Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

EXTENSION OF SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3, the House sit beyond the hour fixed for adjournment until the question on second reading of Bill (No. 5) intituled Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023 is put and decided.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call continued debate on Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR
RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

C. Oakes: I rise to continue debate on the legislation before this House, speaking to Bill 5, legislation that has very real potential to break a fundamental and critical relationship between the government and the people that are charged with the very important task of advising this government.

Earlier today during question period we heard a couple of comments, and I think they’re incredibly relevant to the bill that we are discussing today. We heard from the Minister of Housing earlier in question period that when the Premier sees something wrong, he takes action. It’s a consistent pattern. A man of integrity, he takes action when he sees something wrong. He comes forward and changes things, because the Premier understands the importance of public confidence.

[3:00 p.m.]

Pretty significant words. Pretty powerful words when we saw what happened on the front lawn of the Legislature at lunch where public members came forward to talk about the challenges that this bill presents before us, Bill 5, which would invalidate the B.C. Government Lawyers Association’s attempt to form their own union at the Labour Relations Board, and instead force them to join the Professional Employees Association.

Again, putting the Premier’s words back to him of public confidence, I think it’s incredibly relevant to listen and hear what the members of the BCGLA are saying. It’s true. If any other employer in the province of British Columbia tried to curtail the rights of employees to freely associate and unite in a union of their choosing, it would be deemed a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What is this government doing? What is the NDP government doing on this? Well, they’re circumventing an ongoing Labour Relations Board hearing considering the BCGLA’s certification as a bargaining unit, and a majority of the civil lawyers employed by the province have signed cards favouring forming their own union to represent their unique interests and working conditions as lawyers. But instead, this Bill 5, which was brought in by the NDP government as an end run that unfairly directs BCGLA members to join the Professional Employees Association, an existing union not selected by the BCGLA members.

So again, before this House, here is the opportunity for the Premier to stand up and do the right thing. When he sees something wrong, he goes forward, and he changes things. Again, from the Minister of Housing: “When the Premier sees something wrong, he takes action.” It’s a “consistent pattern.” A “man of integrity. He takes action.” Well, I would suggest, based on the evidence that has been presented to us, that the government indeed needs to take some action on what has happened.

I think it’s important to hear from the BCGLA president, Gareth Morley. In his words: “It is clear the government wants to control things, even if it has to unilaterally change the rules of the game to win. The employer knows the only way to get what it wants this time is to change the rules of the game with new legislation.” Pretty contrary to what we heard earlier in question period about how the Premier likes to take action as a man of integrity and ensures that we have public confidence.

I go on with what Gareth said. “We are shocked and dismayed that the government just won’t listen to reason. The government acknowledges in the letter we do have the right to bargain our own contract, but the employer will not allow us to form our own union, even though we have followed all of the rules under the new certification legislation. That legislation was passed just last year by this very same government to smooth the certification process for groups like ours.”

I continue that. “When a group of employees chooses a union through the process the law sets out, then that employer has to bargain with their choice. If any…​employer in the province interfered in a certification application to the Labour Relations board, it would be an unfair labour practice.”

Important words to hear. I hope that the Premier and the government is listening. Bill 5 is opposed by labour groups, including the B.C. Federation of Labour; the B.C. General Employees Union; the B.C. Crown Counsel Association, which represents Crown prosecutors; and the PEA — the very union unit the government wants the government lawyers to join.

In closing, I hope that the government and I hope that the Premier will take action and listen and do the right thing.

Deputy Speaker: There’s a speaker.

Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was waiting for somebody from opposition to stand up. Noting the protest earlier today on the front lawn, I thought that there might be an opportunity to hear from the opposition with respect to Bill 5, and just hear, I guess, an understanding of why this bill is coming forth, why it’s coming forth now, and why it’s coming forth the way it is. I’ll talk a little bit about that this afternoon.

[3:05 p.m.]

It is, obviously, a privilege and certainly an honour to be able to speak to anything in this House. Today I’m going to make a few comments on Bill 5, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023. I started by saying: why now? We heard today Bill 29 being introduced. This is, of course, Bill 5, so it’s a ways back.

I guess I’m surprised to see the way that it’s come forth. It came forth quite some time ago. Now, of course, at the end of the legislative session, it’s been brought back. Obviously, it’s been brought back for debate and conversation. My concern about that, frankly, is that I’m joining the conversation with, well, really, three days left. I suppose, technically, it would be four in the session. Certainly, you would think that a bill that would have an opportunity to have such an effect on a group of people would have a little bit more time to debate.

Now, I can appreciate that we’ve got some extra time today to debate late into the evening, and I’m sure that we’ll capitalize on that time, but it’s clear that there is an awful lot of opposition to this bill. I’m just surprised that the debate has been quite one-sided, other than hearing from the minister. I’m surprised that the conversation around Bill 5 has not been on both sides of this House. Genuinely, I want to understand more about the bill and what the motive is, what the reasoning is behind this. As I said, it’s meeting with an awful lot of opposition.

Frankly, we’ve seen other bills introduced in a way that…. I’m not even sure how we’ll move to committee stage or how long we’ll have to discuss it. We’ve seen other bills, like Bill 36, that came in late in a session, has had a profound effect on a lot of people in British Columbia, or certainly is perceived that way, and we didn’t have ample time to properly scrutinize that bill.

I think it’s important, that scrutiny, not just for bills like 36 but all of them. It’s an opportunity for us to make this legislation better. It’s an opportunity for us to be able to compare notes and improve the legislation, put forth amendments, those types of things.

For me, I’m shocked, because it’s becoming a bit of a pattern. We’ve seen it with Bill 36. We’ve seen it with Bill 23, Bill 28, different bills that have been introduced late in a session, and we have not had ample time to debate properly, in my mind.

I suppose if I had one question about this, noting the fact that this morning we’ve got a protest happening on the front lawn of this Legislature, noting the letters, some that I’ll quote, that have come from different organizations in British Columbia and, certainly, throughout Canada, what would be wrong with just pausing for a moment and taking the summer to properly have conversation with the BCGLA, have proper conversation and bring it back for debate in the fall?

There would be nothing wrong. There’s nothing that I can see. Unless somebody from government will stand up and tell me what the benefit is to pushing this through right now at this point, I just don’t see it. I think Bill 5 is probably an important piece of legislation, like anything that comes out of this building and out of this room. But tell me why we can’t take the summer to spend the time properly having conversation and move it forth.

I guess the other thing with respect to Bill 5 that I find shocking is that, in recent history, there has been legislation introduced in this building that would see single-step certification and card checks, and that’s been introduced in this House.

Here we have a government, really, imposing a decision that should be made by the members of the BCGLA. I’ll get to some of those comments in a moment. But it just shocks me that a government that professes to represent labour, that professes to support workers, would go as far as forcing this on any organization.

[3:10 p.m.]

Again, I’m not suggesting that Bill 5 is not important. It just seems to me that it could wait until the fall. I would hate to see it forced to closure like we’ve seen with bills like 36, like 23, like 28. That is not the way to pass legislation in this House. Again, I would encourage members to stand up.

It’s not just me saying these things either. I want to quote a few people right now. Gareth Morley, president of the B.C. Government Lawyers Association — I’ve referred to them as the BCGLA — represents around 350 lawyers impacted by Bill 5. He said he was informed that the NDP planned to bring the bill forward for a second reading after negotiations broke down in mid-April.

This is an interesting quote:

“‘We’re convinced that the bill is unconstitutional, so we’re going to watch it,’ he told B.C. Today in an interview. ‘Once it’s in force, we’re going to take legal action in the courts. We’re certainly open to continuing discussions, and I suggested I’d be willing to talk to the Minister of Finance or the Premier. They said no to that.’ If passed, the legislation would make most government lawyers who have filed to form their own union, members of the Professional Employees Association.”

And it would, of course, bar legislative drafters from unionizing.

Well, there are a number of things that are wrong…. Sorry, let me correct that. The statement is just fine, but the thing that concerns me about the statement is the fact that Mr. Morley has tried to talk to both the Premier and the Finance Minister, and they have said no to that. In my mind, Bill 5 is certainly too important to not be having that conversation.

I’ll talk a little bit about this further into the speech, but the other thing that concerns me is the threat of potential litigation. Now, I’ve heard from other ministers in this House. I’ve heard from ministers, with respect to things that have come forth to the House, like Treaty 8, that this is not a way to solve things in British Columbia, that we do not want to solve these things in a courtroom. And I absolutely agree. I mean, frankly, the last people that I would want to meet in a courtroom are 350 lawyers.

I am very worried about the cost that this province may endure to push this Bill 5 through. And I think it’s important that we note Mr. Morley’s comments because…. I want to stress the fact that he wants to talk. He wants to have conversation, and we can do that. We can do it over the summer, as I said, and bring it back in the fall.

The Attorney General of this province received a letter from the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel. I was shocked to read their comments in this letter, but I’ll read them here for you today: “We are of the view that Bill 5 is both unconstitutional” — which is exactly what Mr. Morley suggested, but it goes further to say — “and draconian. First, it imposes a bargaining agent upon employees that is not of their choosing. Secondly, it circumvents the certification process that was ongoing before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board. Last, it completely strips legislative counsel of their right to collective bargaining.”

Now, in this day and age, and certainly in this session of the Legislature, I can’t believe that we are going to bring something forward, a bill that this House will vote to pass, that is being suggested as “draconian” by the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel. To me, that’s shocking. I think that we need to hear these comments and hear them fully and act on them.

The Attorney General has also received a letter. This letter came from the Canadian Bar Association.

[3:15 p.m.]

I just want to read the first paragraph because it simply says: “On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, and our more than 7,600 members across British Columbia, we are writing to express our deep concern about unilateral action in the face of an ongoing process regarding Bill 5, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023, introduced on February 9. This action is a further example of the need for government to better understand the role of lawyers in government and in our society.”

I absolutely agree, but these are associations representing counsel from across this country and across this province that are suggesting that the government needs to better understand the lawyers of this province, suggesting that the bill itself is unconstitutional and draconian and, by the same token, suggesting that we are going to end up in the courts fighting this out. As I said before, it’s not a place to sort Bill 5 out, and I think there are better ways that we could do this. Frankly, the cost that could come of that will be just absolutely staggering.

Again, it’s not just me. The Tyee has reported that one of the reasons that lawyers are unionizing is to avoid retaliation from the NDP government. Lawyers were pushed to sign a non-disclosure agreement about this legislation — more muzzling from a government who has already shown a habit of retaliating against health care workers.

I want to speak about that a little bit, because this has happened in my riding — I spoke about it in this chamber and spoke about it in question period as well — where I’ve had a doctor that has faced that action, faced that pressure against the government for speaking out. That certainly cannot become the norm in this province. I mean, how are we to make things better, like Bill 5? How are we to make things better in a health care system where the people involved in the system are unable to speak freely, unable to share ways to make things better?

Even PEA says that the BCGLA should not be forced into a union against their own choosing. Even the union that they’re being forced into is suggesting that this is wrong, that they shouldn’t be forced. Again, I mean, this is a government that has professed over and over and over to be on the side of workers, the side of unions. However, the bill makes it clear that they are only in the business of looking after certain groups. That is not fair. It’s not fair at all. This group of individuals should have the right, absolutely, to unionize, but they should have the right of choice.

Bill 5 will impact approximately 321 employees in the B.C. Government Lawyers Association, but I would say that it will impact us all. It will impact us as taxpayers if this ends up in court. It will have an impact on all of us, particularly with respect to cost. Under Bill 5, the only option, of course, will be to join the Professional Employees Association. Again, I suggest that that’s not fair.

This is a quote by the Minister of State for Workforce Development, and it came from Hansard. “People have the right to collective bargaining and to negotiate wages for themselves and to negotiate conditions.…So we’re…allowing people to exercise their Charter rights to join a union and to negotiate a collective agreement.” That is from February 9. That’s the Minister of State for Workforce Development.

Well, they are allowing them to unionize, but the problem is that they’re absolutely forcing the union upon them.

Mr. Morley says that his members want their own union, in part because they want to negotiate contract guarantees protecting them if they give government advice that doesn’t align with its policy goals. “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.” That is Gareth Morley’s quote.

[3:20 p.m.]

The quote has so many things in it that worry me. We talked just moments ago about the fact that health care workers in my riding, and I’m certain that that’s consistent throughout the province, have on many occasions started a conversation with me with: “You can use this information, but please do not use my name.”

I have had a doctor that faced an unbelievable amount of pressure from Interior Health. Here we have Gareth Morley suggesting that we want to make sure that lawyers in government have the degree of independence so that they can tell the government something that they won’t want to hear. Well, of course they should have that independence. Of course they should be able to advise. Frankly, it’s probably a good investment.

The other thing that concerns me about Bill 5 — and it’s another reason to just stop for a moment, reconsider what we’re doing and bring it back in the fall — is that neither the BCGLA nor PEA were consulted on Bill 5 or its implementation. There are no provisions under the PEA collective agreement which relate to the legal counsel classification. That is concerning on a gargantuan level. We’ve been told repeatedly that consultation happens — that it takes place not just on Bill 5 but all of these bills. Here are two associations telling us that it hasn’t happened.

This is what the Minister of Finance had to say. “This bill amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to implement collective bargaining rights for government lawyers employed in the B.C. public service. The amendments enable these collective bargaining rights and ensure government maintains an appropriate public service bargaining framework that promotes continued labour stability and controls future costs.” Well, it does not implement or enable our collective bargaining rights. It absolutely, unilaterally overrules them.

