April 9, 2014 - Vol. 3 No. 22

Health Care Is a Right!

A New Blow Against the Liberals'
Version of Austerity

Mass action at Ontario Liberals' Annual General Meeting in Toronto, March 22, 2014.

Health Care Is a Right!
• A New Blow Against the Liberals' Version of Austerity
• More than 56,000 Ontarians Vote to Stop the Dismantling of Community Hospitals - Ontario Health Coalition
• Condemn Anti-Social Attack on Injured Migrant Workers! - Philip Fernandez

Government Taking New Powers to Impose Austerity
• Provincial Bargaining Legislation Passes - Mira Katz
• Debate on School Boards Collective Bargaining Act
• Government Tables "Accountability" Legislation - Dan Cerri

Health Care Is a Right!

A New Blow Against the Liberals' Version of Austerity

Ontario Political Forum congratulates the Ontario Health Coalition for its extensive work in organizing a referendum in which Ontarians voted against cuts to local hospitals and the government's schemes to privatize public health care by contracting out services. Votes took place in malls, farmers markets, workplaces and other public places in communities across the province. Fifty-six thousand Ontarians took a stand in the referendum with the vast majority voting against the privatization of health care and cuts to services. 

In two weeks, hundreds of volunteers made it their business to give Ontarians a chance to express their opposition to cuts to their local hospitals and the privatization of health care delivery being carried out by the Wynne government.

In so doing they have exposed another aspect of the austerity agenda which the Liberals are championing: the use of public funds to pay for the delivery of public services by private interests through contracting out, such as health care, education and direct government services.

The referendum follows similar votes in places such as Niagara and Kingston where local activists for health care gave residents a chance to take a stand through the referendum and send a message to all governments and parties that they do not accept the privatization of their health care system, nor cuts to hospitals in the name of "efficiency."

The referendum is another stinging blow to the illegitimate austerity agenda being pursued by the Liberals and the PCs. It shows that the working people have their own demands and agenda, in this case for their right to health care, and that they do not accept being told to give up their fight for rights for fear of electing the PCs as the Wynne government would have them do. This is of importance given that the Liberals and PCs both hope to keep the working people passive so either can pull off an electoral coup in a coming general election.

Opposition to austerity is growing because the agenda of the Liberals to turn over public services to private interests is a fraud to hand over large amounts of public funds to the rich. The Liberals claim that this is being done on a trial basis, and only for certain procedures but it is aimed at trying to get Ontarians to give up their staunch opposition to the privatization of health care.

While the Harper government has openly destroyed the Canada Health Accord to give itself more arbitrary powers over the delivery and funding of health care, no doubt in order to privatize it nationally, provincial governments such as the Liberals in Ontario refuse to affirm that health care is a right that must be guaranteed by the society. Instead, they use the crisis created by cutting funds from health care to pay the rich in order to contract out public services, thus paying the rich in other ways.

The private delivery of public health care removes massive amounts of added-value from the economy in the form of profit and lower wages and worsened working conditions for health care workers. The claim that privatization "reduces costs" is a fraud as it merely shifts the costs onto the people as private clinics nickel and dime their patients and employees and push for the lowest standards possible in order to maximize their returns.

While the Wynne government talks about accountability and transparency it is to cover up that it is giving itself more and more arbitrary powers to attack public services and the workers who provide them in order to push an illegitimate austerity agenda the people clearly do not accept. The whole exercise of the referendum has put another dent in the attempts of the Liberals to present their version of austerity as "fair" or "progressive."

More than 56,000 Ontarians Vote to Stop the Dismantling of Community Hospitals

- Ontario Health Coalition, April 7, 2014 -

Ontarians "passionate" about stopping the contracting out
of their local public hospital services to private clinics

Over the last two and a half weeks, hundreds of volunteers with the Ontario Health Coalition have opened public voting stations to collect opinions about the government's plan to cut services from local community hospitals and contract them out to high-volume private clinics. Ontario residents were invited to vote for one of the following statements:

- I support our local public hospitals. I do not want the government to cut our services or contract them out to private clinics.

- I support cutting services from our local public hospitals and contracting them out to private clinics.

