labour Relations Code and received cards

from 70 percent of legal counsel in our government. In November 2022,

the BCGLA filed certification application with the B.C. Labour Relations

Board. Government fought back and said that legal counsel are not an

appropriate bargaining unit, I guess echoing the comments from former

Premier Christy Clark. BCGLA argued that they were exempt from the

Public Service Labour Relations Act, so the government could not invoke

it in their arguments.

January 2023, just this year, the PSA told the BCGLA in late

January that a policy proposal was coming that would impact them, and

they’d need an urgent meeting to be consulted and had to sign

confidentiality agreements of unknown scope. In February 2023,

government introduces changes to the B.C. LRA to now include government

lawyers and win the case against the Labour Relations Board. That’s what

we’re debating in the Legislative Assembly today.

It’s important just to be clear that B.C. Green caucus will be

voting against this bill.

The Premier, when he became the Premier just a few short months

ago, talked about supporting people who play by the rules, but this

government is changing the rules mid-game to suit themselves. Government

is not allowing their own lawyers to form their own union. This

government was in good-faith talks with our lawyers, and instead of

keeping those going, this government has gone behind their backs and

decided to push this bill through. It’s ironic, given that this is the

same B.C. NDP government that passed card-check legislation just one

year ago. And I’m going to talk about that a little bit more

later.

This B.C. NDP government has long claimed to stand for the rights

of workers and for workers to choose their own union. They’re meant, or

they at least fashion themselves, as the workers’ party, a labour party,

yet this is what we’re doing with our own public servants.

For the record, let’s outline what’s happening here. The B.C.

government lawyers want to form their own union, as is their right. The

B.C. NDP government is forcing them into a union that they didn’t pick.

That very union, the Professional Employees Association, doesn’t want

the government lawyers in their union against their wishes and stands

with them in their right to pick their own union.

The B.C. Government Lawyers Association had the former Premier’s

word that the B.C. NDP would not force them into a union through

legislation. This government has broken that promise by tabling this

bill back in February and has further entrenched that by continuing to

debate it here this May.

Once this bill was tabled and this government’s show of force was

clear, good-faith talks began again behind closed doors. The government

lawyers had no reason to believe those talks were breaking down or that

the government was acting in bad faith until last week, when Bill 5

suddenly materialized once again for debate.

[2:45 p.m.]

This government has acted duplicitously with our own lawyers. A

B.C. NDP government is actively suppressing the workers’ right to

unionize and to form their own union at that. Collective bargaining

rights are a constitutional right, and they cannot be bestowed by this

government. The government’s lawyers work on behalf of the public to

ensure the government is working in accordance with the law. With these

changes, those very same lawyers are potentially prepared to go to court

to defend their constitutional right.

This is an embarrassment for both this so-called progressive

government and so-called workers’ party, no less. But for this

government’s own mismanagement of this Legislature at the end of this

session, we stand here with nothing else to debate. We have a new

Premier who would, presumably, have had a full legislative agenda.

Instead, we see a limited, timid legislative agenda.

Let’s put on the record who opposes this legislation: the B.C.

Federation of Labour, the B.C. Government Employees Union, the B.C.

Crown Counsel Association and the Professional Employees Association,

the very same union the government is trying to force these lawyers

into.

The government offered an independent adjudicator behind closed

doors who could review this matter and make a decision on behalf of both

sides, but the Premier and Attorney General couldn’t stand to be wrong,

so they rejected the offer. Sorry, it was the union that did

that.

Let’s be clear. This government is fearful of the independent

adjudicator and the thought that they would lose, and this is a

government that doesn’t like to lose.

This government knows that this forced deal is wrong. It goes

against the values of their very party and tells the world that the B.C.

NDP do not value the independent voice of lawyers. This is a dangerous

implication from this government. It’s also, I would consider, weak

leadership from our current Premier and former Attorney

General.

One point that I’d like to make here, as it has been framed to us

and how at least some voices within B.C. Government Lawyers Association

are feeling, is that they are largely female lawyers. Let’s compare that

with the B.C. Crown Counsel Association, which is predominantly male.

This is how it has been framed to us. The B.C. Crown Counsel Association

was allowed to form their own union. The B.C. Government Lawyers

Association is not. These gender differences have not gone unnoticed,

and they’re important for me to put on the record.