I would love to know how Bill 5 will actually create labour stability. That just makes no sense. We have 100 lawyers on the front steps today protesting. That doesn’t look like a stable workforce to me.

I am very, very concerned that this bill is not ready to be passed. The BCGLA — they mentioned it today — did a card check. It’s in line with the NDP’s legislation that was introduced very recently. Seventy percent of their members want their own bargaining unit. But instead of letting their lawyers unionize in the desired manner, this government is going to simply force it upon them. That is not fair.

Bill 5 needs to be rethought. We need to stop and take a second look at this. What is particularly distasteful to me is the fact that the BCGLA has already been in court and at the Labour Relations Board to create their own association. Bill 5 effectively performs a complete end run on those outcomes.

Simply put, the government will make the final decision on this. Again, that’s not right. We should not be muzzling these lawyers. We should not be hampering them in the work that they do. After months of holding this legislation over the BCGLA as a threat during the bargaining, the government now is trying to simply force this through. That’s unfortunate, to say the least.

Gareth Morley summed the legislation and the actions of government up best when he said this simple quote. “This would be appalling for any government. It is galling from one that claims to respect workers’ rights.”

[3:25 p.m.]

There is a lot of undone work, it seems to me, on Bill 5. It seems to me that there is an opportunity for members of the government to stand. We’ve been given some time now today to debate this. I’m very worried about committee stage. I don’t know how that will possibly traverse the last three days of this session. But it would seem to me that we’re going to be short on time there as well.

It would seem to me that we’re going to have a need to ask many, many questions about this legislation. But more than anything, I hope that we will hear from members that might be willing to stand up now and explain why this has to be forced through now, why we can’t do this in the fall.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that I’m grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this House and speak before you. I thank you very much for the time allotted to me today, and I would encourage members from the government to stand up this afternoon and please explain further why Bill 5 must go forth, and why it must go forth in this fashion.

If nothing else, I would hope to encourage a pause and encourage proper conversation between the government and the BCGLA and hope for a better outcome, one that fits everyone better.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time today.

M. Lee: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Lee: On behalf of the official opposition, I wish to acknowledge and welcome and introduce the over 30 lawyers in our gallery who are here to witness the continued second reading debate on Bill 5 and thank them, each and every one of them, for the roles that they play as the guardians and custodians of the rule of law here in our province of British Columbia.

There are many members that we met with on the legislative lawn over the lunch hour. Some members are here, and, as I understand, some members want to be specifically introduced. Before I name these seven individuals, I would also like to recognize the significant step that members of the BCGLA have done today in their action taken here in Victoria and in Vancouver.

For these seven individuals that wish to be named in this chamber, I recognize the further step that they’re taking by introducing their names. Specifically, I’d like to welcome, as well, Margo Foster, Jennifer Blood, Josh Dedora, Caroline Bergeron, Andrea Glen, Stephen Conarroe, and Pamela Manhas.

Will all members in this gallery in the House please welcome them and the rest of the gallery as well.

Debate Continued

T. Halford: I rise to continue debate on the legislation before this House that has unfortunately got us to a point here today. We saw that on the front steps of the Legislature. I’ve said it before in this House, and I’ll say it again: it is never the wrong time to do the right thing.

We have heard the concerns laid out by my colleagues regarding Bill 5. We continue to hear those today. I think that they’re more than just.

We have a government that has spent a lot of their time talking about being on the side of workers, on the side of unions. The issue with that today, and the contradiction that we’re seeing, is that if it’s not to the liking of this government, it’s a problem, in terms of this government will make the decision for you.

We see a case where 70 percent want their own bargaining unit.

[3:30 p.m.]

We see a case today where this legislation specifically addresses an ongoing situation involving the BCGLA, a group of government lawyers that have been in the process of trying to unionize on their own for some time now.

One of the major reasons — it has been spoken about before — why they want to do that is because they want to protect themselves. I think all in this House have agreed that protecting workers’ rights is fundamental. I don’t think we disagree on that, but the issue with this, in what we’re seeing here, is that the reason they’re wanting that protection is in case government advice does not align with the policy goals.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I think that that’s a form of common sense. I think that that’s something that the public would accept. I think it’s fair. I think it’s fair to the workers and fair to us in this House. If that is their rationale, it should not only be advocated for but accepted.

We’ve seen quotes…. My colleague and friend read into the record, and I’ll do the same. Gareth Morley, president of the BCGLA, says: “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.” I think, no matter what side of the House you sit on, you want advice that you can depend on. You want advice that is unfettered. You want advice that sometimes can be contradictory to what your end goal is.

For everybody in this House, their goal is for the betterment of their constituents, for the betterment of this province, but sometimes you may get differing advice on how you get there. I think the arguments that have been laid out by the BCGLA have been just and rational. I think a lot of it is based on common sense.

We’ve had large groups come out here in the last number of months. We’ve had doctors; we’ve had nurses. We’ve got lawyers out there today. I think what they’re asking for is something that we all agree on, except for the other side of the House.

The BCGLA did a card check, in line with the NDP’s recent legislation. Like I said before, 70 percent of their members want their own bargaining unit. That’s a pretty clear, pretty decisive majority, but instead of letting their lawyers unionize in their desired manner, again, we have a government that knows best.

I think this is primarily what is wrong with Bill 5. We’ve got legislation before us today which basically strips the right of the BCGLA’s ability to form its own union. They’re only given the option to join the existing Professional Employees Association. Now, I think the frustration with all of that is that we’ve seen, with this government, time and time again, that when they get it wrong, they really get it wrong.

I think with Bill 5 there’s a large majority that know they’ve got it wrong with this. That’s a challenge. That’s why we saw the action that we saw today outside, and we’ll continue to see that.

Many have characterized it as an attempt to muzzle a segment of our workforce, government lawyers, on the basis that they may not agree with government policy. When we face these challenges and look at what the rationale is and what the struggle is, overall, we see the fact that if you go against this government, particularly on these issues of unionization, there’s no room for collaboration. There’s no room for discussion. It’s just force, and in this case, it’s forced by legislation.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think that’s wrong. By the crowd that we saw out today, by the speakers that have spoken to this and, perhaps, by the lack of speakers that have spoken on the government side, I think there is agreement that this is wrong.

This bill was introduced months and months ago, and we’re on second reading. That should tell you something about the priorities of this government on this legislation. We have a gallery full of people today that probably had something better to do with their time, but they are fighting for something fundamental. They’re fighting for something, and they’re fighting for those that are probably coming after them, people that will be joining later on. They’re trying to make this a better situation for them. I think they should be commended for that.

Time and time again we look at areas of Bill 5, and we look at the challenges. It’s 321 current employees. It’s not a small number. You look at the sacrifices that these current 321 people have done for their education. They are serving the public. I think that should be commended. They’re here to serve the public, but they’re actually saying something fundamental.

The fact is that they want choice. They want choice in terms of their bargaining. Like I said,70 percent is a pretty decisive margin there. This government is saying, no, they know better. We see…. I know it was read before, but I’ll read it again, a quote from the Minister of State for Workforce Development, February 9, 2023: “People have the right to collective bargaining and to negotiate wages for themselves and negotiate conditions,” so we’re “allowing people to exercise their Charter rights to join a union and to negotiate a collective agreement.”

Those are somebody’s words from the executive council, three months ago. Here we are — May 8, just a couple of days left in the sitting — and we are debating Bill 5 at second reading. That should tell you of the challenges that this government has in front of it. They realize the challenges that are there; I think they realize that they struggle. The fact is that they’re trying to find a way out, and the only way out they’ve got right now is that they think they’re going to jam it through, through legislation.

When you look at some of the issues that have been put forward…. In another quote from Gareth Morley, he says: “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.” Again, it’s something we’re seeing, a pattern from this government: “If you’re not on side, you’re offside.”

That’s not very democratic. Like I said, it’s not in the best interest of the public. What happens then…. If you surround yourself with people that refuse to give you advice that may be contrarian or may be outside the box or may not be in line with your political policies, I don’t see that as a bad thing. At the end of the day, this government is going to do what it wants. We’re seeing that with Bill 5 today. We’re seeing that time and time again.

The massive challenge is that government knows it has put itself in a corner. The only way that they can get out of this is through jamming this legislation through, but I don’t see anybody that has been outside of this House and that is celebrating Bill 5.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, I get it that there are probably a lot of people outside of this House that don’t know what Bill 5 is, but there were a lot of people on that lawn, at the Legislature, whose lives are impacted by this legislation, and the people that will come after.

I think that’s fair. I think that there’s an ability here to press pause and have some reflection on legislation that wasn’t overly well-thought-out. Obviously legislation that was not done with collaboration and in a way that, I think, infringes on the rights of workers, whether they’re in the trades or whether or not they hold a medical degree or, in this case, a law degree. The fact is that we have over 300 lawyers that are serving the public of British Columbia. My colleague from Vancouver-Langara read some of those names into the record today because they are joining us in the House today.

I think the opportunity for government is to say: “Hey, I think we might have gotten this one wrong.” I think that maybe the best thing to do is for us to actually try and sit down and collaborate on a solution going forward and maybe listen to the 70 percent that wanted their own bargaining unit.

In my closing remarks, I will say that you sometimes have to back up what you say. If this is a government that is truly on the sides of workers, this is a classic case of where there’s an opportunity here to actually get it right. There is an opportunity here to do the right thing. There is an opportunity here to reset.

Everything that we do in this House through legislation…. Anything through communications has a legal lens to it. It’s a case. Every legislation the government puts forward has that lens on it, and it’s an important lens.

I think that there is a large feeling of disrespect through this process. I think that there is an overwhelming feeling of “the government knows best” in an area where they don’t really know what they don’t know.

With that, I conclude my remarks, and I will not be supporting.

D. Davies: I thought maybe someone from the government side might stand up and speak to this, but no, I guess not. Thanks for the opportunity. It is important to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 5, as my colleagues before me.

You know, Bill 5 is not a very big bill. It’s a one-pager that could have some resounding impacts for many years and generations to come. I think it is absolutely important and appropriate that we spend the time here raising the issues, speaking to the concerns that, as my colleagues have said, a number of times today, as we have folks this afternoon out on the front lawn…. This isn’t the first time that they’ve come out.

I do want to…. I’m not going to, of course, rehash all the comments that my colleagues have made, but I am going to pick just a couple things from the Environment Minister, who spoke on this. In fact, I think he might be the only one, other than the minister who presented the bill, to speak on this.

[3:45 p.m.]

This was following my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson and a couple of others, the House Leader of the Green Party, making some very wise, compassionate reasons why this is the wrong way to go for the government.

Just some of the quotes from the Environment Minister around the comments that my colleagues are making. It’s “simply untrue.” It’s “simply not true.” It’s “frankly offensive.” It’s “just simply inexplicable.” That’s just a few comments on the minister’s statement on the comments that we, as the opposition, and the Third Party have been making around how this is not the right way to move forward on this piece of legislation.

My friend from Surrey–White Rock had stated some great things — that the government needs to rethink, collaborate, do the right thing. The right time to do the right thing is right now, and we’re not seeing that being done. We can probably all predict and hope that government will have an epiphany between now and when the second reading wraps up and will vote with us.

Saving that, we are, certainly, going to be looking forward to committee stage, which will follow this, where we can dive into some of the reasoning about why the government has chosen, specifically, to go down this path.

I also want to just bring up a couple more…. Again, I’m not going to quote everything that the Minister of the Environment stated in his parts, but…. This is his quote: “And it is just patently obvious to me that a basic understanding of labour law, the function of the labour relations board and labour relations in general would be of great benefit to this debate, but I haven’t heard it until now.”

That very, I guess, paternalistic quote is a slap in the face not only to the lawyers that are in the gallery joining us today but all of the lawyers that are standing up for their right, to all of us here in this chamber that are debating this. To basically say that everything we’ve said is false…. To me, I find that quite offensive.

The minister also stated: “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 the members of the opposition and the Third Party have about actions of this government, most of which have not factual.” Again, another slap in the face for something that, very specifically, this Premier is trying to ram down the throats of the lawyers and British Columbians in general.

We’ve heard about the pattern of this Premier. I will get into that here momentarily. And we’ve heard about — and I’ve heard it used a couple of times in different pieces — the Premier’s very Machiavellian way of getting his own way. I think I’ve heard it twice today mentioned, so just for fun, I thought I would read a little bit about Machiavellianism.

“While the term ‘Machiavellian’ may be inspired by an author from the 16th century, Machiavellians are common in all kinds of settings.” In here. “Machiavellianism is a personality trait that denotes cunningness, the ability to be manipulative and a drive to use whatever means are necessary.”

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ll just park that there, as I move into the rest of my points, and I’ll let the thousands of people I’m sure that are watching the Hansard debate make the connection between my comments and, possibly, that.

I do want to go back briefly. I forgot to make one little tie-in to the Minister of Environment’s long diatribe here of saying everything we’ve been saying and everything the lawyers are saying is wrong. Just to tie it in…. I know we’ve heard a number of comments already from Gareth Morley, the president of the BCGLA. But the slap in the face really does come to the lawyers, who are standing up for their rights. As Gareth says: “Our members have spoken loud and clear. With a 97 percent mandate of support, our job action committee will start planning right away to oppose Bill 5, with several tactics being considered.”

