What do you call a person or organization that makes a deal, signs on the dotted line, then reneges?
A lot of words come to mind, many of which cannot be repeated here. Maybe “cheat?” “Double-dealer?” Perhaps “fraud artist?”
In this case, the one word we know applies is “government,” as in Nova Scotia’s Liberal government.
Stephen McNeil pulled a fast one on the province’s Crown attorneys last week. That’s why those same prosecutors were marching around Province House on Wednesday. They were protesting — in what will inevitably be a short-lived, symbolic “strike” — the government’s heavy-handed plan to impose a labour settlement via legislation, a.k.a. Bill 203.
These same Crowns had, in good faith, ratified a deal made with this government back in 2016, a pact now being violated. At that time, Crowns accepted a three per cent wage increase over four years. In return, the province agreed to extend, by 30 years, the Crowns’ right to binding arbitration, if necessary, in any contract talks.
As it turns out, the government’s signature on that agreement was worthless. Last week, faced with a situation in which, after months of negotiations, Crowns could legally go to binding arbitration to settle contract differences with the government, McNeil’s gang decided to simply change the rules.
Bill 203 claims to supersede the Crowns’ right to binding arbitration and imposes the government’s wage offer, while duplicitously declaring Crowns have the right to strike unless they’re essential services, which — surprise, surprise — they are.
Classic Catch-22. In essence, the Liberals are saying the Crowns have no say in the matter. I’m no expert, but it’s hard to see how that’s going to fly constitutionally.
On that note, it’s worth listening to someone who is an expert in constitutional and labour law — Paul Cavalluzzo.
The Liberals’ legislation, warned Cavalluzzo, who’s based in Toronto, is “clearly unconstitutional.” He called the bill’s imposition the most arbitrary action by a government he’d seen in his career, which began in 1973.
Governments are required to ensure proposed laws are Charter-compliant, he said. But Cavalluzzo aggressively suggested no such legal opinion existed in this case.
When pressed, McNeil wouldn’t specifically say if he had such a legal opinion. He stonewalled that the Liberals were confident the bill would withstand legal scrutiny.
If and when he’s proved wrong, what will it have cost Nova Scotia? Both in terms of the price, in taxpayers’ dollars, to possibly fight this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the resoundingly negative message this sends about this government’s trustworthiness?
The Liberals are trying to paint the Crowns as greedy, with the premier musing lots of people would be happy with a seven per cent wage increase. But being a Crown attorney is highly specialized, and Nova Scotia must be prepared to pay a nationally competitive rate. The alternative is to risk losing highly trained professionals and being unable to attract talented newcomers.
In any case, as Cavalluzzo stressed, it’s not a matter of money. It’s a matter of the guaranteed Charter right to effective collective bargaining.
I’m not the first to comment on these latest bullying tactics targeting organized labour by McNeil’s crew — others have effectively gutted its excuses for its double-cross of the province’s Crowns — but I don’t mind piling on.
By this action, this government has tacitly acknowledged its word means nothing.
Equally as damaging, McNeil’s Liberals have possibly set the province on another legal collision course for what could be a bruising — and expensive — crash and burn before the Supreme Court of Canada.
RELATED: VIDEO: Nova Scotia Crown attorneys walk off job in contract dispute
