Dear Editor
I think Premier Brad Wall’s implied threat to use the Charter of Rights and Freedom’s “notwithstanding clause” to override the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision overturning the Government of Saskatchewan’s (GoS) Public Services Essential Services Act of 2008, is a transparent attempt to use a “hammer” in negotiating the nuances of new essential services legislation with unions.
The new GoS essential services legislation was included in Bill 128 (2014) and was passed by the legislature, but has not been proclaimed.
It is interesting that the GoS held off proclaiming the essential services components of Bill 128, which was designed to replace the original PSES Act (2008), pending the SCC decision. It is well known the GoS intended to proclaim new essential services legislation once the SCC rendered its decision in the case now known as Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015. Premier Wall knows all of that.
The premier also knows that GoS lawyers are reviewing Bill 128 in light of the recent SCC decision; since it too might be afoul of the Charter. This is all occurring while the Minister of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety has acknowledged the flaws of the PSES Act (2008), including the need to consult with the unions. The minister’s response was measured and forthright when compared to that of the premier.
The public record establishes, as have the proceedings of Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench and the Supreme Court of Canada, that public sector unions in Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour have acknowledged there can be essential services legislation as long as the model is achieved through consultation and negotiation and offers a fair, effective and timely alternative mechanism or process for resolving collective bargaining disputes. Justice Ball in Saskatchewan’s QB and the SCC have referenced these practical realities and endorsed this reasoned approach to public policy.
Essential services legislation is not the only aspect of labour legislation now being reviewed in light of the SCC decision. I can only speak for myself, but I think aspects of the Saskatchewan Employment Act will be reviewed to ascertain whether there are other arguable infringements and unwarranted interferences in the right to freedom of association.
Having been proven enormously wrong on the question of essential services legislation, the premier’s reported reactions to the SCC’s decision suggest a thoroughly troubling approach to public policy. A bully pulpit is not a substitution for genuine consultation, negotiation and respect for the rule of law.
Hugh Wagner
Regina