I’m sure that these wise lawyers understand what is being proposed in this one-page bill that is going to have huge impacts on lawyers and other people across the province. I also find it quite interesting that this bill, Bill 5, is coming from a self-proclaimed progressive, pro-union, pro-workers government.

Interjection.

D. Davies: Oh, sorry, self-professed. Yes, that should be made fairly clear. It’s self-professed.

But of course, what we are seeing here is anything but, and we’ve seen this before. We have seen this pattern.

This bill does make very clear that this government is only in business for looking after their own friends, their own supporters, their own unions that support them. I think, really, that is a big piece of what is driving the direction of this decision.

This isn’t a new move by the lawyers, to start this. This has been ongoing for quite some time. This is about protecting…. When we look at the professional association, which the government wants to force the lawyers into, we’re talking a very unique group of individuals that have been thinking about this for quite some time and saying that it will not work to be putting some 300 — north of 300 — lawyers that are working on this right now…. It will not work for them to be put in the professional association.

As mentioned here a few times, the lawyers actually followed the NDP’s new law of doing a card check. It was 70 percent in favour of creating their own bargaining unit, which the B.C. Federation of Labour agrees is a good thing. There are other unions that also agree. The Professional Employees Association also agrees that they should have that ability to join and create their own bargaining unit.

But this seems to be just another attempt by the Premier to muzzle the government lawyers to stop them from proceeding to create their own bargaining unit. Bill 5 is another time when the Premier — we’ve heard the term before — has put his thumb on the edge of the scale to shift the results to his liking. This is just another example of many.

[3:55 p.m.]

Making them sign non-disclosure agreements so they are muzzled…. They cannot talk about this. We start hearing over and over again, whether it’s the Premier sitting now or when he was at the cabinet table as the Attorney General, that the ability of the Premier to get his own way, by whatever means, like in Bill 5, is astounding. We saw it when he created the proportional representation referendum, which we fought on this side — changed it. Made it fit his narrative. Thankfully, it did not pass.

Even his own track record in dealing with ICBC…. He knew he couldn’t win the battles in court, so he proceeded to change the playing field. Again, puts his thumb on the scale, uses the legislative powers at his beck and call to make it fit his narrative….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I interrupt? I think we have an introduction of students.

D. Davies: I was just getting going, Madam Speaker, but yes.

B. D’Eith: I seek leave to make an introduction. Thank you, Member.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: In the House today, we have the Garibaldi Secondary grade 9 class with Duane Kirkpatrick.

Hi, everybody.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film, I wanted to say how honoured I am to have musicians in the House. I really appreciate them all being here.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Davies: I was actually getting a little excited. I thought the member for Maple Ridge–Mission was going to stand up and add to the debate, but I do welcome the school that he did introduce as well. We are debating second reading on Bill 5, which is what we’re talking about right now.

I’ll get back into my notes. Even today, talking about patterns, we had the Leader of the Third Party bring forward, in one of her questions today to the Premier, calling very clearly the pattern that the Premier has shown for himself over the last number of years — including today, when we saw just in this very House the tabling of the housing report, the audit, and the ability of the Premier to manipulate the results through what we can do in this place.

This is where I kind of left off. I was talking about ICBC, when he had to use his legislative powers in this place to get the results that he wanted. My colleague from Penticton had some issues around homelessness and housing in his own riding of Penticton. There was incredible community pushback. The municipality was pushing back. Again, this Premier, going around the courts to see his way through it….

I’ve just talked about B.C. Housing. We are seeing many of these things coming forward over and over again. I might even call into the very simple one that started…. Maybe this was his foundation, his own leadership race. How that was laid out to favour him using, again, his thumb on the scale to achieve the results that he wanted. It is quite funny when you go back to looking at the Machiavellianism, cunningness, the ability to be manipulative, by whatever means necessary.

[4:00 p.m.]

It really fits on not only Bill 5, but the pattern that we’ve seen by this Premier over and over again. Bill 5, I think, really does shred any credibility that the NDP has now when it comes to free and fair bargaining.

I do understand a lot of this. I’m a union member. Formerly, I’ve served…. I was a teacher with the BCTF. I drove a ready mix truck, was a member of the Teamsters. I do understand a lot around what is happening here. But this is not right what is happening here today.

We heard the Labour Minister just recently talk about the importance that…. The NDP love to say this all the time, that the best place to resolve disputes is at the bargaining table — but only when it’s convenient for them. Really, the government should be ashamed. Being as progressive as they self-proclaim, to be bringing forward legislation like this is embarrassing.

My colleague, as he was summing up before me…. I was going to say a lot of the same quotes that he said, but I’m not going to repeat the same quotes, just repeating them over and over again. But I do hope that this government will reconsider their decision, because as I said at the start, the right time to do the right thing is right now. This government does have that opportunity, does have that ability to make that happen.

With that, I really do hope that the government does change their course of action — listen to the lawyers, listen to the members of the opposition, listen to even many of their own unions, one being the union itself that they’re trying to be forced into — and make the right decision on this matter.

G. Kyllo: It’s certainly gives me a great amount of pride to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023.

It’s interesting. We talk about public service labour relations. These are disastrous relations contained within this legislation where government is taking a high-handed approach to override the rights of workers for freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom to actually choose which union they choose to actually represent them.

You can’t help but kind of wonder why we are here today with this piece of legislation. May it be due to strained relations between this government and the lawyers that actually represent government and provide legal advice to government?

We have seen time and time again — where the advice that’s being provided, the advice that’s being sought by government — where this government continues to lose in courts, whether it’s government’s high-handed approach to use every tool in their toolbox, every tool at their disposal, to try and oppose Trans Mountain…. I’m quite certain that the lawyers that are representing government would have let them know that there was little, if any, chance of actually succeeding.

What did we find? Millions of dollars spent destroying the relationship with our federal government. Clearly, pipelines, as is with airports and our seaports and railroads…. That’s all federal jurisdiction, but that didn’t stop this government from expensing millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to fight the federal government. It stalled out the Trans Mountain pipeline, again, putting further harm to the relationship with the federal government, adding additional cost burden by stalling and delaying that project.

I think the reason why we’re here today, sadly, is because this government has strained the relationship with those to which it seeks for legal advice.

[4:05 p.m.]

Their concern on how there’s a damaging impact on the relationship is why they are now trying to railroad, discriminating against the opportunity for 321 lawyers that have provided great legal advice and service to British Columbia for over 30 years. This government wants to actually put their thumb on this group of lawyers, to dictate to them who will be the union that actually represents them.

It’s interesting. This is clearly a labour bill, but we don’t see this bill being presented by the Labour Minister. We have not heard any commentary from the Labour Minister. This bill was brought forward as a finance bill, which is just a little bit unusual and odd. I’m sure that maybe even the Labour Minister had some significant concerns with respect to the oppressive manner by which this government is undertaking to actually quash the right of these workers to choose freely which union they choose to represent them.

I’d certainly encourage the Minister of Labour, if he is so supportive of this government and the direction they’re going, to stand in this House to participate in second reading on Bill 5 and let it be known what his views are, because we’ve certainly heard from many unions around the province their direct opposition to the direction that this government is going.

The very union that this government is demanding and forcing these 321 lawyers to associate with, the Professional Employees Association, has indicated that government should not be dictating and directing and choosing which union to represent these workers.

It’s interesting why we are here today. As has been set out by many of my colleagues, some of the examples of how this government…. As much as they may try and decry that they’re on the side of workers, that is not the case for union certification votes, one of the most fundamental aspects of democracy.

I think if you asked anybody on the street what one of the most fundamental principles of democracy, a democratic society, is…. The secret ballot — being able to identify and clearly articulate which way you choose to vote on a matter — is made in secret. But what did this government do in their first term in office? They stripped workers of the right to the secret ballot. It’s offensive. It’s unbelievable and, I would almost suggest, probably unconstitutional.

That is the direction that this government has taken. Why? Because it will increase the success rate for union certification. They’ve so much as said that. Without the secret ballot, union certification success rates, I believe, were 17 percent higher. Anything that this government can do to manipulate, to stack the deck, to move the odds in favour of a direction that they feel, singularly, is in the best interests of British Columbia — they find no fault and no reason in doing that.

It has been referenced also on their supposed community benefit agreements — otherwise now starting to get more widely known as the community rip-off agreements — that it is actually forcing workers to join not any union, not a union of their choice, but only those unions which this government deemed to be those that are supportive of their policy direction at the exclusion of all others.

A government that picks winners and picks losers. Just think about this for a second. A worker may select a union to represent them for ten or 15 years. If that union, or a corporation with that union, decides to want to bid on a Highway 1 expansion project or on the Cowichan Hospital being built in Cowichan…. If they want to even bid on that project, that union, unless it’s one of the 19 handpicked unions that this government has identified, they’re not good enough.

[4:10 p.m.]

Many of the progressive unions — Christian Labour Association of Canada, Canada West, CISIWU…. Those aren’t good enough. We have a government that is very picky, choosey, picking winners at the exclusion of all others and directing work at a significant cost to British Columbians.

What this government will say is: “Well, those workers can still work on those projects. They just have to kick their union that they’ve chosen to have represent them for the last 15 or 20 years…. Kick them aside, come join one of ours, one of the unions that are more supportive of the NDP government.”

What have we seen? Construction costs continue to escalate under this very unfair and discriminatory policy. It’s incredibly offensive. I believe it was the leader of the Green Party, in his remarks last week, who referenced: “What kind of a twilight zone is this where we have an NDP government actually taking off the gloves and taking on a fight full-on with the workers that they profess to want to support?”

There are many examples with respect to some of the other hypocrisy of this government as it relates to Bill 5, which we’re debating here today. I think that the majority of British Columbians would also agree that the choice of workers to freely associate and have representation of their choosing is a fundamental right. But again, with a damaged and strained relationship with a government that has embarked on successive failed legal attempts, likely contrary to the advice it’s given by the legal advisers, by these very lawyers….

We see government’s concern with these specific lawyers, these 321 lawyers, having an association that represents their specific interests. This government wants to be able to direct these workers into a union that they have, potentially, more control on, where these 321 workers will be a very small component. That is something I think that all of us should be very concerned about.

Don’t take my word for it. Some of the quotes and commentary by these very lawyers are incredibly damning. Mr. Morley states that his members want their own union in part because they want to negotiate contract guarantees protecting them if they give government advice that doesn’t align with its policy goals. “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” — without retribution.

The NDP have asked Mr. Morley to meet in person to talk about policy proposals affecting association members, but only under the condition if he signs a confidentiality agreement. Well, any individual that might want to represent the 321 lawyers that are going to be impacted would certainly need to be able to discuss and to convey with the other members, the other lawyers, what those discussions may or may not have shared, what might have been unfolded from those discussions.

It seems to be a pattern of almost divide and conquer: “Pick a spokesman. We’ll confine that particular spokesperson to a confidentiality agreement. Then we’ll negotiate, but whatever we talk about can’t be shared with all of the others that you’re representing.”

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s unfair; it’s unjust; it’s not right — to the point that I can’t recall, in the history of British Columbia, have we seen the Government Lawyers Association actually protesting on the front lawns of the Legislature. Never before in the history of this province. All is not well.

This government continues to try and profess out there, through their 500-plus employees of government communications and provincial engagement, that things are all good. “Don’t worry about it. Nothing to see here, folks.” But we’re starting to see signs of this oppressive nature of this government. People are finally feeling the confidence to be able to stand up and to speak up against the high-handed approach of this government.

We’ve seen the hypocrisy at play when it comes to transit strikes. Squamish Sea to Sky was the longest transit strike in the history of our province; 220-plus days, I believe, was the number of days. What did this government say? “Oh, just got to let the due process work its way out. Government has no role in trying to encourage the two parties to come together to actually form an agreement.”

Well, if you’re somebody that is maybe going to follow the green initiatives and maybe abandon your car and say, “Look, I’m going to do what’s right for the planet; I’m going to rely on public transit,” when transit goes on strike, they don’t have a vehicle. They can’t get to work, can’t get to a medical appointment, can’t get to school, can’t even, for retired individuals that may not have a car, get to a park or go visit friends or other family members.

The bus system is on strike. Tens of thousands of people impacted. What does this government say? “Don’t get in the way of due process. Just let the process unfold.” Who cares about the inconvenience of tens of thousands of individuals? They either just have to change all of their plans or miss a medical appointment or pay the high price of a taxi or Uber or whatever might be available or, in some communities where that doesn’t exist, have to rely on neighbours or family or friends — for over 200 days. This government doesn’t want to monkey with the system. Let the due process unfold.

The hypocrisy of that is that when it comes to Bill 5 and this legislation before us, when the government doesn’t get what it wants…. These 321 workers have actually followed this government’s legislation, followed all the rules around application for certification, and have identified their desire to form their own association to represent them. When government doesn’t like that and that is before the labour board, which is the right due process, this government is not saying: “Let the due process unfold.” No, they’re intervening.

I think they know full well that the labour board in no way, shape or form could ever rule on the side of government. So what does this government do? Bring down the hammer. Bring down Bill 5 to force these workers, to deny them of their right to freedom of association and force them to join the Professional Employees Association, the union that actually is telling this government: “You shouldn’t be forcing that. You should let the due process unfold.”

This government is not representing all British Columbians. They’re managing to try and avoid, maybe, embarrassment. They’re forming policy around a political calculation, not what truly is in the best interest of all British Columbians. If they really were looking at the majority of British Columbians that were impacted on something like a transit labour strike, they’d have found opportunity to find their feet and to bring the parties together and find resolution well in advance of the 220-plus days it took to resolve that labour dispute. That’s not isolated. It’s unfolding again now in Abbotsford, the exact same issue.