When I take a look at the government that’s putting this bill

forward, it actually is making them into a sort of hilarious brand of a

social democratic party that fashions themselves as a labour party. See,

this is the same party that found it acceptable to take a small step

toward pay equity by passing pay transparency legislation instead,

burdening yet another generation of women, gender-diverse and minority

workers with receiving less than equal pay for equal work

done.

This is the crew that threatened to turn their labour buddies

loose on my colleagues and I if we didn’t support the single-step

certification, which they actually didn’t need to threaten. We did

support that. But here they are now, basically fashioning themselves as

a neo-liberal party and further limiting the right of workers in our

province to freely associate. I expect the labour movement to organize

with a more vociferous voice than just some press releases.

I think it’s important for British Columbians to understand that

our B.C. NDP government is showing us exactly who they are, and we have

to believe them. They may mesmerize us with colourful rhetoric, but we

shouldn’t be distracted. We just need to look at their

actions.

[2:50 p.m.]

Let’s not forget this is the party that was against Site C until

they were for it. They were against Christy Clark’s LNG, but secretly

they supported their own much more expensive version. They ranted and

raged, basically calling former Ministers of Children and Family

murderers. But now that the system is their responsibility, I get

heckled for raising the current reality that children in care continue

to go missing, continue to suffer critical injuries and continue to die

while in care of this government.

They supported Indigenous land defenders until the pipelines were

their idea. And now they unleash the community industry response group

partnered with their own corporate private security agents arresting

Hereditary Chiefs in this province. They stand in here and celebrate

World Press Freedom Day while also standing by and watching the RCMP

limit media access and arrest journalists — TMX, CGL pipeline, Fairy

Creek. They used to believe that housing was a human right. Now their

Housing Minister stands in here and tells me that he believes that

humans have a right to shelter.

So, basically, what this B.C. NDP government has been reduced to

is a mat on the floor of a church basement. They used to believe in

housing co-ops and non-profit housing, and now their Housing Minister

hands billions of taxpayer dollars to private developers and expects a

market-driven business model to deliver housing

affordability.

They used to believe that environmental crimes should be

investigated and environmental criminals should be prosecuted, yet they

keep the B.C. conservation service on a tight leash under the full

control of the Minister of the Environment. They used to believe that

people with disabilities should get the support that they need, yet they

keep their PWD payments well below the poverty line and punish anyone

for trying to make their life more affordable. They used to volley

vitriol at the B.C. Liberals, and now they are more similar than

different than the B.C. Liberals.

I want to read some quotes. A strong amount of correspondence has

come from us concerning government lawyers regarding this bill. I’m

going to read some of these snippets into the record because I believe

their correspondence needs to be on the record of this

debate.

“This is a shocking and disappointing piece of legislation by the

B.C. NDP government.”

“It’s our goal, as expressed to the B.C. government in numerous

ways over the last ten years, that we be represented in collective

bargaining by the BCGLA. It’s disingenuous and even dishonest for the

government to describe the situation otherwise.”

“I’m the daughter of retired B.C. teachers. I believe that unions

are necessary to protect not only the rights of workers but advance the

interests of people served by the members of unions. In my parents’

case, the BCTF’s bargaining improved our province’s education system and

assisted our children to achieve academic success at a very high level.

As lawyers advising the B.C. government, it is our duty to assist

government to achieve its lawful objectives in the public interest and

to see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with

the law. We seek to protect the fundamental democratic principle of the

rule of law, and to do this, we need protection of our own union, one

that understands our unique role and issues.”

“How does this bill implement and enable collective bargaining

rights, given that another employee association that has represented

lawyers in government for over 30 years, the B.C. Government Lawyers

Association, currently has a certification application before the Labour

Relations Board seeking that very relief, using the very process that

this NDP government put in place last year to protect employees from

unscrupulous employers?”

[2:55 p.m.]

“Is the government saying the BCGLA is not an appropriate

bargaining agent for legal counsel? Why? They have represented

government lawyers for over 30 years and consulted with the LSB

management and PSA through joint committees for almost as long. They

have a mandate from over 70 percent of legal counsel. How are they

materially different from the B.C. Crown counsel or other lawyer unions

in B.C. and across Canada that have their own bargaining

unit?”