On Saturday, April 5, more than 100 voting stations were staffed by volunteers in stores and local businesses in towns and cities across Ontario. Ballot boxes were taken to churches and faith institutions, legions, and service clubs. In the two weeks leading into the street votes on April 5, more than 200 workplace votes were held in auto plants, manufacturing companies, hospitals, pharmacies, schools and many more. Over the last month, thousands of volunteers have taken leaflets door-to-door in towns and cities in every region of Ontario.

Results of the Volunteer-Led "Referendum"

- 56,005 votes were cast in total.
- 55,767 voted in favour of supporting local public hospitals and stopping the private clinics.
- 107 voted for private clinics.
- 131 spoiled ballots.
- More than 400,000 leaflets on the issue were distributed door-to-door and at mall tables, farmers' markets and in workplaces across Ontario over the last four weeks.
- More than 200 workplace votes were held.
- More than 100 voting stations were open from Thunder Bay to Windsor to Peterborough and in between for the street votes on Saturday.

"I don't see how the government can ignore more than 56,000 Ontarians who in two short weeks voted to stop the private clinics," said Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition. "We tried to create a democratic forum so that people could choose whether or not they wanted private clinics and have their say. We were overwhelmed by the response. People have been emailing and calling us all weekend demanding to have a chance to vote to protect their local hospitals. Almost no one is in favour of private clinics."

"We went to the mall and every day we got hundreds of votes," said Felicia Fahey, co-chair of the Sudbury Health Coalition. "Of 800 votes at this one voting station, only two voted for private clinics. People couldn't vote fast enough to save our local public hospitals. This is an issue that everyone is passionate about."

"I went to a private clinic and they tried to charge me money for services," said Trish McAuliffe, co-chair of the Durham Health Coalition. "The government's plan to cut our local public hospital services and contract them out to private clinics is a threat to single-tier public health care. People are deeply opposed about the government's plans."

Background

After learning that the Ontario government plans to cut local public hospital services and contract them out to private clinics, the Ontario Health Coalition met with government officials to raise serious concerns about private clinics charging user fees to patients, quality & safety issues, inappropriate billings, poor governance structures, worsening of staffing shortages in hospitals, destabilization of hospital budgets and the impact on patients who will have to travel further to high-volume centres for services. The government would not stop the private clinics plan, though it has an easy solution of setting up such clinics under the public governance of local hospitals. So the Ontario Health Coalition working with thousands of volunteers has organized a volunteer-led cross-province referendum.

Since mid-March, concerned individuals have distributed leaflets door-to-door, in local community agencies, in businesses and churches and temples. Over the last two-weeks, advance polls have been held in workplaces, businesses, schools and universities. Voting stations in local businesses were open on Saturday in cities across Ontario.

Regional Results

Votes were received from all across Ontario. Vote tallies for specific towns are as follows:

- Chatham Kent -- 735 for public hospitals
- Durham -- more than 1,100 for public hospitals.
- Guelph -- 865 for public hospitals; 2 for private clinics; 2 spoiled ballots
- Hamilton -- 1,437 for public hospitals, 2 spoiled ballots
- Kitchener-Waterloo -- 2,968 for public hospitals; 5 for private clinics
- London -- 8,164 for public hospitals; 16 for private clinics; 64 spoiled ballots
- Niagara -- 2,039 for public hospitals
- Ottawa -- 1,829 for public hospitals; 4 for private clinics
- Peterborough -- 4,596 for public hospitals; 2 for private clinics; 3 spoiled ballots
- Sarnia -- more than 1,500 for public hospitals
- St. Marys - more than 450 for public hospitals
- Sudbury -- 5,157 for public hospitals; 13 for private clinics; 11 spoiled ballots
- Thunder Bay -- 1,890 for public hospitals
- Windsor -- 11,511 for public hospitals; 55 for private clinics; 29 spoiled ballots

These results are in addition to thousands of votes from all over Ontario ... [For full list click here.]

For more information please call Natalie Mehra executive director 416-230-6402 (cell) or Kim Johnston director of campaigns 647-381-7025 (cell) 416-441-2502 (office); français Sue Hotte 905-932-1646.

Condemn Anti-Social Attack on
Injured Migrant Workers!