[4:20 p.m.]

Workers have the right to strike, but I think British Columbians also have the right to access to public transit. You know, on one hand, government is saying that we all need to rely more on public transit and not everybody should have a car. Those individuals that maybe sell their car and want to start relying on public transit…. Then they find out, well, this doesn’t work, because government is allowing this labour strike to unfold, and British Columbians are denied access to transit.

What message does that send to others that might be thinking about maybe hanging up the keys and parking the car and trying to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Well, you can’t rely on a service that you can’t rely upon. When a government stands idly by and states: “We can’t interfere. We have to let due process unfold.” Yet when it comes to Bill 5, when it comes to certification applications, that is exactly what they are not doing. They are taking a very high-handed heavy approach in deciding to overrun the existing labour legislation, do an end run on these 321 workers, stripping them of their right to freely associate. I think that should be of great concern to all British Columbians.

We’ve seen the same behaviour when it comes to local government. Should a local government decide to move in a certain direction that may not mirror the direction that this government chooses to take, what do they do? They don’t let the due process unfold with respect to the court challenge that was underway with Arbutus. The government doesn’t want to see that unfold. They enact legislation to stop the court proceedings that were underway, because government knows best. If this government is not seeing an outcome that may be in step with their policy direction, they’re going to bring down the hammer.

We’re talking about Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, but it’s so much more than that. We have a government that has decided, heaven knows why, to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of deadly drugs — heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, crack cocaine — without any safeguards put in place.

I spoke earlier about the damaging efforts that this government has undertaken to create with the federal government on fighting Trans Mountain Pipeline. The federal government didn’t decide that suddenly B.C. should decriminalize all hard drugs for three years. It was this government that went and sought the support of the federal government. What did the federal government say? That there need to be significant guardrails in place.

So the federal government listened, at the request and behest of this NDP government, with specific conditions. “Look, if we’re going to support your direction on decriminalizing deadly drugs, you need to do all the baseline work. You need to undertake all of the analysis to ensure that there is establishing a baseline.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re on Bill 5.

G. Kyllo: Yes, thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and I certainly appreciate, as always, your sage advice, and I will bring this back to Bill 5.

Where this, I think, is important is that the federal government had specific conditions around establishing a baseline so that government would be able to determine if this policy change has had improvement or detrimental impacts on society in British Columbia. None of that work was done. There was a requirement that those that are seeking treatment were to be provided immediate access to treatment. Well, that’s certainly not the case. There are literally thousands of British Columbians awaiting treatment that don’t have access to it.

[4:25 p.m.]

When they brought this legislation forward, they didn’t even have the tenacity to ensure that drug use was not going to be widespread in our parks, our playgrounds.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. Bill 5 — I know. We’re almost there. I see some consternation by the member opposite. But we’re coming back to it. This all has to do with relationships in a government that is refusing to even listen to our federal counterpart, a government that has a high-handed approach in suppressing workers’ rights by stripping them of the secret ballot — stripping 321 lawyers of their ability to freely associate — and their direction on not even following direction that’s provided by the federal government, on their request, to safeguard society.

The laws in B.C. today are such that you can’t sip a glass of wine in a community park with your spouse. But it allows for the open use and injecting of heroin.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to bring it back to Bill 5, please.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely.

All of this shows a government that has a proclivity to just unilaterally move forward. If the federal government has directions that they choose not to follow, well, whatever. Be damned, federal government. Away we go with no safeguards in place. When it comes to protecting some of the most fundamental democratic rights — the right to a secret ballot — it doesn’t fit the political agenda. Kill that. Strip that from workers.

In here, where we have lawyers looking for the right, they have followed all the rules that this government has brought in. They’re following the legislation and the matter is before the labour board. But I think the government knows that the labour board ruling would never rule in favour of the heavy-handed approach of this government. So what did they do? They do an end run.

What’s even worse is that when Bill 5 was first tabled, well over two months ago, they withdrew the bill. Government was having a challenge getting legislation drafted. Well, guess who drafts that legislation? These very lawyers. Government pulled the bill. I wasn’t party to the conversation, but I can only imagine. “It’s okay, guys. Get back to work. Let’s get the legislation all crafted to get through this session. It’s all good. We’ll find a solution.”

Once all the bills have been tabled and government has got what they wanted, and they got their pound of flesh out of these lawyers, what do they do? They bring back in Bill 5 to again carry through with their heavy-handed agenda. That is incredibly offensive.

I can only imagine, as the number of court losses started to pile up, the millions of dollars were expensed, all of the labour that was expensed and all of the effort by these lawyers to fight a losing battle, I’m sure it must have been concerning. It must have strained that relationship. I believe that that is largely why we’re here today with this piece of legislation. A government that has a pattern of picking winners and losers, of not respecting the rights of workers — for that, I certainly cannot support Bill 5.

I implore this government to do what’s right, to do the right thing. I think they all know what the right thing is. I see the Minister of Labour…. Oh, I can’t reference that. But I certainly do hope that the Minister of Labour speaks to this bill and actually clearly lets British Columbians and other unions know.

[4:30 p.m.]

Because I think the fear will likely be that if government can just choose to force legislation and to predetermine which union might best represent workers, who’s next? Think of the nurses that’ve been sidelined on account of vaccination status.

I was fully vaccinated. I support vaccinations. I tell all my kids and my grandkids to get vaccinated. But there is a subset of individuals across British Columbia that choose not to.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The unions that actually represent those specific workers…. We haven’t heard a lot from them. So 2,500 union workers have been sidelined, denied their ability to provide food for their families, to work in the profession. Many of them have 30, 40 years of providing care for British Columbians. Yet government policy, again, is picking winners and losers, making the choice, the determination of which workers are eligible to work and which ones are not.

I’m just going to conclude my comments there. I implore this government to do what’s right, to do what’s just, to pull Bill 5. There’s no urgency on this matter, no urgency whatsoever. Take the time. Reconsider. Allow workers to have the freedom of choice.

There will be ample time, even next fall, to have a look at bringing this forward. Again, no urgency.

Government, this gives you the opportunity to do the right thing. Pull Bill 5.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 5, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act. As my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands also did, I will be speaking in opposition to this bill.

I think just sort of setting the stage is important. Workers’ rights are definitely something I think we can all agree are critical to protect. I think all elected members, regardless of their party affiliations, would agree that part of a government’s job is to protect workers, to protect the rights and the safety of workers. That is a significant role of the provincial government.

I’m going to wax poetic, at some length, about democracy. When we look at democracy and its connection to workers’ rights…. They are inextricably linked. Labour movements have, in fact, delivered democracy. Democracy, in turn, has delivered better outcomes for workers. This is an undeniable connection throughout the history of democracy and the history of labour unions. They go hand in hand. In so many ways, labour rights exist because of democratic systems. People have the ability to stand up for those rights, to protest, to strike, to take action.

In a democratic society, those rights are guaranteed. Here they’re guaranteed under the constitution. So there is this inextricable connection between the two.

I have to wonder how members on the government benches are feeling about the inevitable ending to this debate, in which all of us are going to have to stand up and indicate how we vote on this bill.

I’ve had a lot of conversations over the years about the difference between the Greens and other parties. One of the questions that has come up a lot is about whipped votes. The Greens don’t whip their votes.

[4:35 p.m.]

People will say to me: “How could you manage a caucus if you don’t whip your votes?” To that, I always respond that the work that we do, the work that I do, in particular — and I can speak for myself — is really based on principle. On every vote, there’s a question on how to vote based on…. What do I stand for? I don’t have to assume that my caucus members are going to vote the same way, although we are united by principle. In the case of the government caucus, voting against this bill is, essentially, an impossibility.

This is back to democracy. In Houses like this around the world, people are allowed to vote with their conscience. They’re allowed to vote the way they want. In fact, I would argue that all of us are elected here not, first and foremost, to represent a party but to represent the community that elected us and then to be accountable to that community and to those constituents.

I’ve noted the absence of government speakers on this bill. It has not been put forward by the Minister of Labour, even though it’s a labour relations amendment act. It’s curious that the Minister of Labour, the Attorney General, the former acting Attorney General or any of this government’s backbenchers have not spoken to this supposedly pro-worker bill.

The Attorney General is supported by these very lawyers. They are legislated to support her unique obligations. If this government truly believes in the legislation they’re proposing, I would expect a long line of speakers to express their opinions on the record as to why they will be supporting this legislation.

Collective bargaining rights are a constitutional right, and they cannot be bestowed by any government. The government’s lawyers work on behalf of the public to ensure that 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.

Let’s put on the record who opposes this legislation. The B.C. Federation of Labour, the B.C. General Employees Union, the B.C. Crown Counsel Association, the Professional Employees Association, which is the very same union this government is trying to force the lawyers into.

The BCGLA has tried to use the proper process and work with government to find a resolution. They have been in good-faith talks with this government for months and have offered independent adjudicators. This government flat out rejected that claim and instead brought this bill back for debate. The BCGLA has offered to speak to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour and the Premier about their position. They have refused. What seems clear from the correspondence that has been shared with us is that the NDP government doesn’t have a desire to be challenged or swayed from their course.

One of the issues that comes up in the correspondence is the issue of sexism. The Crown Counsel Association, which is made up of Crown prosecutors, is predominantly male. They were allowed to form their own union. But the B.C. Government Lawyers Association, when trying to follow the same steps, was denied that opportunity. BCGLA’s members are predominantly female. I met with a number of them at lunchtime today and heard from them directly how they feel about this legislation.

The government has claimed that it is interested in avoiding “a proliferation of bargaining units.” BCGLA put forward an alternative, approved by their members, of a single unit with the Crown Counsel Association in which two separate associations would bargain together. That model exists in the health sector and in others, but government rejected it because the executive of the Crown Counsel Association did not support it. But they simultaneously say that BCGLA’s consent — or the PEA’s, for that matter — is of no account.

The president of the BCGLA responded with this statement: “This is because of stereotypical and, frankly, sexist thinking about what we do. While I have full respect for Crown counsel and the importance of their independence, our roles are just as important to maintain the rule of law and the rights of people affected by government action.”

[4:40 p.m.]

For the first time in history today, the BCGLA has taken job action. I spoke with many of the lawyers who were on the front lawn this afternoon. To be clear, this government’s actions have resulted in their own government lawyers taking job action for the first time in history. A so-called progressive, pro-worker NDP government has angered their own public servants so much that they have made history by walking off the job and picketing right on the front steps of this very Legislature.

Those lawyers are expecting that the Public Service Agency will note this job action as illegal, but the lawyers do not agree. From the BCGLA: “On the government’s view, we’re not employees under the Labour Relations Code. That is foundational to their argument that BCGLA cannot be certified, yet it will have to claim that we are for the purposes of the anti-strike provisions. We will object to this inconsistent position.”

Another quote: “The employer has been arguing that we are not employees within the meaning of the Labour Relations Code but purports to find that the same basis for asserting the collective job action, which is a common law and Charter right, would be illegal.” I think, if nothing else, this points to, perhaps, the folly of going to battle with lawyers.

The PSA tried to sway these lawyers from striking. They were sent a warning letter from the office of the Attorney General, telling them they could not do so. “The terms and conditions of employment, the oath of employment, the professional obligations of civil government lawyers to their clients, the absence of legal authority for civil government lawyers to take job action and the likely disruption of government work are all factors which, in our view, compel the conclusion and expectation that all civil government lawyers will report to work and perform their assigned tasks on a regular and continuous basis. The public interest requires this.”

I would add to that that I think the public interest requires that people are allowed to bargain in good faith in this province.

These lawyers have been threatened with pay cuts and even being fired. “To confirm, it is the responsibility of the civil government lawyer to continue to follow the direction to continue with their assigned files and other work assignments, and to refuse to do so or participate in job action will constitute a breach of their employment contract, and the employer reserves the right to take appropriate action. Such appropriate action would include: no work, no pay; disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from the public service.”

This is the correspondence from this government to lawyers who are trying to exercise their constitutional right to collective bargaining. This government is employing fear tactics to scare their employees into submission. From the BCGLA: “Firing employees for protesting draconian legislation with job action would not be proportionate. To be sure, we have no reason to trust this employer not to engage in a draconian response if it thinks it can get away with it.”

Another memo from the office of the Attorney General on May 2 indicated: “The approach taken with the PSRLA amendment recognizes the right of BCGLA members to join a union, while maintaining the integrity of the collective bargaining model that applies to most other unionized public service employees. Until Bill 5 is in force, civil government lawyers continue to be bound by the terms and conditions as excluded employees and, therefore, do not have a legal right to take job action.” The government is trying to argue that they are giving their own lawyers the right to job action through this bill.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m not a lawyer, but the BCGLA is full of them, and it is their legal opinion that this is not true and that they’re entitled to their right, with or without this bill. That is a right enshrined in the Charter and not bestowed by a government.

There are other public strikes happening right now. The public transit strike in the Fraser Valley is entering its seventh week. Thousands of people in the Fraser Valley have been unable to get to work and school without taking on the financial burden of paying for taxis and Ubers. Others have cut back on their work, school and extracurricular activities because they have no way to get there.

The thing about the bus strike in the Fraser Valley is that although buses in that region are owned by B.C. Transit, although they boast B.C. Transit branding, they are in fact outsourced to a private corporation. Workers are underpaid and overworked, so they are on the picket line. Their employer hasn’t bothered to reach out to negotiate.

