Maintain High Standards of Qualification
We are further opposed to the provision in Bill 183 that would bestow the status of “journeyperson” onto a person who does not have a Certificate of Qualification but who practices as such in a voluntary trade (Bill 183, Section 60, sub-section 6, p.34), especially since this section is intended to apply to the ratio requirements in the voluntary trades.
Protect the Health and Safety of Workers and the Public
High workplace health and safety standards not only protect workers on the job, but also ensure that the public interest is protected. Promoting Health and Safety for workers and the public should be a key function of any trades governance structure, and the Ontario Federation of Labour recommends that section 11 of Bill 183 be amended to include a sub-section that reads: “To promote workplace health and safety to further protect workers and the public.”
Distinguish Between Authentic Trades & Licensed Occupations
Despite these serious shortcomings, it is not too late to amend Bill 183 to mitigate the damage inflicted on Ontario’s trades and apprenticeship system by the former Conservative government. One crucial step in this direction would be to clearly distinguish between trades and occupations, recognize the distinctiveness of their respective training requirements, and provide designated and adequate funding to both apprenticeship programs (for authentic trades) and occupational training (for licensed occupations). This would assure high quality and

While there are many flaws in this program design, some of the most critical are those that create, sustain or reinforce unfair employment conditions for international migrant workers.
The first of these is that work permits for both seasonal agricultural workers and migrant workers are tied to individual employers. That means that an individual can only work for the employer who has been approved under the respective program to hire him or her. The ability to change employers, should a migrant worker become exploited, abused, or pressured to work beyond agreed upon contract conditions, is extraordinarily limited.
Accommodation requirements under the various work programs present another barrier to accessing workplace rights. Agricultural workers live on the employer’s farm. Caregivers are required to live in the employer’s home. This limits these workers’ access to information about their rights, and privacy, and, their ability to meaningful exercise of their rights.
It is important to underline the extent of power wielded by employers as a result of these mobility restrictions and accommodation requirements.
The time limitation on these work permits is another barrier to these workers accessing their workplace rights. Seasonal agricultural workers have work permits that are generally for less than one year and must reapply each year.
For most other workers, the permit is for a maximum two-year period. Caregivers must work 24 months in a 36 month period for an employer that has been approved under the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP).
Furthermore, caregivers cannot make applications for landed status until after they complete the LCP.  This means that not only are caregivers tied to one employer, but those seeking status are unfairly at risk of receiving an unwarranted negative status recommendation from their employers.
The abuses that live-in caregivers often contend with have been well-documented by agencies such as INTERCEDE, PINAY, SIKLAB, faith communities, labour organizations and major media outlets. 
The abuses faced by agricultural workers have also been well documented.  The United Food and Commercial Workers and the Agriculture Workers Alliance of Canada for example have decades of experience documenting wage, working conditions and accommodation abuses, occupational health and safety violations, injustice in accessing benefit programs that workers have paid into, and being denied the right to join a union. 
• In southwest Ontario, low-wage agricultural workers – principally recent immigrants just getting a foot on the bottom rungs of the job ladder – are being replaced by migrant workers supplied by

But with a staff of 60 serving all of Ontario, how can the Commission possibly fulfill these crucial responsibilities?

In theory, Bill 107 established a Human Rights Legal Support Centre independent from, but accountable to, the Government of Ontario. The purpose of the Centre is to provide support services, including legal services, with respect to applications under the Code. The Centre’s services are supposed to include advice and assistance, legal and otherwise, with respect to the infringement of rights under Part 1 of the Code.  And these services are supposed to be provided throughout the province.

Presently, there is only one single “Legal Support Centre” serving the needs of all Ontarians. Although we are aware that the Legal Support Centre has set up some resources in locations outside of Toronto, many human rights advocates are skeptical that these services are adequate, especially for those outside the Greater Toronto Area, where the Centre is located.

In fact, anecdotal evidence shows that Ontarians are still seeking assistance from legal clinics in filing complaints. Some of the clinics are sending people back to the Legal Support Centre. Others are trying to continue assisting clients whose first language is not English. The full-time Human Rights Director of my own organization − the Ontario Federation of Labour − continues to assist both union and non-union workers with complaints, simply because the initial paperwork is overwhelming and a clear barrier to many individuals − especially for newcomers and those for whom English is a second or third language.  It should be noted that the Centre, such as it is, only opened its doors on June 30 of last year − a mere seven months ago.

The circumstances in this province are extraordinary. We are being battered by an economic crisis that is unlike anything seen in many decades, and that is not of our making. 

If we can look for any silver lining – and we must – the course of the action we take can be as historic as the crisis itself.  Government responses will determine how long and how severe this economic downturn will be.  Inaction, timid and partial measures will lengthen the recession and deepen and extend the suffering. 

Ontario’s upcoming budget is critical - not only for its response to the recession, but for the path it sets us on when we come out of the recession.  It should be a path to a more sustainable future; a greener economy; and for a rebuilt public and social infrastructure.

I’m not an economist.  But I knew we were in deep trouble when all the Bay Street economists changed their no-deficit tune.  What had been an article of faith over the past 10 years had been abandoned in less than three months.  In those three months we have seen the TSX lose 40 percent of its value; sovereign governments fail, and U.S. consumption move into a free fall. 

However, this is just a partial victory for common sense. While the debate has moved away from whether governments should ever run deficits, it has moved to what size the deficit should be.  Some will tell you that while government shouldn’t make things worse by reducing spending or raising taxes, they shouldn’t do anything to make things better either.

There is an international consensus that governments must take strong action. The G-20 group of nations, the European Union, and others share this view.  The International Monetary Fund said governments should introduce spending programs in the range of 2 percent of GDP. 

