Manitoba Government Employees Union Master Agreement
[D] the decision in the public health services stated that „[t]he public health services are not required to consult with the parties concerned before passing laws.“ I agree with [the Manitoba government] that there is no duty to consult before the legislation is passed. I do not see Justice Donald`s reasons within the BCTF for requiring the government to begin a consultation process before introducing legislation. Similarly, such a position was not necessarily adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada when its reasons were adopted. … The health care decision established that there was no obligation for pre-legislative consultation. It must be recognized that consulting the government with a group that will be affected by its actions is not an unusual practice. However, it cannot be ruled out that a legal duty of consultation has been created or justified. In other words, a pre-elegant consultation could emerge from a government that, as a government, would turn away if the spectre of judicial review of that process became law. …
That is why I am not prepared to find an offence in point 2 (d) because it has not been possible to hold prior consultations between the unions and the government. I`m glad… there is no duty to consult at the pre-legal level in Canada. … Sticking to it differently may well contribute to dysfunctions in the functioning of the legislative process. In the result, McKelvey stated that the Ss.9 to 15 of the PSSA were unconstitutional and had no effect or effect. She also stated that the government`s instruction at the University of Manitoba on a salary increase violated the faculty`s right to freedom of association. Manitoba`s fiscal position must be examined in this case to determine the existence of an urgent and essential objective. It would be an unusual situation where economic and fiscal circumstances were not a problem with any province or with the government of that country. In Manitoba, 55 per cent of the budget comes from public sector costs, which increase by $200 million each year, without higher compensation.
It is necessary to consider whether the urgent and essential objective of this legislation could be justified by exceptional circumstances that can be justified by budgetary challenges and budgetary constraints…. What is remarkable is that neither the union expert nor the leader felt that Manitoba was thought to be in a financial crisis. Instead, caution was recommended by both with regard to fiscal policy…. The government`s objectives at the time of the introduction of the PSSA were neither urgent nor substantial. As the case law below provides, budgetary considerations alone cannot be used to support the existence of an independent and essential objective for charter S.1. Moreover, it is rare for a court to reject [the argument] that the purpose of the law is sufficiently important to warrant the limitation of a charter right. Expert testimony and other evidence in court did not demonstrate that Manitoba`s financial situation was exceptionally affected or that it was in a dire situation. Moreover, the [government] did not argue that there was a financial crisis.
The evidence has shown that this province is right in the heart of the Canadian province. [The government expert] compared the situation in Manitoba to that of a slow-moving oil tanker: small corrective measures were needed. He also stated that the financial situation of this province was very different from that which existed at the time of the 2008 global crisis…. I am pleased that the ASP has played an important and essential role in what has happened since 2016 with respect to labour relations in Manitoba.