In the first excerpt Peter Lougheed’s Social Planning Committee supported Canada’s ascension to a United Nations Convention on eliminating discrimination against women. As outlined in the short Committee Committee recommendation the Alberta government committed itself legislative measures designed to implement the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.
Equal Pay
CABINET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
CABINET COMMITTEE: SOCIAL PLANNING
DATE OF CONSIDERATION: October 7, 1981
SUBJECT: UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON ELIMINATING OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
RECOMMENDATION:
This committee RECOMMENDED that the Minister of Labour inform the Federal Government of the support of the Alberta Government respecting the concept of “equal pay for work of equal value.”
It is understood that Alberta will support the following proposed statement to be incorporated into Canada’s deposit of ratification of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women:
“The Government of Canada declares that the concept of equal pay for work of equal value article 11 (1) (D) has been addressed within Canada by legislation which requires the establishment of rates of remuneration without discrimination on the basis of sex. The competent legislative authorities within Canada will continue to implement the object and purpose of article 11 (1) (D) and to that end have developed, and where appropriate will continue to develop, additional legislative and other measures.”
AS ACCEPTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL PROVINCE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Source: Provincial Archives of Alberta. Accession Number 160-5-1, Social Planning Committee, Vol. 4. Contained in “Hyndman papers” PR1986.0245.
Capital Budgeting
The second memorandum addresses one of the perennial challenges of government budgeting- specifically the construction of public infrastructure and how much the government’s operating budget must be adjusted to support the use and maintenance of such facilities. In other words, what are the specific net costs from adding a new university building or building a divided highway? The capital costs are typically known with a high degree of certainty subject of course to inflationary or deflationary pressure and adjustments to design.
However there are a wide range of scenarios to analyze. The range goes from building a new university (greenfield) whose future operating costs should be easily identifiable. A new school also should have rather clear guidelines as to what the realistic costs might be but, as in the case with the new university, a new facility will have ripple effects on communities impacting municipalities as well as social services and health services. Replacing buildings is more complex as there are transitional costs in finding interim space, moving costs, and varying effects on worker productivity. While new building efficiencies are usually material (energy efficiency, worker consolidation from different sites), these factors are not easily determined and realized.
More broadly in the longer term capital maintenance on newer buildings is lower in the first years after the build, but maintenance becomes a burden to governments and taxpayers where inadequate funding creates an “infrastructure deficit.”
Capital construction is politically rewarding as governments since Ralph Klein have focused on eradicating the deficit and in the process creating thousands of well-paid construction jobs while fulfilling local promises to municipalities, school boards, health officials, and university boards of governors. The spin-offs both to the the economy- more economic activity, more jobs and more taxes to governments are often used as a justification- and fair enough. In addition, when economic activity slows and unemployment rises there is macroeconomic policy justification for such moves.
Thus it is all a balance. Governments, meaning Treasury Board ministers, need to have adequate information on whether one public investment is better than another public investment. To do that that require comprehensive and easy to understand measures which faithfully measure the costs (long-term and short-term) with the long-term and short-term benefits.
FROM: Provincial Treasurer FILE: B-5010-4
TO: All Ministers DATE: October 8, 1981
SUBJECT: Operating Expenditure Implications Arising from
Capital Construction Projects
Priorities Committee has expressed a growing uneasiness during the last two budget reviews with the lack of complete budget planning information available on the operating budget implications associated with the construction of capital facilities.
You will recall that in my June 29 budget preparation memorandum, I requested departments to ensure that all the operating implications of capital projects are presented, including both dollars and man-years. I note again this year. in most cases, departments have not made an adequate effort to furnish Alberta Housing and Public Works or Treasury with complete information.
May I ask that you please ensure that your officials have fully complied with this budget information requirement as soon as possible? For projects financed through the budget of Housing and Public Works, the information should be provided to that department. For all other capital projects, be they funded by grants or otherwise, the operating budget implications should be submitted to Treasury, Budget Bureau.
Lou Hyndman
c.c. T,W. Chambers (Minister of Housing and Public Works)
bcc. N. M. Fleming
Source: Provincial Archives of Alberta. PR1986.0245, “Hyndman papers,” File # 1075.
Related Posts