For Ontario, this means a stimulus of about $12 billion.  Other national governments like Britain and China are providing fiscal stimulus that is more than 5 percent of GDP. President-Elect Obama has a vision for where the economy needs to be heading in the future, and what government can do to help it get there. 

What do we have here in Canada?  I ask that all of us take a moment now and remember the people I spoke about at the beginning of my remarks. 

What are we doing for the people who are losing their jobs, whose pensions and savings are insufficient, and whose present and future are insecure? 

“… we should not be driven by the scientific dogma of yesterday or even the scientific dogma of today.  We should be driven by the precautionary principle that reasonable steps to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty.”

The WSIB is an important part of the “worker safety system” referred to by Justice Campbell.  The Board should demonstrate a leadership role by including this principle as the guiding principle in the accreditation program and in all prevention initiatives of the WSIB.

It cannot be over emphasised that for the accreditation audit to be meaningful it will need to verify that the health and safety policies, programs and procedures established by the employer are in fact practised by the employer in the workplace.  For instance, a lock-out procedure written and put on a shelf is of value only if the workers affected have been trained, the necessary equipment is provided, the employer ensures that the procedure and equipment are maintained and that all of this is regularly reviewed with meaningful input from the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JH&SC) and updated as is necessary.

The accreditation audit has the potential to play an important role in the prevention of future occupational diseases.  The importance of the “health” aspect of the health and safety audit cannot be over emphasized.  A superior health and safety program would not simply have policies, equipment and procedures for controlling exposures.  This is the minimum under the legislation.  Even where exposures are maintained at a fraction of the legal limit, if the ability to do so is technically and economically feasible, then this is also arguably required under the general duty clause of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This duty requires employers to do everything reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.  A superior program would actively look for safer substitutes for toxic substances and processes.  Encouraging the substitution of hazardous substances is Ministry of Labour policy.  According to the Ministry of Labour (MOL) Statement of Environmental Values (SEV), the MOL is “encouraging the substitution of hazardous substances with those that are less hazardous”.

It will be important for the WSIB to check the use of temporary workers in the workplace.  Increasingly employers in Ontario are using staff from employment agencies or simply hiring workers on temporary contract as a means to avoid their duties to provide health and safety training for workers and eliminate the need to consult with workers on matters that impact their health and safety.  If these workers dare to raise a health and safety concern the employer need only contact the agency and tell them to send someone else tomorrow, or in the case of contract workers they simply do not get the contract renewed.  This is distinct from the use of construction or repair contractors which should also be considered in the audit. 

He also found that low income was not only more prevalent among youth (aged 16- 24), but also much more prevalent among women (full-time, full-year) equaling 16 percent as opposed to 7 percent for men.  This again, speaks to our initial assumptions concerning not only the number of jobs that the Toronto Star reported on, but most importantly that when the quality of those jobs is taken into consideration the picture that emerges is far less optimistic.

Absent also was any discussion of the employment crisis in manufacturing and the forest industry.  One would have thought, given the extent and depth of the crisis in these sectors, that it would have made headline news.  But this has not been the case.  We also note that many reports on the economy focus on jobs created, but fail to balance their discussion with a report on job losses.  Manufacturing remains a major part of the Canadian economy.  Over two million Workers are directly employed in this sector (12.9%).  The Canadian Manufacturers and Export Association estimates that manufacturing sector wages are a full 28% higher than the Canadian average.  In significant part, this wage differential is due to the fact that nearly one in three manufacturing jobs are unionized.

Nearly 70% of manufactured products are now exported making this sector central to Canada’s economic health.  Indeed, manufacturing played a key role in the economic recovery of the mid to late 1990s adding thousands of jobs to the Canadian economy.

Today the situation in manufacturing is particularly troubled despite the oil and employment boom in Western Canada.  Job loss across Canada in this important sector totaled 258,000 between August 2002 and May 2006.  This totals more than one in ten jobs.  Most of these job losses have been, as one would expect, in Ontario and Quebec.  Job losses in Ontario alone between August 2002 and May 2006 total 125,000.  The consequent harsh reality of job loss, experienced by thousands of workers across Ontario in both urban industrial plants and pulp and paper mills across Northern Ontario, has yet to make the headlines despite its economic importance and the human toll it takes on those thousands of workers permanently laid off.

The second document is an October 2005 report entitled Understaffed & Under Pressure: A reality check by Ontario health care workers (also available on the OFL website). In May and June 2005, the Ontario Federation of Labour, working in conjunction with affiliated health care unions, sponsored meetings in 15 Ontario communities to examine the consequences of understaffing. The report is a record of first ever meetings of health care workers from all sectors and unions. They came to mutual conclusions that all sectors and workplaces have been hard hit by understaffing; that the problems associated with understaffing, and its consequences are systemic and serious.

On the issues of long-term care we have worked closely with our affiliated unions in health care. These unions have thousands of members who are the dedicated workers who provide quality services in this sector across Ontario. We have also worked closely with our community allies through organizations such as the Ontario Health Coalition. 

The OFL November 2005 convention policy paper Rebuilding Health Care called for specific actions which the McGuinty government could begin to implement immediately in the long-term care sector:

• A required minimum standard of 3.5 hours per day of nursing and personal care for residents.
• Staffing levels that reflect not only the numbers of staff but also the appropriate classifications and qualifications of staff to ensure that residents receive the care that is appropriate to their needs.
• Soliciting ongoing input into long-term care policies by workers through their union, residents and their families.
• • Increase capacity of workers to have a say in what is happening in their facilities by instituting regular, unannounced inspections and mandate inspectors to speak with residents, family and workers about conditions. Implement whistleblower protection for workers who complain about conditions and for the protection of residents.
• Mandatory reporting and monitoring of staff levels instead of the Liberal “voluntary compliance”. This will ensure that there is proper use of government monies.

