Union leaders ignored again

by Russ Francis on October 12th, 2006 at 7:00 AM

Two prominent B.C. labour leaders say they were not consulted over the new Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta, signed April 28 in Edmonton.

B.C. Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair and Canadian Union of Public Employees B.C. president Barry O'Neill both say that nobody from the B.C. government contacted them in connection with the agreement's potentially significant impact on certification standards for B.C. employees. “They never once sat down with us,” Sinclair told the Georgia Straight. “They never discussed this issue at all with us or with any union that I know of. It's another backroom deal.”

The agreement, which takes effect on April 1, 2007, includes a six-page list of the provinces' differences in qualifications required for various trades and professions. Lawyers, power engineers, architects, and even used-car salespeople are among those for whom standards differ.

For instance, to work as a teacher here, a student must undertake additional training””as well as an examination””not required in Alberta. Similarly, to be a licensed social worker in B.C., a degree in social work is necessary, unlike in Alberta. In some cases the requirements are tougher in Alberta; in others, each province has its own, different requirements.

The list is included because these occupations are temporarily exempt from the agreement's specification that the two provinces ensure their respective rules “do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through” the provinces or impede “investment or labour mobility” between the provinces. Article 13 of the agreement, called “labour mobility” , requires that Alberta and B.C. work together, with no specific timetable, to eliminate the qualification differences listed on those six pages of occupations.

Economic development minister Colin Hansen told the Straight it's far from certain that the lower standard would apply.

“When you start looking at harmonizing, for example, the credentialization standards for different professions, what it means where there's differing standards is, let's look at it,” Hansen said. “What are the standards that best serve the public interest? In some cases, that may be actually strengthening our standards.

“There's some that argue that in some professions there may be barriers to enter that profession or barriers to the mobility of people trained in that profession that are unreasonable and that are there to restrict access to individuals trained outside of that jurisdiction.”

Hansen agreed that it was “possible” that B.C. teacher requirements could be weakened. “But that's the kind of discussion that needs to take place,” Hansen said. “There are as many reasons why standards should be enhanced or increased in order to harmonize with the other province as there are reasons for them to be perhaps relaxed in some cases, if that's what makes sense.”

Hansen added that “more standards are not necessarily better standards.”

CUPE B.C.'s O'Neill recently read the agreement. “This is the kind of thing that really pisses me off,” he told the Straight. “There's a pretty significant agreement that was actually put in place to better the lives of the citizens of B.C. and Alberta. [Instead,] it's kind of the charter of rights and more rights for big business.

“Who knew about this and how long have they known about it, and why didn't we get any chance to do that [be consulted]?”

The agreement has received little publicity, he said. “The media haven't exactly been on top of it.” The agreement's real purpose, he added, is to make it easier for the private sector to bid on government contracts.

“Talk about intervention and bullshit and regulation and that stuff they always whine about,” O'Neill said. “They don't want government involved. Now they do want them involved””in making sure nobody else gets an opportunity.”

O'Neill said that big business stands to gain the most from the agreement. Small business, however, may stand to lose, he said, just as the B.C. union movement does.

“If anything, we can be an ally on this,” O'Neill said.

The B.C. Federation of Labour's Sinclair scoffed at Hansen's suggestion that standards could be raised in order to harmonize the two provinces' requirements.

“This government hasn't raised one standard since it got elected,” Sinclair said. “It has lowered every standard it's ever touched....I'm not buying it.”

Sinclair said he has no problem with people being able to work in different places. “Frankly, there's a country called Canada,” he said. “I don't know why we need a separate deal with Alberta.”

He said the fact that the province did not consult with organized labour on such a far-reaching agreement is worrisome. On the other hand, Sinclair said, he's sure that business was consulted ahead of time.

“I don't think we get the best decisions when we talk to just one side,” he said. “What if they decided they were going to change Alcan's water licence without talking to Alcan?”

“You think they'd ever do that? Not in a million years.”