- Philip Fernandez -

In Ontario not only are injured workers who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents denied their rights as part of "cost saving and efficiencies" and condemned to a life of poverty and insecurity, migrant workers who are injured cannot even access the Ontario Health Insurance Plan or other basic services to which they are entitled as human beings.

On April 1, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled in favour of the Ontario government and its policy of denying workers who come to Canada under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), the right to health care once their work contract is ended for the season. This is a barbaric ruling and the Wynne government and its Ontario Divisional Court stand condemned. A government like the Wynne Liberals which can take such a callous attitude toward injured migrant workers cannot be relied on to protect the interests of Ontarians on any matter.

Justice Ian Norheimer wrote in his decision that: "When the work permit expires, the person's employment is legally at an end" and that Ontario is no longer obligated to provide OHIP coverage under the SAWP which is a federal program.

Kenroy Williams and Denville Clarke are two agricultural migrant workers from Jamaica who were injured on the job when their employer's van overturned, killing one and injuring several workers in August 2012. They remained in Canada with the assistance of legal aid and the support of their allies to demand their right to health care and to return to their families in full health. They appealed to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which ruled in their favour, which then triggered the Wynne government's appeal.

The fact that the Wynne government appealed the decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board shows the utter contempt it has for workers and their rights. This case illustrates the new lows to which the Ontario government will stoop to deny Kenroy Williams and Denville Clarke basic health care. These men are but two of the tens of thousands of migrant agricultural workers who come to Canada and contribute billions to the Ontario and Canadian economy, pay taxes, contribute to employment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan etc. but are denied the right to access these services. It is unconscionable.

In his ruling Judge Norheimer noted: "Before leaving this issue, I will say that, if there is a gap in the parameters of the SAWP that do not ensure health care coverage for seasonal workers who are required to remain in Ontario for legitimate medical reasons after the expiration of their work permit, then that gap should be filled either by requiring the employees to obtain supplemental health insurance or through an agreement negotiated between the Federal and Provincial governments." In other words, either workers should be forced to fend for themselves, or governments should make their right to health care a new policy objective rather than guaranteeing that everyone in Canada has the health care they require to live a dignified life.

Health care is a basic right, and should not be conditioned on status or any other consideration. When a worker or anyone is injured, health care must be available immediately to ensure that there is minimum suffering and that the patient is returned to full health as soon as possible. The Wynne and Harper governments' abuse of these two Jamaican citizens working in Canada shows the necessity to establish a new and modern constitution in Canada where the right to health care is provided with a guarantee and governments established whose social responsibility is to affirm these rights, rather than actively seeking to violate them.

Ontarians must demand that Williams and Clarke be compensated for their suffering, including by receiving full medical care to ensure that they are fit to return to their families in dignity as well as being reimbursed for whatever financial losses they have suffered. Furthermore, Ontarians and all Canadians should demand that the SAWP, which is a vehicle to bring migrant workers from Latin American, the Caribbean and other places to be exploited and abused, be scrapped. If workers are needed in the agricultural sector in Canada they should have the right to come as immigrants and be domiciled here in Canada if they so desire.

Government Taking New Powers to Impose Austerity

Provincial Bargaining Legislation Passes

- Mira Katz -

Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2013 was passed at third reading on April 8 by the Liberals and NDP with a vote of 59 to the PCs' 34 votes against the legislation.

As a result of the minority government situation, the Liberals were unable to pass the legislation without amendments. In its original form, the bill gave the Minister of Education broad arbitrary powers in almost all aspects of provincial bargaining, while not requiring the government to be a full party in the negotiations, nor subject to important responsibilities under labour relations law. Despite the amendments, the legislation still permits the government to usurp power from local school boards and unions and reaffirms parameters for arbitrators which will be used to push austerity when disputes arise between the parties to negotiations.

The Act makes provincial bargaining mandatory for teachers and optional for non-teaching support staff and sets out how this will take place. It gives new powers to the government to intervene directly in collective bargaining and at the same time legislates a transfer of power from local to provincial bodies for provincial bargaining that is applicable to both unions and school boards. A trend that was established on a voluntary basis has now been made mandatory, with the government taking more control for itself in the new legislation.