There are a number of broad areas of concern that we have with Bill 140.  They include:

1. The lack of a staffing standard,
2. Identification of needs and solutions,
3. Undermining of non-profit sector, and
4. Geographic differences in standards.

2.  Research and Innovation: 

Research and innovation are central to industrial development and job expansion.  Given the weakness of small and medium-sized manufacturers the Ontario government should support expanding the National Research Council and its Industrial Outreach (Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)).

There should also be expanded support for new and substantial corporate investments in research and development by Industry Canada’s Technology Partnerships Canada.  Some of this support has already occurred in sectors expans such as aerospace, auto and the environment.  More can be done with an inclusive approach by the government of Ontario wherein all stakeholders are brought together for their input.

3. Expand Education and Training:

We support greater federal investment in education through a public, pan-Canadian child care and early learning program, plus a separate transfer to the provinces for post-secondary education tied to the gradual elimination of tuition fees and other barriers to widespread participation.

We also need the development of training leaves for workers under the EI program and incentives under EI for employers who invest in lifelong learning for workers. 

The Ontario government should establish a 1% training levy on the Quebec model which was implemented to ensure a minimum level of employer investment in worker training.

Joint labour-management training committees should be mandated. 

Further investment in education and training alone does not guarantee good jobs.  However, good education and lifelong learning systems will encourage higher skill business strategies and help address potential skill shortages.

4.  Exchange Rates: 

The Government of Ontario should bring people together to discuss ways in which the federal government could intervene with others in the G-7 to maintain the Canadian dollar at a realistic level, as opposed to the destabilizing swings in exchange rates that we have recently experienced. 

The Canadian dollar was at a low of 62 cents compared to the US dollar in 2002 and is about 90 cents US today.  This alone has caused devastation in the forest industry and plant closures in manufacturing resulting in thousands of job losses. 

Second, we must confront the reality that just as the labour market has permanently altered our notions of employment – standard, secure, full time and well paid – so too must it change our concept of unionism.  If we acknowledge that jobs are precarious; that workers will cycle in and out of employment constantly in their lifetimes; and that new forms of employment relationships will continue to grow, so too must our notions of union representation.  The sharp divide between employed and unemployed where layoffs are viewed as an unexpected calamity the union and its members are unprepared for and struggle to get through before parting ways no longer reflects the reality of the labour market. To say this is no way to accept that the loss of good secure jobs is acceptable – clearly we must bring every resource to fighting neoliberal economies – it is only to say, we should develop our own responses to assisting members in any way possible to ride the rollercoaster. 

How do we do this? I think we can learn some interesting lessons from the building trades in terms of both our relationship to members and the value of union-led skills training. In my own union we are negotiating collective agreements that oblige hotel owners to contribute to an equal opportunity training fund and to participate in joint training committees at the workplace. 

The concept of the training centre and hiring hall is one that could take root in other sectors as well.  In this model the relationship between the member is intact whether she is employed or not.  The hiring hall works to secure employment opportunities and dispatch workers to them.  This is linked, as it must be, to ensuring that workers have the skills and abilities to perform the job through continuous and high quality training. This kind of approach is a fundamental departure both ideologically and practically from adjustment programs that insist workers take responsibility for their own training and focus on attitude adjustment.  No amount of enthusiasm and parchment paper resumes will result in a job that one is not even remotely qualified to hold.  It’s a lie, and we need to keep saying it’s a lie to government and corporations.

Training is not a cure all, but it is a fact that possessing basic skills, such as the ability to speak English, hard job skills, or trade qualifications does widen the scope of employment available to our members.  And there is another crucial aspect but often overlooked benefit to union led training and that is union building.  Union led training provides us with limitless opportunities to expose neoliberal ideology and build working class consciousness and solidarity.  Union training and education are not two separate and stand alone processes – they can and must be integrated.  This is well understood in literacy programs where certainly language skills are acquired, but so too are union values and goals.

Other measures that we can push for will obligate employers and governments to respond to the needs of workers.

PURPOSE

As I see it, the purpose of this conference is to both highlight the problem, which many workers in other sectors wouldn’t know about and to consider what are the most appropriate policies for a manufacturing jobs strategy.

A job strategy that makes sense,

A job strategy that can make a difference,

A job strategy that we can lobby and fight for.

We have thousands of members out of work and we need government to implement employment generating policies starting now.
ANOTHER AGENDA
While we are concerned with our own fate and that of our fellow workers, others have a different agenda.

On October 25 & 26, Premier Dalton McGuinty will convene the Ontario Economic Summit in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Invited guests are a “limited group of two-hundred senior leaders from business, labour,
academia and government” who “will unite in a groundbreaking initiative to jointly identify
new ideas, opportunities and actions to advance Ontario’s economic potential.”

For a registration fee of $3,900 each these 200 leaders are going to discuss:  Developing Human Capital, Fostering Research, Innovation and Commercialization and a Competitive Ontario in the Global Marketplace.

Premier McGuinty’s personal message to Ontario Economic Summit registrants asks them to identify barriers to Ontario’s prosperity and find innovative solutions to further strengthen the province’s economic advantage and ensure Ontario’s continued growth and success.

Speakers include David Dodge, Governor, Bank of Canada speaking on the Global Economic Landscape and the Implications for Ontario.