“We repeatedly stated our position to the Premier when he was the

Attorney General, to the interim Attorney General, to the current

Attorney General, to the current Minister of Labour and to the former

Minister of Finance. If staff of the Public Service Agency have framed

it this way to the current Minister of Finance, that would be deeply

concerning. The only way someone could convince themselves that this is

acceding to our request is to selectively focus on our statements that

excluding government civil lawyers from bargaining is unconstitutional.

But that ignores our repeated and vehement opposition to joining the

PEA.”

“The PEA has never sought to organize us, and our members have

never voted for them. To their credit, the PEA continues to publicly

support our right to choose who represents us in bargaining. If

government has a different

interpretation of the effect of Bill 5, they

owe it to us to explain how it doesn’t force us into the PEA in order to

access collective bargaining.”

“If Bill 5 passes, we will be required to join the PEA if we want

to access bargaining. This would quite obviously render the BCGLA’s

application for certification before the Labour Relations Board moot. If

government honestly believes that this doesn’t affect the LRB process,

it owes to us an explanation.”

“When the price of consultation is for the leaders of a democratic

organization to be muzzled, is that really consultation? This position

is deeply suspect, especially when it comes to our legislative counsel

colleagues. If Bill 5 passes, they would not be able to join the PEA.

Many of these lawyers are BCGLA members. You should know that it’s not

normal for legislative drafters to be excluded from unions of government

civil lawyers across the country. Government has not provided any

rationale for this exclusion.”

“In 2018, we had assurances from the government under the former

Premier that no legislation would be introduced to change our status

without our consent. That promise has been broken.”

“If the employer chooses the union, whose union is it?”

Finally: “We’re convinced that the bill is unconstitutional, so

we’re going to watch it. Once it’s enforced, we’re going to take legal

action in the courts. We’re certainly open to continuing discussions. I

suggested that I’d be willing to talk to the Minister of Finance or the

Premier, and they said no to that.”

It’s inexplicable what’s happening in here right now, especially

with the way that the government framed their previous initiatives

specifically around a card check-in and around single-step

certification. That was a big deal a year ago. It was an important piece

for this government to move forward. In fact, sitting in the government

benches right now are many former labour leaders recruited from the

ranks of those people who are opposing this step right now.

The reality is that anybody who didn’t support that single-step

certification was going to feel the pain of that decision. Yet here we

are today debating a bill because this government has decided what the

outcome of this process is going to be. When they weren’t able to

achieve it through negotiation, they’re using legislation to do it

instead.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s at this point today that this government loses its

credibility as friends of labour. It’s these actions that create a

distrust amongst the public for a government and a party that has said

one thing for years and then, when it suits them, manipulates the

outcome to their benefit.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

It’s important that those comments were on the record. It’s

important that British Columbians understand. When a political party

acts, we believe them. Rather than listening to the rhetoric and

following the rhetoric, follow the actions. This action today speaks

volumes louder than any of the rhetoric that they’ve spewed about being

friends of labour and supporting the rights that they have claimed to

support over the last years.

This is an indication that they will support them only on their

own conditional basis. When they’re outside of those conditions, “Well,

we’ll just pass a law. We’ll just put it on the agenda as a threat and

get everybody back to the table. If that doesn’t work, in the waning

moments of this legislative session, we’ll put it back on for debate,

and we’ll pass it using our majority government.”

With that, Madam Speaker, thank you for this

opportunity.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 5, a bill that is

firmly in line with decades of well-evolved labour relations practices

in British Columbia.

Before I begin my other remarks, however, I would like to also

reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege with respect to

comments, made by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, which

essentially accused the government of threatening lawyers if we did not

get the advice we were looking for, and that lawyers therefore were

somehow afraid to give impartial, independent advice. That is simply

untrue, and it’s an insult not only to government but to government

lawyers.

First of all, it’s important for us to think about what Bill 5

actually does. What Bill 5 actually does is remove a prohibition that

currently exists, in the Public Service Labour Relations Act, from

government lawyers being recognized as having collective bargaining

rights. That is what the bill does. That is what the words say; that is

what the words mean.

Everything else that has been referred to by members so far has to

do largely with the assumption that the Public Service Labour Relations

Act somehow would not apply, no matter what this government did, whether

it brought in Bill 5 or didn’t bring in Bill 5, or let the government

lawyers proceed to the Labour Relations Board for

recognition.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act is really clear. If you

work directly for the provincial government in the public service of

British Columbia, unless you are excluded from collective bargaining

rights as a union, you will join one of three unions: the BCGEU, the

PEA, or the Nurses Union.