This is what happens when governments outsource public services to profit-seeking companies without any guard posts. This is what happens when a party, supposedly the party of the workers, is only a party for workers in rhetoric and not in action. We know, after all, that this government is a lot friendlier with wealthy corporations and lobbyists than they are at the moment with workers.

I’d like to remind the House where this government stood in terms of workers’ rights by reading some of their own words back into the record.

Number one, Minister of Labour, April 6, 2022: “I want to make it clear that I and this government fully support the free collective bargaining process. We must protect the integrity of free collective bargaining. Any hint of anybody interfering in that process is not useful.”

The member from North Cowichan, March 1, 2017:

“I want to say that unions have given the rights of association and democracy to free collective bargaining, but it means, simply, the right to negotiate wages and working conditions between employers and unions, free from government involvement or legal restriction. That’s what it means. So no one should have tried to suggest that it was okay to rip up those contracts.

“I mean, imagine if the NDP had ripped up a contract of any one of the Liberals’ corporate sponsors. There would be screams from parts of British Columbia wherever the Liberals hang out. They would be outraged at the idea that we could take one of their contracts and just rip it up. That’s how I feel about taking working-class people and ripping up their rights.”

The Minister of Labour’s mandate letter states: “Introducing the single-step certification to protect a worker’s right to join a union and bargain collectively for workplace safety, compensation and benefits.”

Just one year ago nearly to the day, this government introduced card-check legislation and declared that they were upholding workers’ rights to associate. Let’s look at what the Minister of Labour had to say at that time.

“I just want to say that at the end of the day, what we are doing through Bill 10 is upholding citizens’ rights to association. That is enshrined in the Canadian constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s not about employers, although they would be concerned, and it is not about unions, although, yes, they would be saying one way or the other.

“It is about citizens of this country. It is about upholding their right to association. I said this in my opening remarks. The right to free speech — if somebody was impeding that, everybody would be lighting their hair on fire. But impeding workers’ right to association and throwing roadblocks somehow is okay to the opposition. Not to us. Not to this side. Not to this government.”

Yet this bill goes directly against the wishes of the majority of the B.C. Government Lawyers Association.

[4:50 p.m.]

The BCGLA used the very same process outlined by this government through its card-check legislation to proceed forward. More than 70 percent — more than 70 percent — of the government lawyers signed cards indicating they wanted the B.C. Government Lawyers Association to be their bargaining unit.

There is a risk, a greater risk, to all of the work done in here when a government says one thing and does another.

More recently the Minister of Environment, May 4, 2023, Bill 5, second reading, spoke in defence of this bill. He has been the only other government member, as far as I know, to do so, so far: “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 that 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.”

These characterizations are, in fact, coming directly from them. It is the lawyers themselves who indicated that their independence was in jeopardy and that they were fearful of retaliation if their advice was not what this government wanted to hear.

What did those lawyers indicate to me? That they are feeling threatened with pay cuts or letters on their employee files. One said to me: “If they’re willing to do this to us, who else are they willing to do this to?” These are highly educated, thoughtful, professional workers who uphold the work of the province, of the government, and they feel they are being threatened by this government.

It’s a clear indication of what this government is willing to do to others, especially those not in such a privileged position of knowing the laws and their rights, like these lawyers are.

When someone shows you who they are, you have to believe them. This government is forcing their own lawyers into the wrong union and stating that it’s in their best interest. They are denouncing any thought that these lawyers are feeling at risk of punishment. But we are hearing counterpoints from the lawyers directly. They have been threatened with pay cuts and made to feel like their independent opinion is not wanted.

This is the same government that assures that health care workers are able to speak out against abuse at work, which we know is not the case. Again, we hear counterpoints directly from nurses.

This is the same government that has not brought in whistleblower protections for health care workers, who have delayed that process for years. This government is trying to paint a picture of workers’ rights, of saying that workers are free to whistleblow whenever they want, but we have heard from people on the ground that this is simply not the case.

BCGLA said this: “The employer has declared its position that we can’t include a statement of our reasons for being away tomorrow in our out-of-office. In litigation involving the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. Court of Appeal has recognized, however, that employees have a right under section 2(b) of the Charter to express themselves about their workplace concerns in work contexts, and that the employer cannot use their property rights to place blanket bans on such speech.”

Again, lawyers are very informed about the law and about rights under the law. This government says one thing, but it does another. Their actions speak the loudest, and it’s the actions that British Columbians must recognize and judge.

Minister of Environment, May 4, 2023, Bill 5, second reading: “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.”

[4:55 p.m.]

For the record, let’s be clear what Bill 5 does. B.C. government lawyers want to form their own union, as is their right. They have been advocating for that right for over ten years and recently submitted a case to the Labour Relations Board. Halfway through the process, the NDP government put forward this bill, directly interfering with the Labour Relations Board process.

It is a dangerous precedent for government to interfere with independent proceedings, especially when it involves their own culture. They say they’re removing a prohibition, but they’re forcing the lawyers into the professional employees union. That very union, the PEA, doesn’t want the government lawyers in their union against their wishes and stands with them and their right to pick their own union.

The BCGLA responded with:

“The most extended defence of Bill 5 from government was from the Minister of Environment, who argued that it was necessary, for labour policy reasons, to avoid ‘a proliferation of bargaining units,’ which would result in ‘industrial unrest.’”

Industrial unrest.

“In making this case, the minister did not mention that Crown counsel were making their own bargaining unit by legislation over 20 years ago, with none of the consequences he says that he is worried about. He didn’t mention that government lawyers have their own bargaining units across the country without these consequences. He did not mention that the lawyers offered to have parties agree on a neutral expert on labour relations and the justice system who would make recommendations about whether we could have our own bargaining unit without these consequences and, if not, what the best bargaining structure would be.”

The bill goes against the former Premier’s words. The former Premier had promised the Government Lawyers Association that the B.C. NDP would not force them into a union through legislation. Even if this bill does everything that the NDP says it does, it still directly contradicts the word of their former leader.

This government, I would argue, recognizes fully what they’re doing. The office of the Attorney General sent a memo on May 2 indicating: “Government recognizes this is not the specific bargaining structure BCGLA members have sought, but it is one that, in government’s view, recognizes their constitutional rights, while avoiding a proliferation of unions within the B.C. Public Service, which would not support the need to ensure stable provision of the vital public services citizens rely on.”

This is, I think, the core of the argument that government is trying to make: that the risk is that there would be too many unions. Again, the irony of an NDP government trying to convince the public and this House that what they see as a risk is too many unions.

I hope that we can see representation as it should be in this building. I doubt that we will. I’ve made these pleas before. I made these pleas on Bill 10, back in 2019, over and over again. People should never have to stand up in this place and vote for something they don’t believe in or vote against something they do believe in. People should never have to do that. I truly believe that. That is not how it was set up.

We are here, each of us representatives of one riding. We are here as independent representatives of that riding. Yes, we are all aligned with a caucus, but that doesn’t mean that we are stripped of our own capacity to vote the way we want to and believe that we should vote on legislation in this House.

[5:00 p.m.]

My hope is that members of government caucus can be true to the words that they’ve all spoken in this House, numerous times, about the right to collective and free bargaining. I’m not going to hold my breath on that, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak very strongly against Bill 5.

Deputy Speaker: Just to be clear, Member, the member could speak for up to two hours. I know the clock didn’t reflect that, but just to make sure that the member knew of her privilege. Thank you, Member.

Member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, for the invitation.

Well, look, I don’t really like these debates. I’m grateful for the previous member, from the Green Party, and for the leader and my colleagues who have participated. When I say that, it’s because they seem so one-sided.

You know, this place works when government introduces a piece of legislation, there’s something on the floor and we talk about it. The government says: “Here’s why it’s a good idea.” The opposition says: “Here’s why we don’t think it’s such a good idea.” Every now and then, we come to a meeting of the minds — but not always, not frequently. It’s not designed to work that way, but there is a give-and-take.

This is like playing ping-pong with yourself. You know, in ping-pong, you can put the other side of the ping-pong table up, and you can hit the ball to yourself, but you don’t really gain any appreciation for the other side, for the person you’re engaged with, testing the veracity of their arguments, for a better understanding what the rationale might be.

Now, to be fair, a number of the other speakers have referred to the Minister of Environment injecting himself into the conversation. Although I didn’t agree with all that he said, one should note that he did do that, but he has been the only one, aside from the Minister of Finance, who, I think, introduced the bill — which, in and of itself, strikes one as odd.

It’s a bill that directly impacts the rights of workers and how they organize themselves to engage in collective bargaining. Do you mean to tell me that the member for Surrey-Panorama doesn’t have any views on that? Has someone issued a press release that, in this place, we could be having a conversation that directly impacts the rights of workers to organize, to freely organize and engage in collective bargaining and the member for Surrey-Panorama has nothing to say about that — neither pro nor con? Well, there’s a first.

Over the years, I’ve come to make, rightly or wrongly, certain observations about how this place operates. There are sometimes reasons for why governments remain silent in the face of conversation about legislation that they have introduced. Mostly, it’s embarrassment. Mostly, it’s because governments aren’t comfortable defending the indefensible. I think this is a classic case.

This is a classic case of the government tabling a piece of legislation that they are intensely embarrassed about. Yet that doesn’t preclude the need for them to defend the legislation that they are seeking for this body to approve and that will have profound consequences for an important group of public employees. Anyway, that’s where we’re at in this one-sided discussion that we are having.

[5:05 p.m.]

Now, other members have characterized how we got here. I’ll take a stab, because it’s important to remind ourselves about Bill 5 and what has given rise to this — I was going to say weighty, but it’s not really that weighty; it’s one page; really, one section — and how we got here. The short story is this. A group of public servants — lawyers who provide vital services within government — decided that they wanted to organize themselves.

I should back up before that, because what they decided to do, ironically, is take advantage of something the government had actually done. It wasn’t that long ago that we stood in this place, and boy, there was a lineup of government speakers that day, when they decided to alter the rules around certification. There was no shortage. I haven’t gone back to see what the member for Surrey-Panorama said on that occasion, but I’ll need a pretty big binder to collect all of those government speeches.

Now, to be fair, the opposition wasn’t very keen on the changes that were made, and the opposition, I think, matched speaker for speaker and maybe then some, although we’re smaller in numbers, obviously, than the government. There was a pretty healthy debate on that. The government used their majority and made the change that altered the manner in which a group of workers could come together and decide how they wanted to be represented for collective bargaining.

Well, wouldn’t you know it? A group of government workers actually took them at their word and said: “Okay, we’re going to take advantage of that process. We’re going to go through all of the steps laid out in the amended labour code, and we are going to decide how we want to be represented in collective bargaining.” They went to the labour board, and they got approval to do it.

This is where it gets a little bit difficult for the average person to follow, because it’s at that point that the same government, not some future government but the same government which only a few months before had changed the rules around certification, said: “No, we don’t want you to do that.”

“Yes, we know you followed all the rules. Yes, we know that you did it precisely the way that we said you had to do it. Yes, we understand that you did nothing wrong — except to follow the labour code that we just finished amending — but we’re not very keen on this. We’re going to table a bill that actually stops you in your tracks.”

I know a little bit about how these bills…. It was developed, in this case, by the Minister of Finance. I’m assuming the entire cabinet agreed, including the Attorney General and including the Labour Minister. I can only imagine what that conversation must have been like.

Someone, I presume — we’ll never know, of course, because of cabinet confidentiality — put up their hand and said: “But haven’t they just done what we told everyone they were allowed to do?” I guess someone replied: “Yeah, but it’s not convenient this time. It’s not convenient for us. So we’re going to put a stop to it.” That is what led to the tabling of the bill. We are now debating Bill 5. I call it the bill of Damocles.

[5:10 p.m.]

If this had happened in any other circumstance, if government amended the labour code and a group of employees availed themselves of those amendments, organized themselves, went to get certified at the labour board and government said: “Well, on second thought, we don’t really think this is applicable to you. We’re going to table a bill that stops you from doing it. Now, would you like to talk to us…?” Could I lay out more graphically a definition of bad-faith bargaining?

If any other employer in the country were to try this, howls of outrage would emerge from the government benches. “Yes, we’d love to have a chat with you. By the way, remember Bill 5, because we can put a stop to this anytime we want because we have a majority in the parliament, you know.”

You have to ask yourself, I suppose, why any of this has happened, why it was deemed necessary, why the professional lawyers operating within the government finally felt the need to take the step that they did.

We have heard from other speakers in this debate — all of them, I’m afraid, on the opposition benches — about the concerns that were emerging, the rumours of challenge and then the statements of challenges to independence. I mean, these are…. I’m going to speak in a moment about the importance of that independence in a society built around the rule of law. And this is the group of employees that government relies upon to get advice about the rule of law, so it is not by any means inconsequential.

The government responded with Bill 5 and said no to the approach. Other speakers have commented on the lack of willingness on the part of the government to provide an argument in support of that proposition. Now again, to be fair, the Environment Minister got up and talked about what he saw as a rationale for the approach the government is taking. I don’t agree entirely with either the end result or the argument. He did, however, as the previous speaker pointed out, talk about non-proliferation. I don’t mean that, obviously, to be funny. We usually hear that term used in another context. But what he didn’t mention in those remarks, because I looked up what he said….

He said to work in the public service, you’ve got three choices, three organizations that you join in terms of representation, and that’s it. Except that’s not actually completely accurate, because the Environment Minister, as a very experienced labour leader, understands that there are exceptions to that.