The Ontario Economic Summit Partners and Sponsors include Bell, GM Canada, Province of Ontario, Charter Accountants of Ontario, Sunoco, Dofasco, CAW-TCA Canada, Royal Bank, Merck Frosst, Leger Marketing, Siemens, HP – Hewlitt Packard.

The difference should be clear from this short outline.  It leads me to ask: Are we talking about the same Ontario?

I wish I could say that we live on different planets, but I can’t.  Believe it or not these types are the decision makers in Ontario.  They are on the inside, while we are the recipients of their decisions.

To date, their decisions have meant massive job losses in manufacturing, hence the importance of this conference and developing and fighting for alternatives that will help create jobs rather than destroy them.

CONCLUSION

Finally, I have talked to you about the purpose of this conference and the hard figures of thousands of jobs.

In the next session you will come face to face with the human tragedy behind the numbers.

Thank you.

THE WINNERS

Employers have received a 24.7% reduction in their assessment rates over the past 10 years.

Employers have received an additional 2.04 billion dollars in rebates under the “experience rating” formula over the past 10 years.

WSIB/WCB employees earning over $100,000.00/year have increased by 300% over the past 10 years.

WSIB/WCB Assets $14 billion and rising.

WCB Investment Income (2004 Annual Report) $470 million (used to subsidize employer assessments, rather than improve benefits for injured workers.)

Private Labour Market Service Providers – payments of $155 million (2004 Annual Report).

In contrast workers using the Labour Market Service Providers (workers were put into programmes to help them get jobs) received only $48 million in income support during the same period of time and 66% were left unemployed at the completion of the programme.

Whose compensation board is it?

THE LOSERS

Over the past 10 years, the cost of living has risen 23.1%.

Injured workers have received a 2.8% increase in that time.

The value of their benefits has been reduced in purchasing power by 20.3%

Along with all the cuts introduced through Bill 99 including the lack of cost of living increases, injured workers ask:  Can you see me? 

Compulsory certification

In addition to whole trades being restored to the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, more trades must be certified as a matter of law.

Compulsory certification will ensure increased flexibility and mobility, since only trained and tested trades people will be doing the work of the trade. Moreover it is a proven fact that compulsory certified trades have a higher apprenticeship training completion rate.

Enforcement mechanisms must be legislated to ensure compliance with compulsory certification regulations by both employers and individuals. This in turn will ensure that employers hire certified trades people, which will in turn improve the value of and demand for apprenticeship training.

Provincial Training Levy

The Ontario Federation of Labour believes that a consultation must begin immediately on the establishment of a levy for a provincial training fund. The fund must, at least, require every employer who does not already pay for apprentices, to contribute one percent of payroll into the fund. Employers who hire apprentices or pay into a union or union-employer administered training trust fund would be exempted based on current contributions and the amount generated by one percent of payroll. All sectors must be covered. Administration of the fund must involve employers, unions and the provincial government.

A percentage of the fund must be allocated to apprenticeship and the creation of jobs for apprentices. This apprenticeship portion of the fund must only be used for the training of apprentices in a whole trade.

The remainder of the fund needs to be available for workplace training for other than apprenticeship (for example, the costs to cover wages and training for workers being upgraded in their skills, or training for a new occupation).

This approach will allow us to see training for workers, including apprenticeship, funded. It will also remove the need for workers having to forego upgrading of skills because of costs.

4. Enhancing mobility

• By bringing all trades back under the rubric of the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act; insisting on mandatory certification; and expanding enforcement measures for both individuals and employers, Ontario can play a leading role in improving and expanding the Red Seal program and improving the mobility of skilled workers. Compulsory certification will also improve apprenticeship program completion rates.
• Ontario should help to set Pan Canadian standards, based on industry needs for all occupations identified as suitable for the apprenticeship training model. These standards should cover all aspects of training, including on-the-job and in-school training, training qualifications, examinations, and certifications.
• The government should make the costs of moving and relocation tax deductible for qualified trades people moving from one area to another to work.

5. Promoting skills utilization

• Increasing access to and improving the completion of bona fide apprenticeship training in Ontario will mean little if there are no decent jobs available for skilled trades people.
• Ontario must play a leadership role in developing a jobs strategy that takes into account the unique needs of Northern and rural communities and develops a broader vision for long-term, sustainable jobs.
• Enforcing the regulations contained in the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act is crucial for ensuring that employers hire qualified, certified trades people, to ensure that standards are being respected and that health and safety is promoted in the workplace. Government enforcement measures will help to reduce the underground economy, create greater demand for skilled workers, and improve the mobility of the workforce.

We know that in many cases the offer of work is not fully explained or understood before the worker undertakes an attempt to perform it.

It is therefore, imperative that the decision-maker proceed with due caution when determining that a particular job offer is “safe”.  The OFL suggests that decision-makers ought to adopt the “precautionary principle” when considering the suitability and safeness of a job offer.

In its “strongest” formulations, the principle can be interpreted as calling for absolute proof of safety before allowing new technologies to be adopted.  In a more meaningful sense we suggest that the precautionary principle should provide that: “When an activity raises threats of harm to the worker’s health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established.”

Although the OFL supports the idea that before refusing an employer’s offer of modified work, the worker should attempt to perform only parts of the offered work that are safe. The problem is that the policy does not clarify who is meant to determine the “safe” portions of the work.  If it is the intent of the policy to reinforce that it is the worker whom decides what portions or tasks can be performed safely, then we would support the provision but would urge clarification.  The policy must direct that when a worker attempting a modified job offer suffers some adverse health effect as a result of performing a task, the modified job offer must be reconsidered with consideration of the new circumstances.