That piece of legislation has been in place for 50 years. Prior to

its introduction, people who worked for the government in the public

service had no rights to collectively bargain. Instead, they were

represented at a very minimal level — understandably, not effectively,

because legislation did not allow them the rights of unionization — by a

broad range of occupationally based associations.

[3:05 p.m.]

One of the principles of labour relations that the labour board

itself has established, and upholds on a regular basis, is the

non-proliferation of bargaining units. What that means, quite simply, is

that we should not have employers that have large numbers of unions, all

of which can bargain independently, strike independently and reach

independent, separate collective agreements, because that destabilizes

labour relations.

In the case of government, where three bargaining units have been

allowed, what that would mean is that the provision of critical services

to British Columbians would be destabilized. It is important to not

form an independent union.

The claim that that should be allowed — that that is somehow

synonymous with freedom of association, which is simply not true — opens

the door to a massive proliferation of bargaining units in the public

service. This is not in the public interest and, I will say — as a

former president of one of the unions representing public service

workers — is not in the interests of people who work for government and

the public service, because the end result will not be equitable, will

not be fair and will not lead to stable labour relations.

I also think it’s important…. I’ve heard from two members of the

official opposition — one member of the Third Party and the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson in particular — and it is just patently obvious

to me that a basic understanding of labour law, of the functions of the

Labour Relations Board and of labour relations in general would be of

great benefit to this debate, but I haven’t heard it until

now.

To say that we’re denying freedom of association, when Bill 5

simply removes the prohibition from unionization, is just flat-out wrong

and incorrect. Bill 5 gives the right to collective bargaining to

government lawyers, which they have not had prior to this time. To hear,

frankly, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson say that our government

somehow is standing against the rights of workers to organize or of

freedom of association….

He is a member of a party, formerly known as the B.C. Liberal

Party, that brought in legislation that overturned collective agreements

for health care workers, so that their jobs could be contracted out to

non-union agencies. It then brought in another bill that said if they

organized and if the contract was given up by the contractor, they did

not have the same rights as every other unionized worker in British

Columbia to successorship status.

That government was willing to do everything, in very

laser-focused, targeted pieces of legislation, to deny collective

bargaining rights, primarily from women of colour working in the health

care sector — the same women who provided services to people, during

COVID, who were struggling, who were dying and who were separated from

their families in long-term-care homes.

It is frankly offensive. He should be ashamed to even make the

allegation in this House, with the track record of the party on the

other side. It is just simply outrageous, and British Columbians deserve

and need to remember the history of that party when it was in

government.

Why that member would think that allowing a group of professional

workers, or any workers working for the provincial government, who

previously were barred from collective bargaining rights by the Public

Service Labour Relations Act, to have a bill that quite simply removes

that prohibition and then allows all the other pieces of labour

legislation to apply — in this case, the Public Service Labour Relations

Act and whatever

interpretations the labour board may or may not apply —

is somehow interfering with freedom of association or denying government

lawyers’ rights, is just simply inexplicable.

I understand what government lawyers want. I might even understand

why they would want it, but there are sound principles in labour

relations to indicate that proliferation of bargaining units is simply

ineffective for workers, employers and the public.

[3:10 p.m.]

In the public service, a proliferation of bargaining units…. Let’s

be absolutely clear. You can’t pick and choose that you’re going to give

one group the ability to organize a separate union, outside of the

Public Service Labour Relations Act, but somehow deny it to other

groups.

Life and the law do not work that way. We have principles

established in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. We have them

established in the Health Association’s bargaining acts, and we have

them established by a range of decisions by the B.C. Labour Relations

Board so that there is a balance between the rights to collective

bargaining that workers have and the right of the public and employers

to have a relatively stable labour relations climate.

Yes, there will be conflicts from time to time. Yes, there will be

work stoppages from time to time. The point is not to have work

stoppages serially, without prediction, any number in a year, because

there are any number of bargaining units that can shut down an

industrial operation or the operations of government. That simply will

not work.