The parties to central (provincial) bargaining under the Act are provincial trustee associations as employer bargaining agencies and provincial unions as employee bargaining agencies, with the government (Crown) required to participate as well at central tables that are mandated (for teachers) or created by regulation (for other, non-teaching employees) at the request of a union or unions that have met certain conditions.[1]

The Crown's authority to participate extends to any or all of conciliation, mediation and arbitration processes for settling disputes over central issues.

The scope of central bargaining is to be determined by the parties at the central table and the Crown through negotiation. If they cannot agree, either party or the Crown can refer the matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) for a decision, subject to criteria established by the government and stipulated in the Act, including the extent to which the matter "could result in a significant impact on the implementation of provincial education policy" or "on expenditures for one or more school boards." In other words, those issues which relate to expenditures of school boards, which could be almost anything, can in the end be mandated for central rather than local bargaining by an arbitrator based on the parameters legislated for arbitrators to follow.

If parties to local bargaining (i.e., a school board and a union) cannot agree on whether a matter should be dealt with locally, it must be passed to the central table for the parties at that level and the Crown to decide.

Centrally negotiated terms must be ratified by the parties and be agreed to by the Crown.

The Crown must also agree to any revision of terms to a central agreement that the other two parties may wish to make at a later date, after ratification has taken place.

The Crown can authorize by regulation that Notice to Bargain be given by either party up to 180 days prior to the date a collective agreement ceases to operate, twice as long a period as currently required under the Ontario Labour Relations Act (OLRA).

Unions and employers will now have to give at least five days' written notice to the other party and in the case of central bargaining, to the Crown, before engaging in a strike or lockout. This means that the government would have ample time to draft and impose back-to-work legislation if it so decided, rather than negotiate.

Five days' notice must also be given if an employer intends to alter any terms or conditions of employment considered local matters where this type of action is permitted under the OLRA.

The legislation establishes that the term of collective agreements will be three years, beginning on September 1 of the year existing contracts cease to operate, unless the Crown through regulation arbitrarily decides to impose a two- or four-year term instead.

In the event of arbitration to resolve a dispute with respect to central bargaining, the legislation spells out parameters by which an arbitrator or arbitration board must be guided in coming to a decision. These factors clearly lay out the ability of the government to invoke austerity to have a settlement imposed based on its austerity parameters:

1. The school boards' ability to pay in light of their fiscal situation.

2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the decision or award, if current funding and taxation levels are not increased.

3. The economic situation in Ontario.

4. A comparison, as between the employees and other comparable employees in the public and private sectors, of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of work performed.

5. The school boards' ability to attract and retain qualified employees.

The first three criteria, generally referred to as "the ability to pay" represent a new restrictive imposition on non-teaching support staff. There are no such "ability to pay" criteria in the OLRA which governs non-teacher collective bargaining. The criteria are however referred to in the Education Act which governs teacher collective bargaining. Whether or not it is required by statute for arbitrators to be guided by "the ability to pay" it would be naïve to suggest that government and other public sector employers do not have ways to exert influence on the "independent" arbitration process when it comes to deciding compensation, working conditions and certain other matters in the sector. Recent decisions by the Chair of the Labour Board declaring the coordinated withdrawal of voluntary and extra-curricular activities by teachers a "strike" and rulings in other disputes occasioned by the illegitimate imposition of contracts with Bill 115 are a case in point.

Another new restriction applied to support staff in the legislation is that no agreement can be entered into that extends the term or any provisions of a collective agreement beyond its term of operation. While this language is in the Education Act, it is not in the OLRA which governs collective bargaining for non-teaching employees.

New Rules Usurp Authority of Local School Boards

Local unions are not the only ones to have their powers usurped under the Act. Local school boards have in some ways seen their authority diminished even more. For example, employer bargaining agencies acting for school boards cannot exercise full employer rights for central bargaining in that they require prior consent from the Crown before they can:

- refer a matter in dispute to binding arbitration;

- agree to/require a school board to lock out employees;

- alter wages or any other central terms of employment either by agreement with an employee bargaining agency or unilaterally during the times such changes are allowed under Section 86 of the OLRA;

- apply to the OLRB for a vote of employees to accept or reject a particular offer (which must first have been approved by the Crown and rejected by the employee bargaining agency) with respect to central terms;

- agree to the settlement of a grievance over the interpretation of central terms;

- enter a complaint under the Labour Relations Act regarding an unlawful strike.