It must also be considered that once an injured worker returns to the employment to attempt the safe portions of the offered work, there will be many times external forces (eg. supervisors, co-workers, etc) that may apply pressure, either directly or indirectly to the worker to attempt more tasks than what they may feel safe performing.  It is vital that the policies reflect a pragmatic consideration of a worker’s attempts to perform portions of a modified job offer.

The OFL supports the policy where it provides that one factor in considering whether the work is safe is that “the work is performed at a worksite that is covered by either the Occupational Health and Safety Act or the Canada Labour Code”.  Strict adherence to this provision will aid in ensuring that workers are not forced or pressured into working beyond their limitations.

For example, a worker returning to a site covered by the OHSA, may exercise their statutory right to refuse any work that they are asked to perform that may endanger their health.  At Stage 1 of the work refusal process under the OHSA workplace parties try to resolve the matter but if no resolve is reached then the Ministry of Labour (MOL) must be called in and the inspector would have the responsibility to decide if the work is suitable.

Employers who are mandated to participate in the system are protected from lawsuits due to the historical compromise when workers gave up the right to sue in turn for the aforementioned principles.  Those employers outside the current scope of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act will be given the same protection when they are brought in.

SCHEDULES 1 AND 2

When the workers’ compensation legislation was first established, Meredith created two different schemes for assessing employers. Schedule 1 is a collective liability process in which employers are placed in pools (sectors) and assessed on a percentage of payroll. Schedule 2, on the other hand, is a pay-as-you-go assessment with employers paying the costs associated with the claim plus an administrative fee.

It is noteworthy that Meredith did not contemplate that the two schedules would continue to operate forever.  As outlined in the consultation paper, it seems that the architect of Ontario’s workers’ compensation law created the two schedules as an experiment to determine which system would prove preferable.  To this end, there is no justification for continuing to administer two separate methods for collecting revenue.

Since 1962 the OFL has recommended the elimination of Schedule 2 and the merger of all employers into Schedule 1.  The administering of two separate schedules involves the operation of separate computer systems, trained staff and resources which ultimately subjects the WSIB to unnecessary financial burden.  The practice of administering two separate systems is an unnecessary and costly practice that should be discontinued and therefore provide the necessary resources to ensure better service to injured workers and safer workplaces.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board does not hold sufficient funds to cover the costs of ongoing claims associated with the bankruptcy of Schedule 2 employers, as recently witnessed with Canada 3000.  This places an unfair financial burden on the system and Schedule 1 employers.  This could lead to political pressure to reduce benefits to injured workers.

In addition we must take action on the ownership structure of this industry. Fully one half of our industry is under foreign control. Would any other industrialized country allow this? Would England allow BP to be taken over by foreign interests? Would the United ‘States allow foreign interests to take over ExxonMobile or Chevron? The Canadian government has the responsibility to ensure energy and economic security for Canadians. Accordingly, it should selectively nationalize foreign holdings in the Canadian oil and gas industry.

2- We also need to help our industrial sectors that are in transition. The forest products industry is in difficulty as a result of the increase in the value in the Canadian dollar and eroding demand for its products.

Workers and manufacturers need help.

Hydro costs are high in Ontario. Manufacturers will not want to stay, expand or locate in the first place in Ontario if hydro costs substantially more than in other jurisdictions. We need a policy to give job producing manufacturing plants a break on hydro costs.

Trees should also be tied to jobs and investment. Canadian pulp and paper manufacturers have invested in the southern US, South America and Asia. If they fail to invest here and shut operations their timber allotments must be taken away and be put under local control.

Finally, there is a problem with the structure of many of our manufacturing industries. The forest products industry in Northern Ontario produces mostly basic commodities: dimension lumber, newsprint, woodpulp. More than 90 percent of all forest industry workers in the North are employed making these products.

We need to change the structure of this industry. Far more people would be employed if the government had taken an active role in the past. It should have insisted on more value-added industry in exchange for the wood it allowed businesses to harvest. We need to manufacture high quality lumber and boards, doors, window frames, furniture, prefabricated homes, ready-to-install building materials, factory-built housing systems such as wall units, trusses, and engineered wood products.

It’s not too late to start. The Ontario government should provide active leadership to diversify the industry. A strategy needs to worked out that will re-create it. The forest tenure system should be overhauled and brought closer to our communities. Wood should be allotted to firms that create high value-added jobs.

A key factor behind recent job losses has been the sharp and continuing increase in the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar against the US dollar.

Driven up partly by the global energy and resources boom, the high dollar has cut into our exports of manufactured goods, and has led to a surge in imports from China and other Asian countries.

Between 2002 and 2005, our trade deficit with China jumped from $12 billion to $22 billion, and the raw natural resources share of our exports has soared at the
expense of manufactured goods.

Adding to the problem in a major way, Canadian manufacturers have traditionally relied on a low dollar, rather than investing enough in new machinery and equipment, research and development, and worker training. The statistics clearly show that Canadian corporations have under-invested in innovation and in skills training compared to more successful industrial economies.

The constant mantra of the corporate elite – repeated by most politicians – has been that free trade deals and low-corporate taxes plus attacks on the living standards of workers will lead to increased international competitiveness.

That strategy has clearly failed. Free trade agreements modelled on the Canada-US deal have led to job losses, unbalanced trade outcomes, and relentless downward pressures on wages, benefits and working conditions. Even unionized manufacturing workers have seen little increase in wages and benefits even as work demands and productivity have increased. 

As a country, we have become more rather than less dependent on raw resource exports. High corporate profits have not been ploughed back into major new investments.

In the background paper for this conference, the Canadian Labour Congress has put forward the beginnings of a plan for good jobs and wealth creation.

Let me quickly just go over a few key elements of our plan.