Across the street here, the King’s Printer has their own bargaining unit. I don’t know how that happened. I mean, I don’t think the world of collective bargaining has come to an end. It certainly didn’t during the time that I sat on the other side of the House.

The ambulance paramedics secured, as I recall, a separate bargaining organization for themselves. The Crown counsel have a bargaining body for them. If that is the argument upon which the government’s approach rests, then I’m going to suggest that it’s an awfully weak argument. It is an awfully weak argument.

[5:15 p.m.]

What really concerns me is that this approach that they’ve taken, really at the end of the day, doesn’t have anything to do with that but denotes an overall bias that the government has revealed over the past number of years, and the Premier, ironically, has revealed, both in his previous role as Attorney General and now as the Premier, to disparage and challenge the independence of those who practice the legal profession.

Why do I say that? What is the evidence that I would call to demonstrate that? We were all around when the now-Premier spearheaded the move to no-fault insurance. We all remember the statements that he made about the role that personal injury lawyers were playing in the previous system and how that was compromising various things and needed to be addressed through the…. In that case, the legal profession and personal injury lawyers were part of the problem that needed to be addressed.

There’s been some reference to Crown prosecutors and, obviously, the incredibly important role that they play. They have a separate bargaining unit. We haven’t spent a lot of time talking about where they’re at with their bargaining because it’s become a bit of a challenge under this government.

Prosecutors enjoyed a ten or 12-year period of harmonious, peaceful labour relations — not so much anymore. In fact, this government has been to the Labour Board on, I think, at least two occasions, challenging. I think they lost both times because the prosecutors, in a situation where the contract has expired and, under the provisions of that term, say: “Well, the old provisions just roll over until we get a new deal.” The government didn’t like that.

There’s something about that old agreement that the government wants to change, but they’re either going to have to negotiate that change or — and this is where prosecutors, I think, are getting nervous — we’re going to see Bill 5 sub (b), because, by virtue of their action, this government is demonstrating the length it is prepared to go to, to have its own way.

There’s another reason people are watching, and particularly those in the legal profession, because — the Attorney knows this, we had this conversation in estimates — there is the prospect of significant change to the Legal Profession Act and the rules that govern how lawyers are regulated.

If the government and the Premier and the Attorney don’t think lawyers, in general, are watching how those amongst their profession, who work within government, are being treated, then they are mistaken. People are watching. People are watching very, very closely.

The independence of the legal profession isn’t just something that we talk about here because of the nature of the work that they do, which is so crucially important in terms of providing advice to government. The independence of our legal profession is something the Supreme Court of Canada has commented upon — more than commented; it has ruled upon. I presume the Premier and the Attorney and the people that advise government are aware of these decisions. In 2004, Finney v. Barreau du Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled explicitly and commented specifically on the importance of maintaining independence.

[5:20 p.m.]

This is true and this is important from the context of regulatory frameworks to be sure. It is presumably equally true when it comes to those members of that profession, who are engaged with government, having the right to organize themselves in the way that they choose.

Yet by virtue of Bill 5, the government says: “Well, we don’t really care about that.” Here’s a prediction. It’s not a particularly risky prediction, because the approach the government has taken, this flawed approach, in challenging the choice made by their very own legal counsel…. This one is going to court. I mean, surprise, surprise. Government has already demonstrated it is going to make use of its majority, it is going to do so this week, and it is going to ram Bill 5 through.

I think that was probably the intention from the outset. I’m still trying to imagine what those conversations were like when the government said: “Oh. Well, yes, we’ve tabled the bill, but we’ll have some meaningful conversations.” Right, with the bill of Damocles hanging over the heads of their interlocutors. This one is going to court, and I’m not sure who the government is getting their legal advice for on this one. That would be an interesting question.

I’ll make a confession, because we’ve talked here about the constitutional rights that people have and employees have and workers have to organize, including professional workers, but the expansion of collective bargaining rights by the Supreme Court actually took place well after the advent of the Charter. It happened at a time when I was in government, and it’s something members opposite — some of them who might be aware — take pains to point out, when the government I was a member of took some steps that were challenged.

I can tell you the legal advice at that time was that collective bargaining rights, if they existed in the Charter, were very limited. The court expanded upon those rights dramatically. The court expanded under the guise of freedom of association what those collective bargaining rights were.

If the government thinks that this is not going to be scrutinized and that this isn’t going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada, then I think they’re dreaming, because the principle at stake here is important, not just for the 300-plus professional public servants that are impacted directly by this. The principle at stake matters to thousands upon thousands upon thousands of workers.

A few of my colleagues have made this point that it is curious to know and to see, to match what people say with what they do and to get a better sense of how committed someone is or, in this case, a government is to a principle. If I had a nickel for every time I heard a member opposite on the government benches talk about the importance of free collective bargaining rights, maybe I’d be retired by now.

The true test of a commitment to a principle, in my view, isn’t when the principle is operating in a way that is convenient for you. I mean, the test of our commitment to freedom of speech — and someone mentioned this a few moments ago — isn’t when people are saying nice things about you. My goodness, over the last three decades, I’ve been on the receiving end of all kinds of negative comments, some of them probably deserved. But the right to say it — that is the principle. The freedom to say it is the principle that we defend.

[5:25 p.m.]

Well, surely the same is true when we are talking about labour rights and collective bargaining rights. To limit it in the way that the government purports to do because it is politically convenient — or in this case, politically possible because of the government’s majority — suggests that the commitment isn’t nearly as genuine. The commitment to those principles and that principle isn’t nearly as fulsome as the government would have us believe or have, probably, their supporters believe. That is troubling.

It’s part of a pattern. We have seen the government’s approach to manipulating organized labour in a way that suits its political needs. The CBAs, or the community ripoff agreements, that deliver less and cost more are ample evidence, if we needed any, that the government is far more interested in playing favourites and manipulating matters to its political advantage than it is in truly endorsing and embracing principles of fairness and freedom to collectively organize in the way people wish — or to not organize, as the case may be. There are those that seek not to do so.

You look at a situation where, in the expenditure of public money on public projects, workers in British Columbia would be told by this government not just that they have to belong to a union but that they have to belong to a particular union, and you see where the seeds of a bill like Bill 5 derive from.

Once again the government is saying to a group of workers who have chosen to organize themselves: “Not so fast. We don’t approve of the way you have chosen to organize yourself.” At the end of the day, what this government has demonstrated is that that is the principle they are most attached to: that people do things the way they want them to in a form that works for them.

Freedom and democracy aren’t really like that, at least they aren’t if you genuinely embrace those principles. Sadly, Bill 5 represents yet another example of the government saying one thing and doing something different. People are waking up to it, and the hundreds of people gathered on the lawns at the front of the Legislature are evidence of that. I think they are representative of a growing feeling out there, of people who are saying: “Enough is enough. Enough manipulation of these structures of government.”

I don’t expect we’ll hear from the member for Surrey-Panorama. Again, I will mark this day as special: a bill that directly impacts on the rights of workers in British Columbia to collectively organize and negotiate, and the member for Surrey-Panorama remains silent. Well, there is still time, and we live in hope. We live in hope that there may yet…. I mean, people have lots of duties around here. Maybe she’s not yet aware of what’s taking place here.

[5:30 p.m.]

Maybe this debate has caught her by surprise, and she is now bringing herself up to speed, and we’ll hear what the Member for Surrey-Panorama has to say so that she can look the brothers and sisters in the eye and say: “I spoke out when a bill addressing these crucial rights that workers have came before the House that I was a member of, and in the government caucus that I sat in, I stood up to be counted, and I offered my views on this matter.”

It’s hard for me to imagine that such a moment would last without the member for Surrey-Panorama speaking on a matter that is so near and dear to her. Say it isn’t so, but there is still time. I’m going to sit down now, so there is more time for the member for Surrey-Panorama to put her comments on the record.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Peace River South. [Applause.]

M. Bernier: Oh, gee. Thank you, thank you. That applause wasn’t for somebody on the other side standing up. It’s for me, actually, surprisingly enough.

I think as we get into talking about Bill 5 here, I first want to thank my colleague before me. I can’t mention him by name. I can say Abbotsford West, KC. Obviously, the member who spoke before me is well versed in a lot of this. I’ll do my part to add to the commentary on Bill 5, as we’ve heard so many from the opposition side of the House who have stood to voice their concerns.

I think a lot of the concerns we’re hearing really stem back, to start with, with process, how this process has unfolded — frankly, the mistreatment of the process — and how our 321 government lawyers and assistants are being treated through that process.

I’ll tell you that when Bill 5 was first presented in the House at the very beginning of this session, and then not brought forward, I thought: “This is government’s prerogative. This is an exposure bill.” I think that’s what a lot of us thought. You know, they were putting it out there to talk about intent, but then said, “ Don’t worry,” as my colleague before me talked about. Put the bill forward, and then go start negotiating.

You know what? We had faith. We had an opportunity here where government could have done the right thing and actually put their intentions forward but actually met with the lawyers, met with the group and talked about a process to bring forward rather than, as we’re seeing, and I’ll probably comment on this later on in my commentary, ramming it through in the last minute.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Let’s put this into context for a moment. I know it’s been a while. I don’t know if any of my colleagues have…. Maybe somebody has. But as it’s been mentioned by many, it’s a short bill. It’s one section, really, aside from commencement. It is one section. I think it’s important to read it in, so we understand what we’re talking about here.

In section 1, in subsection (1), the definition of “employee” is being repealed in paragraphs (b) and (u) and being substituted with the following: “a practising lawyer or articled student as defined in section 1(1) of the Legal Profession Act, who is engaged in the practice of law and who is (i) employed in the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General, (ii) employed in the Office of Legislative Counsel, or (iii) employed as a member of the staff of a court in British Columbia.”

Or in (u): “a person employed in the Legal Services Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General, other than a person who is a practising lawyer or articled student as defined in section 1(1) of the Legal Profession Act and who is engaged in the practice of law.”

Then also adding: “For the purposes of this Act, the Office of Legislative Counsel is not considered to be in the Legal Services Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General.”

I’m not a lawyer. I know this was written by lawyers. Ironically, it was scrutinized and written by, my assumption is, the same lawyers that the government is supposed to be allowing to bargain in good faith and do their card check — and I’ll talk about that in a moment — to do a union of their choice, which they’re trying to do. But when we read through that, it does sound like, I’ll argue, a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo.

[5:35 p.m.]

I’m not a lawyer. I try to interpret that, and I talk to smarter minds than myself who are lawyers, but it really boils down to this. Bill 5 is invalidating the B.C. Government Lawyers Association attempts to form their own union at the Labour Relations Board and instead forcing them to join the Professional Employees Association.

They should’ve just put that in the bill. They should’ve just put the bill that says: “We’re making a decision for you whether you like it or not, and we’re going to do what we want.” It’s another “do as I say, not as I do” situation with this government.

Now, I spent — I’ve lost track — 20-some-odd years as a union member in the IBEW. I know that many of my colleagues on this side of this House are union members. This is not about union or non-union. That’s not what this is about at all. It’s about freedom and choice, if people choose to unionize, and who they want to unionize with, what collective association they want to be part of.

As I’ve heard a few other people comment about, I can only imagine the outrage that this NDP government would have if, let’s say, there were a private industry out there, and their employees decided that they wanted to unionize and choose a union, but that employer told them: “Absolutely not. You cannot unionize, or, if you are, I’m going to tell you what union you’re joining.” This government would have a conniption. They would lose it. They would be all over the place. They’d be having their own protests on the front lawn. But it’s okay if they do it.

I guess…. A show of hands from the NDP. How many were actually on the front lawns today, talking to the lawyers who are upset? Anyone? Maybe the member for Surrey-Panorama. Maybe that’s why she was out there, talking with them about that. We’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that’s what she was doing. But I didn’t see any hands go up.

This is the issue that we’re faced with today. This government is another “do as I say, not as I do,” ramming it through. Now, again, as I mentioned at the onset, this could’ve been an exposure bill. It could’ve died on the order papers. Government could’ve put it forward and then negotiated and worked with the 321 lawyers in good faith to try to come to an understanding. We thought, when it didn’t come forward in this House, that that’s exactly what was happening. But that process wasn’t being followed.

Instead, what does this government do? They wait until the last few days of session to throw it back in the House and say: “Don’t worry. We’ll give lots of time for debate.” What they meant by that is: let the opposition talk, because they don’t want to. But they’re going to allow lots of time for debate in the last few days of this session for a bill that’s been arguably contentious from the beginning.

We’ve seen the media. We’ve seen the emails. We’ve seen the commentary out there and the concerns that people have with this bill and, again, arguably, the process that this government has gone through.

When we talk about that coming through at the very end, the government said that they were going to negotiate. But if it was true negotiation…. I look at some of the press releases that the B.C. Government Lawyers Association has been, I would argue, forced to put out unexpectedly. I am going to say, in good faith, that they weren’t wanting to be in this position. They were assuming that government would allow them, in good faith, to make the decision that best suited them. Isn’t that what this government says they’ve always stood up for? Again, unless it doesn’t suit them, like we’re seeing today.

Now the B.C. Government Lawyers Association has been forced to put out a press release, just a mere few days ago, saying that after more than two months of closed-door consultations with the B.C. Government Lawyers Association over the introduction of Bill 5 in February, this government has abruptly ended the discussions and has now signalled that the controversial legislation is about to be passed by them. It goes on to say — from Gareth Morley, the president of the association — that it’s clear that the government wants to control things, even if it has to unilaterally change the rules of the game to win. The employer knows the only way to get what it wants this time is to change the rules of the game with new legislation.