There is a history to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It

was developed 50 years ago, following a study and a commission that

looked at what was the fairest way to ensure that government and the

public of British Columbia had some stability in the provision of

essential services as well as the broad range of public services

provided by the provincial government, while at the same time

recognizing the rights of workers to collectively bargain.

What was agreed upon was three bargaining units — not one, but

also not 20. The effect this had was decades of relatively stable

collective bargaining in the public service in British Columbia. Yes,

there were some strikes, and yes, sometimes the strikes were conducted

by different ones of the three unions.

Overall, there was a healthy, stable, mature, professional labour

relations and collective bargaining climate that has stood the test of

time. It has not caused the world to come to an end, as some people

feared when collective bargaining rights were first extended. It

balanced the rights of workers with the needs of government and the

needs of the public to receive stable services.

So how did the people who wrote that legislation think about the

particular interests that were unique of different occupational groups,

whether they were professionals, whether they were administrative

support workers or whether they were people who worked in the field, in

the resource sector, or in transportation?

The answer they came up with, which has also been effective, is

component agreements, or what are sometimes called subsidiary

agreements. There is a master agreement that applies in the PEA

agreement with the government, in the nurses agreement with the

government and in the BCGEU agreement with the government. That covers

common working conditions for everyone.

Then there are component agreements that are specifically

established to enable particular groups of workers, like government

lawyers, to bargain themselves about the unique conditions they face,

the unique things they would like to see in their collective agreement

to address their issues, their rights, their perceived difficulties that

may not be the same for everyone.

Those agreements have also stood the test of time, and they’ve

been important. That is also part of the balance between ensuring that

there isn’t a massive proliferation of bargaining units but ensuring

that people’s unique interests are not completely subsumed in the

whole.

It’s a system that works, but again, it’s important to understand

labour relations and not simply grab onto a particular bill and say that

this is somehow a nefarious scheme to withdraw rights from people when

what actually is happening is that rights are being extended that were

never there before.

[3:15 p.m.]

We’re not proposing, but perhaps the members opposite are

proposing, that we simply scrap the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

I don’t think that would serve the people of British Columbia very well.

I’m pretty sure that the members opposite, who were in government in the

past, and who may wish to be in government in the future, would not want

to do that if they were on this side of the House, because it is clear

that it doesn’t work. That’s the advice that they would get from senior

public servants who are responsible for collective

bargaining.

For some people, like the member for Abbotsford West and the

member for Prince George–Valemount — who have, in fact, been in

government — they know. They know what I’m talking about, because

they’ve been in the position of being ministers of the Crown responsible

for government programs during times of labour disputes. They understand

that.

It may be an easy political tool to use today, but it is not sound

public policy to call for a proliferation of bargaining units in the

B.C. government or anywhere in the public sector. It simply will not

work.

I could go through a long list of claims and statements that have

been made so far by members opposite. There may be more that are simply

incorrect, but I can’t resist focusing on one from the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson, who stood up in outrage at the thought that

this government might require government lawyers to work overtime, on

weekends, instead of having it be optional.

Well, news flash for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. That

is the case in every non-union operation, where people have no choice

and can be fired for refusing. In fact, it’s also the case in many

unionized operations, where workers, though they have a union, do not

have the right to refuse overtime. One of the places where workers do

have the right to refuse overtime is in public sector agreements, except

in cases of extreme emergency.

This debate would benefit from more facts. But it would also

benefit, frankly, from members not using a simple bill that’s extending

collective bargaining rights, irrespective of the fact that the people

we’re talking about would like a different structure and a different

system…. That is their right, and I respect that, but we have a

structure in place for a reason. It’s there for a reason.

If they wish to challenge the act itself, they may do that. If

they wish to challenge it in a court or a tribunal of jurisdiction, they

will be able to do that. But the fact is that the Public Service Labour

Relations Act applied before Bill 5. It will apply after Bill 5. The

change that’s being introduced is simply to extend collective bargaining

rights to lawyers working for the provincial government on the same

basis as everyone else who works for the provincial

government.

I would love it if people could focus on the real issues in this

debate and not drag in every story of perceived slight that members of

the opposition and the Third Party have about actions of this

government, most of which have not been factual.

In this case, we’re extending collective bargaining rights. We’re

protecting the interests of British Columbians. We’re ensuring that

government can operate efficiently and effectively while still

respecting the rights of people em­ployed by the provincial

government to bargain collectively and to be represented. That is what

the bill is about.