We need monetary policies which help contain the sharp rise of the Canadian dollar. It’s true that the Bank of Canada cannot control resource prices, or the level of the US dollar.

But they do control interest rates here in Canada, and these were higher than in the US for most of the period since 2002 when we have been losing jobs by the thousands.

The Canada Labour Code and regulations in Newfoundland and Quebec contain substitution requirements.  British Columbia also has a limited requirement for substituting toxic substances.

In the U.S.A., Massachusetts established the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) in 1989.  This law encourages reductions in the amount of toxins used and generated as a result of an industrial process or operation.  It is reportedly the preferred mechanism for complying with all legislation governing worker and environmental health and applies to companies with ten or more full-time workers manufacturing 25,000 pounds or more of a “reportable” toxic substance.  TURA requires companies to report on toxin use, not toxin release. Central to TURA is a facility based plan to reduce toxins.

Massachusetts also provides support for these facilities or companies in the form of training and research into alternative substances.  The information accumulated over an eight year period and reported in 1997 demonstrated that companies generated 41 percent less toxic waste and reduced use of toxic chemicals by 24 percent.

Ontario would not be breaking new ground by bringing in substitution requirements.  Clearly the MOL would need to work with other ministries to introduce in Ontario what has been working in Massachusetts for many years.

The Massachusetts experience was used as an example of best practice in the previously discussed report prepared for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control. The lack of mandatory substitution requirements was identified as a gap in legislation and government policy in that same report.

Labour’s Concern Over the Use of TLVs

Our position on the use of the ACGIH TLVs as legal limits is well documented with the Ministry of Labour.  We have provided detailed critiques of these limits and the MOL practice of relying on them to protect workers.  Our submission to the MOL in March of 2000 on the proposed revisions to the Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) provided this information.  We do not feel it necessary to reproduce that information as our position has not changed and we refer the Ministry to that document for the details.

Dalton McGuinty – Une ère nouvelle?

Lorsque le chef libéral Dalton McGuinty a été élu premier ministre en octobre 2003, plusieurs croyaient que l’ère Mike Harris était terminée. Le financement de l’éducation a effectivement augmenté, mais la plupart des nouveaux fonds étaient destinés à des objectifs spécifiques du gouvernement. Les conseils scolaires locaux n’ont pas la liberté d’affecter des ressources conformes aux priorités locales. Et, malgré l’augmentation du financement dont on a fait grand cas, bien des conseils scolaires sont encore à court de financement.3

Actuellement, plusieurs des pires éléments de la formule de financement de Mike Harris existent encore:

• Le point de référence dans la formule applicable aux enseignants ne reflète pas les coûts réels, de sorte que les conseils embauchent moins d’enseignants que prévu par la formule de financement.4
• La formule de financement n’a jamais prévu adéquatement les coûts d’exploitation et d’entretien des immeubles.5
• La formule de financement n’a pas été modifiée adéquatement de manière à tenir compte des divers coûts lies à l’entretien d’immeubles d’âge, de taille et de conception architecturale différents.6

Le défi continue

Ces lacunes expliquent pourquoi bien des conseils scolaires font encore face au spectre de fermer des écoles et de sabrer des programmes pour équilibrer les budgets. Bien qu’on ait fait grand cas du déclin de l’inscription dans les écoles tandis que le financement augmente, peu de gens ont souligné le fait qu’il y a des frais fixes liés à l’exploitation d’une école, peu importe le nombre d’étudiants. Les frais des services publics ne diminuent pas simplement parce qu’il y a moins d’étudiants dans l’immeuble.

Les écoles élémentaires et secondaires en Ontario sont encore sous-financées.  Tant que cette situation durera, il y aura des pressions constantes exercées sur les conseils scolaires pour réduire les programmes et les services, et cela fortifiera davantage la privatisation. Nous avons besoin plus que jamais de commissaires d’écoles actifs, déterminés, qui exigeront que les enfants de l’Ontario ne se fassent pas rouler. 

Élections des conseils scolaires 2006 – Jouez un rôle actif

L’année prochaine, bien des commissaires vont gagner davantage – la première augmentation depuis que les salaries ont été coupés pendant le premier mandat de Mike Harris. Nous espérons donc que les commissaires d’écoles qui seront élus en 2006 pourront consacrer plus de temps à défendre les écoles – nous devons nous assurer qu’ils vont défendre les étudiants, les enseignants et le personnel.

Pour renseignements complémentaires au sujet des candidats appuyés par le mouvement syndical, veuillez communiquer avec votre conseil du travail local.

1 FEÉSO Mise à jour, Vol. 3, No. 10, 3 mai 2006.
2 Centre canadien de politiques alternatives, Commercialization in Canadian Schools: Who’s Calling the Shots? mai
2006.
3 People for Education: Back-to-school update on school board finances for 28 of the province’s 72 boards, 27 août
2006.
4 Budget alternative de l’Ontario 2006-07 pp33-35.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.

Il a été prouvé à maintes reprises que la privatisation des services publics ne rendra pas ces services plus efficaces ou moins cher. Les coûts vont grimper et la qualité va s’effriter. Les frais d’utilisation vont augmenter.

Certaines municipalités commencent à apprendre de leurs erreurs. En 2004, le Conseil municipal de Hamilton a voté pour que son réseau d’aqueduc soit retourné au secteur public, après que la ville et ses habitants eurent enduré dix années de coûts élevés, de risques contournés par les exploitants privés, de dommages à l’environnement et de secret. 