[5:40 p.m.]

We’ve seen this a few times now with this government. They try to say that they’re the defender of workers rights and the supporter of unions, but what they always fail to say is that it’s only if it’s convenient to them, only if it’s the union that they choose, and only if it’s at the time that they want.

I mean, nothing has shown this more than the community ripoff agreements that we’ve seen around the province, and how this government flip flops on that. Some projects don’t have to have a community ripoff agreement — how they choose that, I don’t know — some do have to have it. But here’s the catch again. As we say, if you want to work on it, you have to be part of one of their selected unions.

Unfortunately, I’d like to say this is the first time, this is new, but we’ve seen this with this government since they got elected. They try to ram through their narrative, their agenda, without thinking of the consequences of everybody else.

I think it’s important to note, as well, that the BCGLA, Government Lawyers Association — we rely on them when legislation is being put forward. I know that some of my colleagues on this side of the House, when we were in cabinet — and, I know, cabinet on that side….

When you’re wanting to make a decision as government, who are the first people you talk to? The first group you talk to is the government lawyers to say: “If I want to do this, is this constitutional? Can I do this? Is there anything I’m missing? Can you help us draft the legislation to make sure it meets all the legal requirements so we don’t get sued, so we don’t go to court and so it meets the objective that we’re trying to help the people in the province of British Columbia?”

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for this one. Which lawyer was giving internal legal advice that said that this was a good idea? “Please put this bill forward. You have all of our support.” Well, we know that’s not true. You only had to look today on the front lawns of the Legislature to see the huge protest of government lawyers out there who are saying: “This is wrong. It’s unconstitutional.” It’s a slap in the face to their rights. This government is taking advantage of their majority to ram this through.

I look at the fact again…. I think all but one person…. In essence, I’ll say that the NDP government, with their majority, waits until the very end…. When I say, “to ram this through,” it’s because they know they have a majority. They know, unfortunately, it really, really doesn’t matter what we say on this side of the House.

I can tell that most of them are not paying attention. They really don’t take this seriously, which is unfortunate because if we’re truly going to have — I think this is called — second reading debates…. To me, a debate would be actually somebody standing up saying what they like, what they don’t like about the bill on this side of the House, and then government defending their legislation.

This is the NDP government’s piece of legislation, yet they are not standing up and defending that. So either they’re embarrassed and don’t want to be on the record because they know this is going to come back and haunt them, or they just have true arrogance that it really doesn’t matter. “We’re a majority government. Who cares? We don’t have to speak to it. We’re just going to all vote in favour at the end of the day. It’s going to pass. It doesn’t really matter.”

We need to remember that’s not only a slap in the face to the 321 lawyers that are affected by this, whose decisions and their future is being undermined by this government…. But I’m curious about how all the NDP members go home, talk to their constituents, look in the mirror and say: “You know what? That sure was a hard day at the office today. We had a bill that was put forward, and I stood up and defended it. I can go back in good conscience and talk to my constituents, whether they liked it or not, but I can defend it because I’m on the record of what I did to support that bill and the reason why I thought it was the right thing for government to do.”

[5:45 p.m.]

In absence of anybody willing to stand up and talk about it, one has to only conclude that they’re being told to support it. They either don’t understand it…. They’re ramming it through, again with the arrogance of their majority.

I go back to: is that really what you were elected for? When we have a Bill 5 in front of us — or any bill, for that matter — our jobs are representing our constituents and the people in the province of British Columbia. We have a government for a reason, a majority in this case, to bring forward legislation. We have an opposition legislatively here to scrutinize and hold government to account. It is very, very hard to hold a government to account when you have no idea what government is trying to do or what their ideas are.

They put a piece of legislation on the floor and say: “Guess. We’re not going to tell you. We’re not going to speak to it.” It’s a Labour bill but brought forward by the Minister of Finance, and the Labour Minister is not even going to speak to it so far. That is a slap in the face to the democratic system of this House as well. I go back to the point of: how do you go back and tell your constituents that you did your job?

In a press release that came out, again, from the Government Lawyers Association advising their members that today they were going to be doing a rally on the front steps to protest that their rights are being taken away by this government: “Bill 5…circumvents the ongoing Labour Relations Board hearing considering the BCGLA’s certification as a bargaining unit. A majority of civil lawyers employed by the province have signed cards favouring forming their own union to represent their unique interests and working conditions as lawyers.”

I think most of us would say: “Hallelujah. They’re doing exactly what this government asked them to do.” But instead of actually celebrating and saying, “Thank you for following the rules that we just brought in last year; thank you for doing the right thing,” what does this government do? Puts Bill 5 on the floor and takes those rights away and says: “Yeah, we changed our minds. You weren’t doing it the way we want. Even though we put in legislation to tell you how you do it, and you followed all the rules, it’s not working for us now. Sorry. We’re going to change it.”

One of the interesting pieces that this government should really take notice of is that this is not just the Government Lawyers Association that’s talking about this. In fact, the government’s other major unions are all speaking against this, as well, saying this is wrong, that their rights are being taken away. Frankly, for a government that tries to tout themselves for being the workers’ government, supporting unions, we are hearing over and over again from unions on every corner of this province that say: “This NDP government is no longer representing us. They say one thing, but they really don’t have our rights. They don’t have our backs for us.”

I mean, we look at all the steelworkers around the province right now that are losing their jobs in the forestry sector. What does this government do? “Nah, not worried about it. Not an issue. Sorry we’ve got tens of thousands of people that are at risk of losing their jobs, union workers, but don’t worry. We’re more focused on sitting in the House, not speaking to a bill, rather than out there actually defending the people of this province who are actually helping build this province.”

You know, Gareth Morley, again, the president, also said: “We want to make sure lawyers in government have that degree of independence so that they can tell government something that they won’t want to hear.” I think that’s an important one. That’s a very important quote from the head of the association, because the government lawyer’s job is to ensure that government gets the best advice possible.

[5:50 p.m.]

We’ve seen with the NDP that it doesn’t matter what advice they get. They’re going to do what they’re going to do. It’s still the government lawyers’ job to give the best advice possible and not be worried about repercussions or how they’re going to be treated, which is why they’ve been talking about unionizing and giving themselves a collective bargaining unit with some rights and some protection, so they know that if they give the Premier a piece of advice that says, “Don’t waste taxpayers’ money on going after the Trans Mountain pipeline,” if that’s the advice they want to give…. You know, government is going to not take that advice. We saw that. But the lawyers still have to know that government has their backs — that they can do their jobs and give the best advice possible.

We have lawyers on both sides of the House. They know this. They know the role of a lawyer is to give the best advice possible with the training that they have without fear of repercussion.

I am surprised though, again, that none of the NDP want to stand up and defend this and say: “Don’t worry. We have everyone’s back. We’re not ramming this through like you say.” Call me wrong. Stand up and tell me I’m wrong, that you’re not forcing it through in the last minute, that you’re not taking their rights away or, as the member before me for Abbotsford West said, that this is going to have a constitutional legal challenge going forward. We know it. They’ve said it. I don’t think, arguably, that it’s an idle threat either.

The Government Lawyers Association has said: “This is wrong. You’re taking our rights away. There can be a constitutional challenge. Don’t do this. Go to the table, and let’s negotiate or, more importantly, allow us to do what the rules have been set up to do.”

There’s still time. We’re running out of time for members of the NDP to actually stand up and defend this bill. Who knows. I guess a motion was passed by the NDP House Leader saying that we can go all night if the members want to stand up and speak. I guess we’ll have to wait and see, because we can do that if that’s what they choose to do.

Maybe what they’re doing is they’re waiting until we’ve all finished, and then every single one of them are going to filibuster it until tomorrow. They have that right. The motion was passed earlier today to allow them to do that. I guess we’ll wait and see. I feel sorry for Hansard who might be here into the wee hours of the morning if they choose to do that, but it is a process that we have here.

Again, process is not being followed. Workers’ rights are not being respected. Bill 5 here is really shredding any credibility at all that the NDP has when it comes to free and fair bargaining. It’s going to be interesting going forward between now and the next election, whenever that may be in the next 18 months or sooner, how they decide to treat other unions. Is this the new norm for this government? I think it is. We’ve seen it play out now for the last couple of years — that it really doesn’t matter, that they’ll take advantage of the fact that they figure that they have everybody’s support going forward.

But I hate to break it to them: I don’t think that’s the case anymore. I know I’m hearing from union members in my riding and lots of different unions that are saying: “Enough is enough. This government doesn’t have my back. I don’t feel confident with the way they’re treating me or my union, and it’s time for change.”

I think that government still has the opportunity here, even though they have called for second reading debate…. Again, I use that term loosely. There’s no need to call third reading. It can still die on the order paper. They can still do the right thing and allow the process to unfold the way the government lawyers have initiated the start and how they did their card check.

[5:55 p.m.]

As we heard, 70 percent of their members want their own bargaining unit. This wasn’t a 50 or 51. This is a majority of the members who have chosen to do this. In any other situation, again, this government would be applauding and saying: “Thank you. We support it. Good luck. Welcome to the union. We’ve got your back.” Instead, what we have now in front of us is the arrogance and slap in the face from this government of “We’re just going to ram it through,” and that’s all we’re going to see unfold now.

I want to thank the House for my time, because again, we all get 30 minutes in second reading, up to 30 minutes, to speak. Some can speak for less if they choose, but that opportunity is for all of us in the House to be able to do that. I actually am hoping, and I implore members of the NDP government to stand up and defend this, to explain to not only us in opposition but to the lawyers that are being affected, to the constituents and the general public what they can expect with this bill and the rationale and the reasoning behind what government is doing.

We’ve seen it play out with this Premier. I think he’s had advice in the past, and we’ve seen how he’s just chosen not to accept it. We saw that play out with the proportional representation, the fiasco and disaster with that. The now Premier was the brainchild in spearheading that process, and we saw how that backfired. I’m sure he had legal advice that he ignored on that one.

We’ve seen how this government, if they don’t like the rules: “Well, we’ll just change the rules.” We saw that play out with ICBC: “We don’t like the rules. We don’t like how it’s working, so let’s bring in no-fault.” We saw how that worked, and that was another fight with the lawyers.

It makes you wonder, actually, what the intention is. I just thought of that. What was the intention of our now Premier, who is a lawyer himself, since day one of being elected has taken upon himself almost individually — unless somebody else wants to jump up and say they support it from the NDP — attacking lawyers? It makes you wonder why somebody who is from that profession seems to have such a personal anger with other lawyers in the same profession as him.

It’s unfortunate that we’re at the very end of a session, that government is bringing and ramming this through and not taking into consideration the rights of organization for the government lawyers.

I should end by thanking them. These are government employees in here that work hard, giving their best advice. They come to work every day to do the best they can for this building — frankly, for government — and for the people in the province of British Columbia, giving the best advice possible. I would argue they probably never would have seen this day where their employer was actually fighting against them to join a union of their choice. How bizarre.

I think a member from the Green Party said yesterday that we’re in the twilight zone a little bit, and frankly, we are. For a government who for years, and I’ll argue back in the ’90s, was so forceful on their “We support union members” and that…. And good on them. As I say, I was a union member for 20-some years. But to have a new NDP government that seems to have abandoned that stance. They talk, but we don’t see anything of substance that’s actually supporting union members anymore or the workers, the jobs that go along with it, the families that are affected.

I’ll just end, again, by saying they can still do the right thing. They don’t have to bring this forward for debate.

[6:00 p.m.]

I still have a minute. I can keep going, unless the members from the NDP are asking me to sit down because they want to speak next. I still have a minute, but I’m more than willing to sit down and give them my minute.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: They want to heckle me now. You know, I always find it interesting that you get heckled by the people that don’t want to actually speak themselves. They’re willing to do it off the record but don’t want to be on the record. But there’s still a chance. There’s still time if they want to stand up and say why this bill being rammed through at the eleventh hour is so important, why taking the lawyers’ rights away to unionize the way they want is so important.

Again, I go back to that it’s hard to say what they want to do, because none of them are speaking to it. But I want to thank all the members on the B.C. United side and even the Green Party members who spoke to this bill to make sure we brought attention to the fact that government is trying to take workers’ rights away.

M. Lee: I wanted to speak against Bill 5 and the way the government has put this forward. I want to respond. I know that there have been a few members on our side, as well, that have commented on the remarks of the Minister of Environment, the member for Vancouver-Fairview, the only member who stood up in this House on the government side to talk about this bill.

The reason why this bill is so significant is that no government in Canada, in Canadian history, has ever brought forward a bill of this nature to quash the rights to freedom of association for this body of government workers, to come forward to form a union of their own choice, to seek the independent review by the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia — no government. This is without precedent.

Interjection.

M. Lee: I will say to the Minister of Environment that I hope there will be other members of government that can respond if they don’t agree with that statement. They should have taken the time over the last two days of debate to stand up for this bill, but they haven’t. They’ve stood silent. The Attorney General, the Minister of Labour — nothing.

The Minister of Environment speaks to the fact that there have been no other unions formed under the Public Service Labour Relations Act — 50 years. Well, what does that minister and this government say to the Crown Counsel Act? The only other body of lawyers for the government has a separate bargaining agent under that act — 20 years ago. Have we seen the proliferation of other bargaining units? No. There have been a few exceptions, but there are reasons for that.