A trustee association or council can also be replaced with a government-created committee empowered to act on its behalf until central bargaining is completed if in the government's opinion, it has "reasonable grounds" to believe the association or council is "unwilling or unable to exercise the rights and privileges and perform the duties assigned to it under the Act."

In the past a provincial trustees' association could walk away from a voluntary central table, as happened during the lead-up to Bill 115 and after its imposition. This caused a crisis of legitimacy for the government, with representatives of the employers not even at the table -- something required for collective bargaining. The government appears to have "fixed" the situation legislatively by forcing the trustee associations as employer representatives to remain at the central table, or be dismissed and replaced with a more compliant government-appointed body.

The legislation also requires local school boards to pay fees to their legislated employer bargaining agency (provincial trustee association) or risk being penalized by being excluded from participation in voting. This seems to be directed at the Toronto District School Board which had been withholding its fees, reportedly because trustees felt their provincial association, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, was not effectively representing their interests.

To see a copy of the Act as amended click here.

Note

1. Under the legislation, the Minister must make a central table available for a specified round of bargaining to a union representing non-teaching employees that requests it as long as certain conditions are met: The request must be made on behalf of at least 15 bargaining units that comprise at least two-thirds of all bargaining units and two-thirds of the membership of all the non-teaching bargaining units for which the union is the bargaining agent. The arrangement is also possible for an entity (a council of unions, for example) if the bargaining agents for at least fifteen bargaining units have vested it with the authority to act on their behalf as an employee bargaining agency.

Likewise, the government may designate a council of trustee associations as the employer bargaining agency to negotiate at a central table with an employee bargaining agency representing non-teaching employees.

Debate on School Boards Collective Bargaining Act

On April 7 debate at third reading on Bill 122, the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act took place in the Legislature.

Education Minister Liz Sandals opened debate giving an overview of the amendments the government agreed to make, highlighting that through consultations with education "partners" a number of changes to the legislation had been permitted. She highlighted areas where ministerial prerogative to dictate at the central table was curtailed. She presented the amendments as proof that the government listened to stakeholders in education. However, she failed to explain why the government had first included such vast arbitrary powers for the Minister of Education, especially after the experience with Bill 115. Of note, however, was that in terms of dispute resolution when negotiation does not lead to an agreement, the government left in broad restrictions on arbitrators which force them to decide within parameters that can be rigged by the government to get the result it wants, parameters such as "the economic situation in Ontario" and a board's "ability to pay" amongst others. It was these broad parameters on which the government based its use of Bill 115, claiming that it needed to violate teachers' and education workers' rights in order to resolve the "economic situation in Ontario," meaning to free up $1.8 billion pay the rich in various ways.

Of importance for how teachers and education workers now organize under the new legislation, the Minister made a point of stating at two different times during her only intervention at third reading that the legislation was required because the government intends to continue its bogus "restraint" period in the new round of negotiations:

"At one time, this ad hoc process worked: when investments in education were increasing. But we are currently facing fiscal restraints, and we need a process that can weather the significant challenges of our current economic climate. That is why we need this groundbreaking legislation. It will replace a voluntary process with a clear legal framework and with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for all parties during negotiations. It will also make it mandatory for the government, as the funder of public education in Ontario, to have a prescribed role where it participates at every central table during collective bargaining.

"It is also essential that we pass Bill 122 quickly, since virtually all collective agreements in the education sector expire in August of this year. The next round of bargaining is upon us, and a model that stipulates the government's role at the central table will be of vital importance," she said.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail on April 8 she reiterated the fact that the government intends to pursue cuts in education to pay the moneylenders stating:

"We still have this nasty detail called the provincial deficit that we have to worry about -- so [the legislation] doesn’t make the underlying fiscal situation any easier, the context is still there," Ms. Sandals said.