En 1996, le gouvernement a construit deux super établissements de détention, un à Penatanguishene, l’autre à Lindsay, Ontario.  Penatanguishene a hérité d’une prison privée à l’américaine, et la prison de Lindsay a été administrée par la province. Au terme d’une étude sur les deux établissements par Price Waterhouse, Monty Kwinter (actuellement ministre des Services correctionnels) a annoncé cette année que la province allait prendre en charge le super établissement de détention à Penatanguishene.  L’étude de Price Waterhouse a révélé que les économies de coûts découlant du modèle privé étaient neutralisées par des soins de santé médiocres aux détenus, une baisse inacceptable de la sécurité et un taux de récidiviste plus élevé que dans les établissements publics.

Raisons pour lesquelles nous nous opposons à la privatisation des services publics au moyen des partenariats public-privé (P3s)

La Fédération du travail de l’Ontario est persuadée que ces projets de privatisation vont entraîner une perte d’emplois, un accès réduit à des services publics de qualité, des problèmes au plan de la santé et de la sécurité, la désyndicalisation, la corporatisation, l’absence de contrôle démocratique ou de transparence.

La privatisation et les modèles de financement P3 ont donné lieu à d’énormes dépassements des coûts, à l’augmentation de la dette publique à long terme, à l’échec des projets et aux faillites, à des retards dans les projets, aux vices de construction et aux problèmes de la qualité.

Les transactions P3 sont un secret. Nous ignorons ce que nous cédons ou ce que ces transactions coûtent en réalité. La privatisation secrète ne rendra pas les services publics meilleurs. 

On November 1, 2004, Shelly Martel MPP (NDP) introduced Bill 140, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2004 for first reading.  She stated that “my Bill would ensure that CCACs are subject to the provisions of the Act so that important information regarding home care and home care delivery is made available to the public.” This particular Bill went no further than first reading.

Given the unwillingness of the McGuinty government to address this issue of transparency, one should not be an optimist and assume that they will act to ensure that any Public-Private Partnership (P3) initiative in Ontario is transparent.  If they won’t do it for home care, why should we assume that they’ll do it for any other sector?

Ontarians must challenge and defeat allowing profit making into public services through the Public-Private Partnership (P3) model and governments who embrace them. Transparency, not secrecy, must be a governing principle in Ontario.

Currently, many of the worst elements of the Mike Harris funding formula remain:

• The benchmark in the formula for teachers does not reflect the actual costs, so boards employ fewer teachers than contemplated by the funding formula.4
• The funding formula never adequately provided for the costs of operating and maintaining buildings.5
• There is no funding line for educational assistants, so boards must find money for their salaries from other budget areas.
• The funding formula has not been adequately modified to take into account the different costs associated with maintaining buildings of vastly different ages, sizes, and architectural design.6

The Challenges Continue

These flaws explain why many school boards are still facing the spectre of closing schools and cutting programmes as a means of balancing budgets.  Although much has been made of declining school enrolment at a time of increased funding, few have pointed out the fact that there are certain fixed costs associated with running a school, regardless of the number of students.  Utility costs don’t decrease just because there are fewer students in the building.

Ontario’s elementary and secondary schools are still under funded.  As long as this continues, there will be constant pressure on school boards to cut programmes and services, and further entrench privatization.  More than ever, we need active, fighting school board trustees who demand that Ontario children not be short-changed.

2006 School Board Elections – Get Active

Next year, many trustees will earn more – the first increase since the salaries were cut during Mike Harris’s first term.  As such, it is hoped that school board trustees elected in 2006 will have more time to devote to school advocacy – we need to make sure they’re advocating for students, teachers and staff.

For more information on labour endorsed school board trustee candidates please contact your local labour council.

Why we don’t agree with privatizing public services using public-private partnerships (P3s)

The Ontario Federation of Labour believes strongly that these privatization schemes will lead to lost jobs, reduced access to and quality of public services, health and safety problems, de-unionization, corporatization, no democratic control or transparency. Privatization and P3 funding models have led to huge cost overruns, increased public sector debt in the long term, project failures and bankruptcies, project delays and construction flaws and quality problems.

The P3 deals are a secret.  We don’t know what we are giving up or what these deals really cost.  Secret privatization won’t make public services better.

Alternatives to privatizing public services using public-private partnerships
The key issues are:

• The value of social services
• Government control over public policy and public assets
• The role of government in providing social services
• The public good as opposed to corporate profits or private gain
• Democracy and good governance

• Publicly-funded
• Publicly-delivered
• Publicly-owned, and
• 100% not-for-profit in character

Government Funding for Adjustment Services

Labour Market Partnerships

Unions can seek both federal and provincial funding for adjustment services. Federally,
Labour Market Partnerships is the main source of funding for adjustment activity (EI Part II, Active Measures). Note: As of January 1, 2007, Active Measures will be transferred to the Ontario government, under the Canada-Ontario Labour Market Development Agreement.

The federal government also provides Employment Assistance Services funding for eligible organizations to provide employment services to unemployed workers, including career counseling and coordination of Active Measures for individuals (as described above).

Unions seeking federal funding to provide adjustment services find the process slow and onerous. Project proposals, cash flow forecasts and budget notes are complicated.  Therefore, we recommend that you seek union staff expertise when trying to access federal adjustment funding.

Ontario Adjustment Advisory Program

The Ontario Adjustment Advisory Program (AAP) provides advice and funding for displaced worker adjustment on a workplace, community, or sectoral basis. Government funding can help pay for:

• the establishment of an adjustment committee
• peer-led “action centres” at the affected workplace or in the community
• individual and group needs assessment
• vocational and educational counseling
• job search assistance
• social and emotional supports

The AAP advisor provides both technical support and advice and can help broker other government programs and services. Unions seeking provincial funding find the process somewhat uneven in different parts of the province. Union staff expertise is often needed to successfully access provincial adjustment funding.

