Bill No. 203 - Crown Attorneys' Labour Relations Act. - Third Reading
CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I don't think I can match the rhetorical skill of the Leader of our Party; I don't have the years at the pulpit for experience. But as the last speaker on this bill, I'm going to go back to basics. I'm going to just spend a few moments reminding everyone exactly what it is, with actually the least amount of rhetorical flourish as possible in this case, that we're talking about here.
It's a sad day in the province. The government has gone back on its word. We've heard this over and over again, and the government is trying to put forward its own version of the facts. In so doing, not only are they trying to bargain a contract on the floor of the Legislature and in the court of public opinion, but they are also misleading us, both inside this Chamber and out.
A lot has been said about the bill before us, and at this late stage of deliberation I will stick as closely as I can to the facts. This will be repetitive. We are taught upon entering politics that we must repeat ourselves in order to be heard, so I will repeat myself. I will, as simply as I can, lay out what has happened in the past week.
To begin, until the end of this day there is a framework agreement that is a contract reflecting the collectively bargained agreement between the Crown Attorneys' Association and the government. The Crown accepted this agreement in exchange for a very small wage increase because it guaranteed the right to binding arbitration for the duration of the agreement which expires in 2046, but which now lies meaningless.
The Premier of Nova Scotia signed this agreement. His government was at the table. This government bargained this agreement - not the boogeyman NDP, not the big, bad Progressive Conservatives - this government. Now the government is telling a different story. The Premier is saying that the Crown wanted 17 per cent and that that would somehow bankrupt the province.
If they feel that way, let's say that's true, the government had two very good options within this framework. First, the government could have bargained - not here, not on the floor of the Legislature, not in the scrums with the media, but at the table. The government said that the Crown came to the table looking for arbitration. I doubt that, but even if that were true, this government gave them that right and that was the second option. The second option was arbitration.
We're told that the government came to the table threatening legislation. Unlike the allegation against the Crowns, this is a breach of contract and fundamentally prevents the Crowns from collectively bargaining as per the rights given to them in Section 2(d) of the Charter, but we will come back to that.
Let's talk for a minute about arbitration. You'll note that the word "arbitration" rarely comes up in the Premier's comments. Why? Because it is the straw that breaks the camel's back of all of the misleading facts that have been put forward as a rationale for this bill. But when pressed, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and the Premier say that the province can't afford what the Crown is asking.
The truth is, though, notwithstanding the fact that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board should never have walked into this Chamber discussing the terms being discussed in negotiation, the mythical number to which they keep referring is just that. It's a number. It's something under discussion.
I'd like to read from Section 16(b) of the framework agreement which has been tabled previously in this Chamber, which talks about what the actual arbitration process is. I think this will be of interest to members who have heard the Premier say repeatedly that we can't afford to go to arbitration and that arbitration will not take into account the province's ability to pay.
Section 16 (b): In the conduct of proceedings before it and in rendering a decision, the arbitrator or the arbitration board may consider any factor that appears to be relevant in the matter in dispute including: (1) the conditions of employment in the public sector in the province; (2) the desirability to maintain appropriate relationships in the conditions of employment as between classifications in the civil service - I know it's a little dry, but wait for it - (3) the need to establish terms and conditions of employment that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required and nature of services rendered; (4) the public interest; and (5) the province's ability to pay.
I'm not sure if the Premier heard me say that, so I will repeat it. In the framework agreement that the Premier signed giving the Crown attorneys the right to arbitration, that arbitrator is required, by law, to take into account the province's ability to pay. (Applause)
Where does that leave us, Mr. Speaker? That leaves us with a misleading bill, based on misleading facts, that has been called unconstitutional by every legal expert whose opinion has been sought. Ray Larkin and Paul Cavalluzzo pointed specifically to the Supreme Court of Canada precedent in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour. That case has been tabled twice in this Chamber. That principle says that where there is no meaningful right to strike, there needs to be the availability of another method of dispute resolution like arbitration.
This legislation does not give the Crown the right to strike. We have heard this over and over again. I will repeat myself: it does not give the Crown the right to strike. It takes away their right to access arbitration, arbitration that would take into account, among other things, the public interest and the province's ability to pay. It forces the Crown to agree on an essential services regime in an absurd amount of time - 20 days. I'm not a labour expert, but I would defy anyone in this Chamber to find a single essential services agreement in the country that was agreed to in 20 days. What happens if that's not agreed upon in 20 days? The Labour Board decides. We've heard from expert after expert after expert that all Crowns are essential.
Yesterday, as we were debating this bill, I took the opportunity to read the section of the Act that defines essential service. The definition of essential service in this Act Respecting the Labour Relationship between Her Majesty in Right of the Province and the Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys' Association, says that essential service includes ". . . a service, facility, or activity of the Government that is or will be, at any time, necessary for . . . the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public, . . . the protection of the rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of persons charged with an offence, or . . . the administration of justice, including the provision of pre-sentencing and post-sentencing reports and other advice."
I will repeat myself: that sounds somewhat like the job description of the Crown attorneys of this province, so it is more than likely that all of the Crown will be determined to be an essential service. At the risk of repeating myself again, where does that leave us? No right to strike. And where does that leave us? In direct contravention of the Supreme Court of Canada. (Applause.)