With that, I take my place.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kelowna-​Mission.

Interjection.

R. Merrifield: Oh, look at that. Applause before I even say anything. That’s

great. High expectations. No pressure, though.

I want to talk a little bit about what the Minister of Environment

just said, because he says that we’ve all misunderstood what the essence

of this bill actually is. I vehemently disagree, as does….

[3:20 p.m.]

I don’t claim to be a lawyer. I don’t claim to understand labour

law or labour relations the way the, I don’t know, BCGLA does or the

Canadian Association of Crown Counsel would or perhaps the Canadian Bar

Association does. If this was as simplistic as the minister would like

to make it sound…. Well, clearly, the rest of Canadian lawyers have also

misunderstood, which I think is highly unlikely.

The other thing I’d like to comment on, what the minister was

saying…. That is that we benefit somehow from having very, very large

unions rather than a number of different bargaining groups. That’s

absolutely false.

We have just experienced, Canada-wide, one of the largest unions

across Canada on strike. What did the headlines actually say? Well,

we’ve got CRA…. That threatened PWD payments, because people couldn’t

actually file their taxes and have notification of it. We’ve got

immigration, which absolutely ground to a halt, including people’s

passports and family vacations that they were looking forward to. Then

we have the entirety of government, which is crawling at a snail’s pace,

blocking city streets, etc.

The headlines actually talked about the catastrophic effect on the

public — i.e., the economy. If the Minister of Environment thinks this

is some sort of simplistic dotting of an “i” or crossing of a “t” and

that large unions are the best way to go…. That is patently

false.

Today I had my parents in the gallery. Dad and Mom taught me to

stand for what is right, to defend those who are being bullied, attacked

or whose rights are being threatened, to defend democracy, not only when

it’s convenient, not only when it fits your agenda or helps your

friends, not only when you agree. Always. I acknowledge today that my

dad gave me courage, and Mom showed me how to be strong.

Now, if you got the opportunity to meet my parents in the

hallways, you’d recognize that my mom is only…. Well, she says 5 foot 3.

She’s not 5 foot 3. I’d say 5 foot 2, at best. She could tell you…. She

would stand up for what she believed in. She would dig in her heels. She

would make sure that nothing…. Nothing could dissuade her.

Today I’m standing. Today I’m vocalizing. Today I’m standing up

for the guardians of the law. Today I’m saying that this bill is wrong.

Today I rise to continue the debate on this legislation before us, Bill

5, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023, a prime

example of this government’s hypocrisy, this government’s betrayal of

democracy.

This is not what this House is for. When this government and this

Premier have an issue with a particular organization or group…. Well,

this government seems to show up with a hammer.

The lawyers here are seeking to unionize so they can protect their

members and avoid retaliation from the B.C. government when they provide

advice that may not align with policy goals. As the BCGLA president,

Gareth Morley, said: “We want to make sure lawyers in government have

that degree of independence so that they can tell government something

they won’t want to hear.”

Isn’t that what we want? Don’t we want those checks and balances

to make sure that we’re going on the right path, to make sure that our

laws are right? That statement actually raises a question about what

kind of retaliation lawyers faced while the current Premier was Attorney

General.

Despite 70 percent of the government lawyers wanting their own

bargaining unit, the NDP government has introduced this bill,

effectively taking away their ability to form their own union and giving

them only one option, to join the Professional Employees Association.

This would lump the 350 or so lawyers into a bargaining unit with

foresters, engineers, other professional employees.

[3:25 p.m.]

They want their own voice. There’s a long-standing, fundamental

right that employees, not employers, get to choose the union they wish

to join. This is about the rights of employees being taken away through

an abuse of democracy. This is another example of the B.C. NDP claiming

to be on the side of the workers and unions. Yet it’s clear they’re only

looking after their friends.

This move is particularly distasteful, as the lawyers have already

been to the Labour Relations Board to create their own association. Bill

5 sidesteps the outcomes of these hearings, the outcomes of this

process, the process that was set up for this particular situation,

allowing the NDP to make the final decision themselves.

This can be interpreted as nothing other than an attempt by the

Premier to muzzle government lawyers. More muzzling from the NDP

government, which already has a habit of retaliating against, I don’t

know, health care workers, if they speak out against their health

authorities, or organizations, if they speak out against the NDP, or

anyone.