Seeking Government Funding: First Steps

Government dollars are often negotiated based on a formula related to the employer’s financial contribution. Within one global adjustment budget, the federal and provincial contributions have traditionally been split down the middle, for example 40% from the employer; 30% from the federal level; 30% from the Ontario AAP. If there is no employer contribution (due to bankruptcy or receivership), it is still possible and even more important to get government funding.

• government funding contracts will not fund any activities that take place before the contract is signed
• employer adjustment money spent before a contract is signed means that there is less available to leverage government funding
• negotiating contracts takes time, so you may decide to start some adjustment activity in the meantime (for example, survey of needs of affected members)
• approach the funding process like negotiations: be clear on options and what you want
• involve your union rep in the first few meetings with the government funders
• your local Service Canada Centre may not be familiar with Labour Market Partnerships funding. If you get a very slow response, you may want to contact a higher level within Service Canada.
• the adjustment committee is not a legal entity; the employer or union will have to “hold the contract” (be the contract sponsor, or proponent)

First Meeting

The government representatives will present information on:

• how their programs work
• their role
• what are eligible costs
• how money is administered
• the role of the adjustment committee and chair

The union and employer should be prepared to say where they’re at. Otherwise, at the first meeting, it is good to just listen, without agreeing or committing to anything. For example, the AAP will usually encourage retaining an outside committee chair. This may be useful, but the adjustment committee needs to decide. They may or may not need or want to use the limited adjustment budget for the services of an outside chair. As well, the AAP usually suggests an Action Centre run by part-time peer counselors. Depending on layoff size, many unions have also found useful a full-time paid coordinator (outside or peer). 

Collective Bargaining Rights

Cultural workers need the right to organize and be represented by a union or association. They should be covered by collective agreements which are enforceable by legislation. There should be a legal mechanism for those in the sector who are not presently covered by legislation or represented by a union or association. This should be done through Ontario Status of the Artist law. This legislation should ensure that the ability to bargain national agreements is not adversely affected by the Ontario Status of the Artist legislation. It should not interfere with unions and associations who bargain effectively through the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Status of the Artist Legislation in Ontario should not dismantle current bargaining units.

The Ontario government needs to respect existing statutes, structures and agreements which need to be considered as rights are expanded in this sector. For example, Status of the Artist legislation at the Federal level is designed to allow collective bargaining for independent contractors in this sector. National Agreements exist for many Ontario cultural workers in this sector and any provincial legislation should not interfere these specific agreements. Secondly, the agreements that are used by engagers cover minimum wage, terms and conditions of agreements. Independent contractors and workers should be allowed the ability to individually bargain higher wages and better benefits. Thirdly, Voluntary Agreements exist that should still be allowed to be adjudicated at the Ontario Labour Relations Board if a dispute arises. Finally, Status of the Artist Legislation should improve the status of artists in other areas including access to employment standards, the welfare of child artists, income support for older artists, pensions, training and career transition issues. It would also address equity issues, tax status, role of agents and insolvency rules.

Conclusion

In 1990, the Government of the day proposed legislation to address the needs of artists. The legislation was to cover a number of issues including the tax status of artists, their status under the Employment Insurance legislation and the Canada Pension Plan. Some Ontario artists who are not covered under Collective agreements and represented by unions like ACTRA, IATSE, CEP-NABET, EQUITY and the AFM are still waiting for those rights to organize and bargain.

In 1992, “The Status of the Artist in Ontario, Summary of Consultations” pointed out that the existing provincial and federal legislative framework may be inappropriate for labour rights and social benefits because it does not recognize or take into consideration the unique characteristics of the art’s sector. This lack of recognition imposes one of the most serious obstacles for improving the status of artists. Such recognition is a much needed catalyst for establishing the art’s sector within the mainstream of Canada’s workforce and Canadian society.

Ontario needs Status of the Artist legislation that would recognize the uniqueness and special circumstances faced by artists and their employers when they are not covered by collective agreements. It is necessary for the provincial government to establish a legislative framework to govern relations between artists who are not presently organized and their potential employers.

We urge the provincial government to work with the affiliates and organizations that represent cultural workers to make sure that there is effective Status of the Artist legislation which ensures that all workers in the arts sector haverepresentation rights while doing no harm to those who do.

The Ontario Federation is prepared to continue the proactive and collective work with our affiliates and arts organizations. We are willing to convene more cultural industry’s roundtables to discuss the implementation of Status of the Artist in Ontario that would include recognition of bargaining rights for cultural organizations not represented by unions or associations through Status of the Artist legislation.

We look forward to hearing your response to the submission.
Respectfully submitted,

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR

cope343

Conclusions

The recommendations of Swain’s Watertight report would take Ontario in the wrong direction, a direction of privatization; of for-profit consumer pay all water; and of a whole scale reduction in accountability to the people of Ontario.

What is needed from the Ontario government is a strong public commitment to having publicly owned and operated water resources.  The delivery of water services should remain (and where necessary, be reinstated) as the highest public service priority for the Government of Ontario.

Public financing governance and service delivery provides the means of ensuring that our water systems are financially sustainable, that water is affordable and that we have the control to implement achievable, practical solutions today and into the future.

Water is essential to life – no one should be able to control it or expropriate it for profit.  The right to water has been recognized internationally through the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  The world’s water companies would like to see water regarded as a human need, enabling them to control and sell water to the highest bidder for profit.

The Ontario government should support the real interests of the people of Ontario on this crucial issue – and not pander to the narrow interests of the multinational water companies.

Source:  Adopted from CUPE Research, March 2006