It’s this government’s lack of understanding and appreciation for the rule of law. Fundamentally, it comes back to that. This Premier has demonstrated that time and time and time again as a former Attorney General of this province and now as Premier of this province. Three hundred and fifty government lawyers are the custodians and the guardians of the rule of law in this province. They have a duty to ensure that any government, regardless of political stripe, acts in a constitutional way, in accordance with the laws of our lands, and acts in a way that they can do in a neutral, unfettered, independent way.

[6:05 p.m.]

They’re asking for the ability to form a union that would provide the kind of support they need in order for them to continue to do their role from an employer to an employment relationship. You look across Canada. Government lawyers in other provinces of this country have the same bargaining unit structures, including the federal counterparts. This government has failed to recognize that, and the reason for that is because they have a Premier that completely disrespects the rule of law. We have seen that repeatedly over the last six years.

I know that, as we look at what has been brought forward, what the B.C. Government Lawyers Association has been seeking is the opportunity to work out the appropriate bargaining unit with this government. They’ve been stifled in doing that. That’s the reason why they turn to the Labour Relations Board. This government has quashed that process, has brought in legislation to threaten those lawyers. They haven’t been able to negotiate in good faith. There’s been silence from this government.

Even when the B.C. Government Lawyers Association brought forward proposals to have a neutral arbiter, a mediator who could hear the submissions of both government and this association to work through the labour context, government was silent and then, a couple of days ago, released their end statement that they’re going to bring forward this legislation after all. This is only going to lead to, again, constitutional challenges of this government — constitutional challenges where this government and this Premier have lost repeatedly in the courts.

This is going to lead to years of legal strife between government and their own lawyers. But this Premier doesn’t seem to care. He doesn’t seem to care, but he doesn’t care, in effect, because this Premier likes to rule in an arbitrary way. He doesn’t want to follow the rules, and the rules that he has, he’ll just change.

We know that 70 percent of the lawyers provided their signed cards for the card check under the legislation that this government brought forward. They followed the rules of this government. But now the government has said: “No, can’t be this union. It’s got to be this other union.” This other union, by the way, the PEA — because certainly it’s not the BCGEU or the Nurses Union — represents a whole multitude of professionals.

There is a specific reason why government lawyers need to be independent. They are providing legal advice to this government that may be relevant to many of the members of the PEA, whether it’s misconduct, activities of members of the PEA. These government lawyers can’t be under the thumb of the PEA either. They need to have an independent union. This is the reason why government lawyers across the country have the benefit of their own independent unions.

There is a real disconnect here, a complete misunderstanding and underappreciation for the role that government lawyers play. This is the reason why, as the official opposition, we’ve been calling on the government to stand down this bill. Stand it down, give the opportunity for the members of the BCGLA to meet with representatives of government in front of this mediator and have that mediator make recommendations about what the appropriate bargaining unit ought to be.

[6:10 p.m.]

Work it out. It’s a reasonable request. Government has taken this amount of time. It has not negotiated in good faith. It has not conducted itself in good faith. But now, here we are at the last opportunity, on the last day the government is giving any voice in this House, to call on this government to stand down this bill. It introduced it in February in the first week that we were back. Stood it down. They pulled the bill.

Pull it again. We ask this government to do it again. All of those members for the BCGLA, standing on the lawns of the Legislative Assembly here in Victoria today, taking unprecedented action. They have not ever taken that action today. The 40 members in Vancouver — they are all calling on this government to take a step back. Don’t do this. You’re leading to further instability in our government and how we administer our affairs in our province.

But let me say this. We know that what we’ve seen under this government has been a complete lack of respect for the law. Just last week, we were debating the MEVA bill. This government brought in legislation to again stand up. What public citizens in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver and other citizens of Vancouver are concerned about is a lack of proper public process in Vancouver. The Premier can stand up all he likes and talk about delays on housing slowing things down. The fact of the matter is he’s bypassing the public process. He’s bypassing the right of citizens to challenge public process through a Judicial Review Procedure Act process — a court application.

This is a pattern, as others have said, but fundamentally, it demonstrates, again, the Premier’s lack of respect for the rules — under the Vancouver Charter, in this case. It is this Premier exerting his powers outside of the rules and laws of this land — in this case, in Bill 5, interfering with the Labour Relations Board’s process for recognizing unions. This should be a concern to all British Columbians, as it interferes with the basic labour rights and the rule of law.

We have seen other challenges with this government, and I must say that the conduct of the Attorney General I spoke to back in 2019…. We know that under the Attorney General Act, the Attorney General must see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law. I fail to see how the current Attorney General and the former Attorney General as Premier of our province are ensuring that this legislation is in accordance with the law, because it is a true violation of our provincial labour laws of the Canadian rights of freedom of association.

[6:15 p.m.]

The Attorney General must also advise on the legislative acts and proceedings of the Legislature. So what is the advice? What is the basis on which the Attorney General is providing advice on Bill 5 when, clearly, the lawyers in the Attorney General’s own ministry so clearly have a different view?

Where is this advice coming from? Is it coming from the few lawyers in the Premier’s office who have been retained? Who is truly overseeing the administration of justice in this province?

It seems to me, with the volume of challenging legislation that’s been brought forward of questionable constitutionality, including this bill, that we have serious questions. We know that we’ve seen, under this Premier, repeated defeats at the courts. This is the challenge that this government is putting us in with Bill 5.

When B.C. intervened in the TMX legal challenge, the Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal commented on the B.C. intervener status application and said: “British Columbia does not appear to understand the basic ground rules of the complex proceeding it is seeking to enter.”

How is that possible? How is it possible, with the number of government lawyers that are advising this government, that we get a comment, a statement, dicta, coming from the Federal Court of Appeal that British Columbia does not appear to understand the basic ground rules of complex proceedings?

That’s embarrassing. That’s just plain wrong. We have an Attorney General, at the time, who, clearly, was not listening to the advice of his own counsel, these government lawyers. It’s no surprise. This dates back to August of 2017. We’ve seen numerous occasions since then. The B.C. Court of Appeal in 2019 said the province had no case to impose laws that would have the effect of stopping construction of the TMX pipeline and said that the NDP were “disingenuous.” Disingenuous.

This is how this activist Attorney General, now the current Premier of this province, has conducted the legal affairs of this province. We know, in terms of the bills on ICBC reform — which I debated at length with the Premier when he was Attorney General, when he changed the rules of court, without properly consulting with justices in our province, disrespecting the judges in our province — that the Premier lost that court challenge too, to limit expert witnesses.

The judge said, in that decision in October 2019: “It infringes on the court’s core jurisdiction to control its process because it restricts a core function of the court to decide a case fairly upon the evidence adduced by the parties.”

I’m just giving a number of examples where this Premier has repeatedly time and time again with his activist…. We’ve never seen a more activist Attorney General or Premier in the history of this province. This is the reason why Bill 5 is just the latest indication of the extent to which this Premier will go — that extent on the backdrop of what you’re supposed to see from your Attorney General and Premier who supports that Attorney General.

You’re supposed to see an Attorney General that’s supposed to stand up for the law. You’re supposed to see an Attorney General that stands up for the courts and the rule of law. We have not seen that under this Premier. We’re supposed to see an Attorney General that’s supposed to stand up for the basic legal rights of citizens, including these members of the BCGLA.

We have seen a real failure by this government in understanding and respecting the rule of law in our province. I will say that this government, as I mentioned, doesn’t seem to appreciate the role of government lawyers.

[6:20 p.m.]

I had the honour of working with the former Deputy Minister of Justice of Canada, John Tait, who has been quoted in various law journal applications, including a publication referring to government lawyers as custodians of the rule of law. In that, the former Deputy Minister of Canada, John Tait, said: “The duty to promote and uphold the rule of law means that there is a quality of objectivity in the interpretation of the law that is important to the public service lawyer. There must be a fair inquiry into what the law actually is. The rule of law is not protected by unduly stretching the interpretation to fit the client’s wishes. And it is not protected by giving one interpretation to one department and another to another department.”

This is just an example of the important role that government lawyers have. These lawyers have that role that supports the Attorney General as an independent office. We’ve seen, in many respects, the challenges with how this government has seen the rule of law. They’re prepared, again, to quash the rights of these British Columbians in front of the independent Labour Relations Board. They are prepared to quash the rights of citizens to challenge the public process run by the city of Vancouver in the Arbutus project.

And I’ve got to ask, where is the Attorney General in all of this? Why is she silent on this bill? There’s been no addressing of this. I would certainly like to hear from the Attorney General about her and her limited office review, at this point, without the support of the 350 lawyers in her ministry and related.

The Attorney General has a clear duty to uphold the rule of law. And this, as I’ve said, requires that the Attorney General ensure that all government action complies with the law. Is this government just solely relying on the lawyers in the Premier’s office at this juncture?

When you mix politics with independence and the rule of law, what do you get? You get this Premier. You get this Premier’s agenda, who is prepared to do anything not to govern in accordance with the rules of our province, to change the rules to benefit, in the case of ICBC, the Crown corporation that he was responsible for, when he was the chief legal officer for this province, when he was the Housing Minister, responsible for Housing in this province.

As I said in bill debate last week, he was the Minister Responsible for Housing when that challenging public process went through the city of Vancouver for at least the first three of six days to clean up the mess that was created there under B.C. Housing, as the proponent in the conflict that has presented itself. This government passed legislation last week to quash the rights of citizens to bring forward their case.

We know that one of the major reasons why the BCGLA is seeking to unionize is to protect its members and avoid retaliation from this government in the case that they give government advice that doesn’t align with their policy goals. We’ve heard from the leadership of the BCGLA that they’re concerned that government lawyers have a degree of independence in giving that advice.

It really does seem under this Premier that he doesn’t care to hear from his government lawyers. He doesn’t care to hear from the independent voice, and that should cause every British Columbian concerns about how this Premier wants to govern. He wants to govern in a way that is unbridled.

[6:25 p.m.]

We saw the way that he governed in the course of the proportional representation electoral reform referendum process that he brought forward when he was supposed to be the independent arbiter through his office. I spent nine months on that as well, debating with other members of government, joining members of our caucus in town halls all over this province to talk about the challenges of this government. As we said before, they stacked the deck, they rigged the game with a convoluted process that didn’t give the details for the systems of proportional representation until after the vote.

British Columbians in that case had the right to speak and they voted 60 percent against this government, against the game that this Premier orchestrated and was the architect of. That was the opportunity where this Premier was unable to shut down that debate. We’ve seen time and time again, including with Bill 36, the government shut down that debate.

Speaking of which, when I had the opportunity to review with the Premier, when he was Attorney General, the recall legislation, the former leader of the opposition here, official opposition…

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’d just remind you that we are debating Bill 5.

M. Lee: Yes, I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. I’m just trying to demonstrate the pattern that is there with our Premier, this Premier that continues over the last six years that I’ve been standing in this House debating bills with him every step of the way.

He is an activist Premier, someone who’s prepared to step outside the rules, prepared to bring closure to the debate about the rules around recall when he was under threat of his own recall campaign. We never had the opportunity to debate that bill in committee stage, just like the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

There’s a pattern with this Premier and this government. They want to silence any independent thought and expression. They want to silence citizens. They want to silence those lawyers that are working for this government to ensure, under Bill 5, that the laws, the legislation that are brought forward to this House, are constitutional.

This is the challenge that we see ourselves in today. This is where we have seen when a government acts in a manner like this, British Columbians have every concern about losing confidence in this government.

Ultimately this government will pay the price when British Columbians can have the opportunity to give judgment on the support of this government. They will stand or fall on the basis of the fact that…. I cannot see how British Columbians can trust this government and can trust this Premier, because every single major initiative this Premier is brought forward has twisted the rules to his advantage politically. That is plain wrong.

For me, as a former member of the Law Society of British Columbia, we have seen other efforts that are coming forward by this government to take away the independence of all lawyers reporting under the Law Society in terms of its change to self-regulation. This is to come. They’ve issued a discussion paper that lawyers in this province have commented on, including the CBA.

This government fails to understand the importance of independence. We’ve seen that with the courts, with the judges. We’ve seen it with the government lawyers. We’ve seen it with lawyers at large. We certainly have seen it with citizens trying to raise legal concerns with any public process, as we saw with the Arbutus project, as we saw with victims and families of brain injury and concussion around minor injury. This has been a repeated pattern, and it’s fundamentally wrong.

This is where from the days of the Premier on the Downtown Eastside, the formative years of this Premier, we have seen this come back to roost here because he’s reached the stage now, and this is where the leadership of this government is going to fail.

[6:30 p.m.]

I hope British Columbians recognize what this government is doing to our province and recognize what this government is doing to these lawyers who are the custodians and the stewards and the guardians of the rule of law in our province. This government is putting those lawyers under their thumb. They’ve threatened them. They’ve taken away their right to form the union and their freedom of association to the fullest extent.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Now they’re forcing these members of the BCGLA to go to court to challenge this bill. This will only lead to more undermining of public confidence in the administration of justice in our province and in the administration by this government. It’s always: “Careful what you wish for.”

We will continue, as the official opposition, to call out this government for its failure of leadership, its failure to adhere to the rule of law and its challenging political agenda, which is undermining confidence in the administration of justice in our province.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Housing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you so much, hon. Speaker.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 5.

Deputy Speaker: Division has been called.

[6:35 p.m. - 6:40 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023.

Second reading of Bill 5 approved on the following division:

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Keep it quiet.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:44 p.m.