Now the lawyers have no option but to start job action, such as

only working 7½ hours a day and not being available on the weekends.

What was this government’s response if it wasn’t retaliation? I mean,

this is almost too ridiculous to even say in this place. The

government’s response was that the lawyers are not currently unionized,

so they don’t have the right to take job action. The lawyers’ option,

according to the NDP? Wait for Bill 5 to pass.

Can you believe that, Madam Speaker? I can’t.

If the lawyers take job action…. Well, according to the NDP: “All

employees are expected to continue to act with professionalism and

respect and to abide by the standards of conduct and other policies that

apply to all public service employees.”

you take any job action to protect your rights, we will make you pay.

It’s a veiled threat. Who am I kidding? It’s not even veiled. It’s just

a threat.

As someone who, in my 25 years, has employed thousands of people,

I can tell you. It’s their right to walk off the job if they don’t like

how I am treating them. It’s their right, as an employee, to choose if

they want to be unionized or not. It’s their right to choose which union

they wish to be employed by.

I go back to the premise that the NDP have always told British

Columbians. Only they were on the side of workers. I guess that was just

a smokescreen, another example of saying one thing to British Columbians

but doing the opposite in their actions.

On this point, I’m going to agree with the House Leader of the

Third Party. Watch for the actions. Talk is cheap; action is everything.

These actions fully call into question the motives of this NDP

government. Why should British Columbians believe anything this NDP

government pledges to do? That’s a rhetorical question. Based on how the

NDP treat question period in this place, I certainly don’t expect an

answer.

The NDP’s selective support for workers’ rights is evident in

their flawed mentality, in their community benefits agreements, which

are really just community ripoff agreements. Why are they community

ripoff agreements? Well, these agreements exclude the vast majority of

construction workers in our province from participating in

infrastructure projects, resulting in increased costs and reduced

benefits for British Columbians.

[3:30 p.m.]

How? Well, in order to bid and work on a government infrastructure

project…. Think about the Pattullo Bridge. Just like with Bill 5,

workers must be a member of a government-approved union.

Wait a second. This is just like the BCGLA. The last part of that

is important: a member of the “government-approved union.” Hypocrisy

from the party that claims to be there for the worker. Again, why should

British Columbians believe anything this government says?

Supporting workers’ rights is essential in British Columbia,

because it is the cornerstone of a thriving and equitable society. By

ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions and the right to organize

or not or how, we not only create a stable and productive workforce, but

we also foster a sense of dignity and empowerment among our citizens.

This, in turn, leads to a more robust economy, as workers with rights

and respect are more likely to contribute to their communities and

support local businesses.

Upholding workers’ rights also helps to reduce income inequality

and ensure that all British Columbians have access to the opportunities

and resources that they need to build a better life for themselves and

their families. I have always, always believed in my employees’

rights.

In a time when the global economy is evolving rapidly, it is more

important than ever that we remain steadfast in our commitment to

protecting the rights of workers and building a prosperous future for

all residents of our beautiful province. Does Bill 5 do that? No, it

doesn’t.

Forcing government workers and forcing government lawyers into a

union that they do not choose is not protecting the rights of workers.

Just like forcing a construction worker to become a member of a

government-approved union in order to work on a new bridge is not

protecting the rights of workers. Using the heavy hammer of legislation

to coerce employees to do what is demanded is not protecting the rights

of workers.

Bill 5 is just wrong. It’s wrong, and the NDP know it. They don’t

know it from our speeches. They know it from — oh, I don’t know — the

BCGLA themselves. Or they know it because the Canadian Association of

Crown Counsel actually says: “Bill 5 is both unconstitutional and

draconian.” They have significant concerns. I’m quoting from these

letters.

Or how about the Canadian Bar Association? They are writing “to

express our deep concern about unilateral action in the face of ongoing

process regarding Bill 5.” Not our words; their words.

The NDP government wants to jam this through before we rise, so

they waited until the very last minute, so they have an excuse to rush

it. With only five days left, this NDP government is going to use their

majority to force this terrible bill through and take away the rights of

workers, their own lawyers.

Oh, but this has happened before. This is reminiscent to Bill 36.

You know, the minister talked today about how it was the second-longest

amount of committee stage, but it also is one of the longest bills

ever.

