Dear Editor,
Reading Linda Cuell’s long letter in last week’s paper makes one thing clear – from her perspective the stalemate between SAHO and the health provider unions is more about the issue of essential services and contract language than anything else. That might be true, but for good reason.
Our government introduced essential services legislation (Bill 5) to ensure the public is protected in the event of a labour disruption, which could put the health and safety of Saskatchewan people at risk. Similar essential service legislation is now in effect in nearly all other provinces in Canada, and was recommended as necessary by the mediator following the last public service strike that occurred in our province. That strike saw 400 people per day being turned away from Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon.   
The Saskatchewan Party government believes in a fair and balanced labour environment for workers and employers, competitive with other Canadian jurisdictions.  The amendments to the Trade Union Act (Bill 6) ensure an equitable labour environment and establish greater democracy in workplaces. Our government believes that workers should have the right to a secret ballot vote when choosing certification or decertification of their union.
Disagreement pertaining to the number of people deemed essential at any health facility is negotiable. If a resolution is not achieved, it can be appealed to the Labour Relations Board. That solution isn’t suitable to Ms. Cuell because she erroneously believes that our government’s appointment of a new chair and vice-chair to the LRB was inappropriate. In fact, Saskatchewan’s highest court has recently upheld those appointments and noted that they are consistent with a law that’s been on the books for nearly 30 years under various governments. That’s how the previous members of the LRB obtained their positions from the NDP government. Renewing the leadership of the Labour Relations Board, and the process used to appoint individuals, has now been twice validated by Saskatchewan courts. It’s also important to remember that our government retained members of the board that were nominated by employee and employer organizations.  Under new leadership, both employers and employees report greater satisfaction with the efficiency and effectiveness of the board’s operations. The integrity of the LRB is unassailable.
Ms. Cuell’s letter also referred to a contract of 100 pages or more, filled with detailed language affecting “monetary, equity, benefits and actual working conditions of the workers…”  All that language comes with a significant cost over and above the wage settlement.  The language of the contract needs to be subject to the negotiation process because of those cost implications.
In closing, I was not upset by the group of constituents outside my office who were there to express their opinions. Demonstrations are a long-established right of free speech. I suspect that my defense of free speech would go considerably farther than most individuals would be willing to accept.  But that’s a topic for another time.
D. Wayne Elhard, MLA
Cypress Hills