This begs the question, which has been raised many times: Did the government receive an opinion that this legislation is consistent with the Charter? Again, I don't think we've heard the Premier use the word "Charter" as we've talked about this bill, but many of the rest of us have. He won't say, the government won't tell us if they received an opinion that this bill is compliant with the Charter, but Mr. Cavalluzzo, the Queen's Counsel who presented to us at Law Amendments committee, was very clear on this point. He said it is impossible that they could have received such a decision.
This brings us to the saddest point of all, a point well-articulated by my colleagues, the member for Halifax Needham and the Leader of our Party. This government does not seem to care whether the legislation that it passes is consistent with either the Supreme Court of Canada or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let's put that in perspective. This government is legislating a group of lawyers in a way that is contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they don't seem to care. If this government cared, if this government had a desire to determine the constitutionality of this bill, there are several ways that could be done.
First, ask for an opinion from internal government lawyers on the constitutionality of this bill, as we just discussed. Has this happened? Mr. Cavalluzzo says it must have. Has it happened? We have no idea. The government won't tell us, we can't FOIPOP it, we can't ask for it; it's confidential information.
Second, listen to the Queen's Counsel and constitutional law experts who have weighed in on this with a single voice saying that this is not constitutional.
Third, refer the matter to the Court of Appeal for an opinion. That's not hard, Mr. Speaker. A simple reference could be requested from the Court of Appeal asking if this legislation is, in fact, constitutional.
I hope that for once, today in this Chamber, we will hear a single member of the government stand up and debate this bill and, when they do, I hope they tell us why they have not chosen to do that. My guess is that they didn't choose to do that for the same reason that they adjourned the request for an injunction that was before the court this morning. They don't want to hear the answer. They don't want to hear the answer.
This government prefers to go forward with its own misleading interpretation of the bill, the facts surrounding the bill, and the operation of the bill rather than ask someone who actually knows to tell them how it works. Let that sink in.
This government has not once said the words: this bill is constitutional. What the Premier has said, when faced with the overwhelming evidence, is that he disagrees. On what basis? Legal training? I don't think so. Advice? Share it.
The Crown attorneys I spoke to this morning are, and I think it's fair to say, aghast at the comments of the Minister of Justice yesterday, calling them greedy. I know both the Premier and the minister have offered to meet with them, but the Crown attorneys I have spoken with have expressed that this meeting will be meaningless if it is solely for the purposes of damage control.
First, the damage has been done. The Crown attorneys, by definition, uphold the integrity of the Crown and they are being told by their own minister that they are greedy. Imagine, Mr. Speaker.
Second, those comments simply add fuel to the fire that we are hearing outside this window at this very moment. If the Province will not retract this bill today, my suggestion would be that any meeting of that sort would be insulting.
Here we are, possibly moments away from this bill being law. I will reiterate my request that a single Liberal member join this debate. If you are going to vote for the bill, tell us why.
The Premier has misled this House, the media, and the public about the true purpose of this bill, the circumstances leading up to it, and its legality. (Interruption)
THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The honourable member for Dartmouth South has indicated that the Premier has misled the House, and I ask you to retract that; it's unparliamentary.
The honourable member for Dartmouth South.
CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : The Minister of Justice accused me of misleading this House just the other day in Question Period, and it was ruled that that was not unparliamentary and that only by saying "deliberately misleading" would that be unparliamentary.
THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Dartmouth South will please retract the statement that the Premier has intentionally misled the House.
CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I will retract the statement I did not say, which is that the Premier intentionally misled the House. I will stick to the statement I did say which is that the Premier has misled this House. I'll echo the comments of my . . .
THE SPEAKER « » : Order, please. The honourable member for Dartmouth South will retract the statement that the Premier has misled the House.
CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I will retract that statement and I will request, as I did in my point of order that was overruled, that the Minister of Justice retract his statement that I misled the House.
THE SPEAKER « » : That matter has been dealt with. We are dealing with this matter at hand.
The honourable member for Dartmouth South.
CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I will complete my remarks which will be the final remarks on this bill by pointing to the way this Chamber operates and by saying that this government should be ashamed.
THE SPEAKER « » : If I recognize the minister it will be to close the debate.
. . .
THE SPEAKER « » : The honourable New Democratic Party House Leader.
CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day what we have in this Chamber, what we have in this province is rules. That's why we're here, we're here to make the rules. That's what we've been talking about this entire week. That's the job that we do in this Chamber.
I understand the comments of the member for Glace Bay, I understand that he was upset and that it was upsetting. There are many upsetting things, to varying degrees, that happen in this Chamber. We have been told - I have been told from the moment that I started this job - that our conduct in this Chamber is guided by a set of rules. Admittedly those rules are very difficult to understand. I bother the Clerks all the time, saying: Can we do this? Can we do that? Can we say that?
I spend an enormous amount of my time as House Leader, Mr. Speaker, trying to understand the rules. In the end, they are rules to which we all must equally be held. It is my strong feeling, in support of the point of order brought by my colleague, that that is not what has happened today in this Chamber.