Sadly, this is something that our NDP government has actually

demonstrated a penchant for, and our Premier certainly loves to

strong-arm to achieve his goals, regardless of the consequences. Just

like in Bill 5, taking away the rights of our government lawyers to

unionize as they see fit.

[3:35 p.m.]

Our Premier is not willing to let anything stand in the way of

getting what he wants, whether it’s a court decision, a charismatic

opponent in the leadership race or his own lawyers. Let’s examine some

of the examples of this behaviour.

Well, we’ve got the preferential representation referendum. The

Premier definitely stacked the deck and rigged that one, using every

trick possible to secure his desired outcome. He promised a fair and

impartial referendum but didn’t deliver that, just like Bill

On ICBC, when he didn’t win his battles in court, he used his

legislative powers, just like he’s doing in Bill 5, to circumvent them,

implementing the no-fault system he wanted, despite the courts ruling

against many of his measures and actually deeming them

unconstitutional.

Well, then there’s the recall campaigns. As Attorney General, he

changed the rules around the recall campaigns to make them more

difficult to succeed, just before a recall campaign against him was set

to begin. Just like in Bill 5, if the Premier doesn’t like what he’s

seeing or the way that things are heading, well, he doesn’t trust the

process that has been put in place. No, he just changes the rules of the

game.

Then there are the municipal issues. Well, the Premier has shown a

willingness to go around the courts to achieve his agenda. In places

like Penticton, he’d rather go and use threats of creating tent cities,

by delivering tents to the homeless, than work with city council and

hear their concerns.

Another opportunity, just like Bill 5, was when we actually saw

that a decision was going to go to court for the Arbutus project. When

that project, in Vancouver, got caught up in legal proceedings, instead

of letting the case run through its course, he introduced legislation to

push the project through. Wait: just like Bill 5.

Then there’s B.C. Housing. Under his watch, the Premier has

quietly fired seven board members, buried a report concerning financial

mismanagement, failed to inform the public about his decision to order a

forensic audit and has been sitting on the audit for months. The

Premier’s government even refused to share any details about this

legislation — like Bill 5, with this legislation — unless the BCGLA

actually signed a non-disclosure agreement.

After months of using this legislation as a bargaining threat, the

government is now trying to force it through, at the last possible

opportunity, just like it has done so many times before. The BCGLA

president, Gareth Morley, summed up the NDP’s actions best when he said:

“This would be appalling for any government. It is galling from one that

claims to respect workers’ rights.”

Bill 5 is just another example of the NDP’s deeply ingrained

hypocrisy when it comes to labour issues. The NDP should be ashamed of

themselves for bringing forward this legislation. I don’t know who they

think they’re fooling. Their motivations are so transparent. It’s

incredibly disappointing that they don’t respect B.C.’s government

lawyers — and their right to unionize — enough to give them the freedom

to decide for themselves what union they join.

Bill 5 shreds any remaining credibility the NDP has when it comes

to free and fair bargaining. This legislation is disrespectful,

draconian and a complete degradation of democracy. The NDP loves to

claim that the best place to resolve disputes is at the bargaining

table, but it only applies when it’s convenient for them.

Just like the community ripoff agreements, Bill 5 will force

government employees to join a different union than the one they have

freely chosen. Ironically, in the case of this bill and the B.C.

Government Lawyers Association, even the Professional Employees

Association, the very union the NDP is forcing the lawyers to join, says

that the BCGLA should not be forced into a union against their own

choosing.

[3:40 p.m.]

The B.C. Federation of Labour supports the BCGLA in their right to

choose their union — which is just further evidence that this NDP

Premier and his terrible legislation are on the wrong track, heading in

the wrong direction.

The NDP’s pattern of strong-arming is deeply concerning. Not only

does it undermine the democratic principles our province was built on,

but it erodes the trust and confidence that the people of British

Columbia have in their government and in their democratic institutions.

When something is rushed through — I’ll use the example of Bill 36 — you

have entire associations standing up against it, saying: “No, this isn’t

working for us.”

As elected representatives, it’s our duty to uphold the rights and

freedoms of our constituents, not trample on them to serve our own

interests. The Premier’s continued disregard for the law, rule of law

and the rights of workers is a stain on the legacy of this NDP

government. I urge my colleagues in the House to consider the

ramifications of this legislation. Not only does it undermine the rights

of government lawyers,