PC Education Critic Rob Leone focused his remarks on trying to paint the PCs as representatives of parents and students in opposition to teachers and education workers and school boards. He did not explain why teachers and education workers would also not be considered parents of students in his attempts to pit their unions against parents and students. He emphasized that the PCs wanted to see the legislation used to make voluntary extra-curricular activities part of the job description of teachers and that this was consistent with requests from the Catholic School Trustees' Association as well as the Ontario Labour Relations Board:

"[...] I can say on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus that I think it's a good thing to have a process that is outlined, that is written out, that is discussed, that is debated amongst partners in the negotiation process. There is some merit to doing this. I'm not going to disagree. But when it comes time to standing up for parents and their kids, we need to have a serious conversation about doing that. The problem is that even though we made that case and we pled and pled and pled about using this opportunity to provide some assurance to parents, to provide some assurance to their kids that their extracurricular activities were going to remain in our schools, the government not only failed to listen but they ultimately decided to shut us down, to close debate, to allocate us out of our time so we could no longer make that point," Leone said.

NDP Education Critic Peter Tabuns explained that the NDP had put forward almost 50 amendments based on feedback it had received, indicating that 21 were accepted by the government. Many teachers' and education workers' unions expected that the NDP would bring forward amendments the unions wanted in the hopes that they would be accepted by the government. Many of the unions and trustee associations also made their concerns known at the committee hearings into Bill 122 as well. Tabuns stated:

"[...] Over the past several months, we in the NDP have worked closely with stakeholders and, together, we were able to press the government to amend this bill significantly. We made important changes to this bill. It is not perfect; that is clear. But it is a better piece of legislation now, and we will be supporting it in third reading.

"We drafted 48 amendments. We were able to press the government to accept 21 amendments in total to their own bill, including amendments moved by our caucus. That, in our opinion, is a substantial win for the people of this province and the stakeholders in the education system. I think it's another example of how the NDP has been able to get results for people and hold the government accountable," he said.

"[...]There was one area where we did not get the support of the government, and that was with regard to section 37 of the bill, which states that an arbitrator shall resolve disputes by taking into consideration:

- school boards' ability to pay;

- the extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the resolution, if taxation levels are not increased;

- 'the economic situation in Ontario;'

- a comparison of 'comparable employees in the public and private sectors;' and

- 'the school boards' ability to attract and retain qualified employees.'

"Frankly, we believe that those criteria should have been struck out or at least amended to also require the arbitrator to take into consideration 'the need to establish compensation and other terms and conditions of employment that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the work performed.' We believe that our proposal was very reasonable and fair, and simply asked that the work performed by teachers and education workers be taken into consideration when an arbitrator makes a decision. It is unfortunate, in my mind, that the PCs and the Liberals joined together to defeat that amendment put forward by us. That is regrettable.[...]," Tabuns added.

Despite the NDP's support being necessary for the Liberals to pass the bill, the NDP was not willing to withhold its support to have its amendment included that would have removed or neutered the pro-austerity restrictions on arbitrators. With these restrictions in place, the Liberals, or whoever forms government, will likely use the threat of an arbitrated settlement under these parameters to try to force teachers and education workers to accept austerity "voluntarily." The problem for whoever forms government however is that teachers and education workers have shown that they are not prepared to voluntarily accept austerity and the violation of their rights that comes with it and are taking political action in elections to defend their rights. The changes to the legislation reveal that the working people are favoured by keeping the parties in the minority situation so they are forced to negotiate due to the contradictions between them. However, they also reveal that the working people have to continue developing their own independent politics to actually reverse the austerity agenda, rather than just block certain aspects of it, while other means are then used to achieve the same retrogressive aims.

Government Tables "Accountability" Legislation

- Dan Cerri -

In the face of growing opposition, the Wynne government continues its attempts to make everyone, especially those in the public sector, fall in line with its anti-social austerity agenda by tabling new legislation to regulate public institutions.

The government tabled Bill 179, the Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014 on March 24. It is an omnibus bill containing 10 new or amended bills which the government claims will strengthen political accountability, enhance oversight, and increase transparency in the government and the broader public sector. At the same time as it implements austerity to facilitate privatization, the government faces corruption charges from which it is trying to divert attention by introducing measures for administrative accountability rather than measures that would deal with the lack of empowerment of the people.

The bill would extend the powers of the Ontario Ombudsman to municipalities, school boards and government-assisted universities establishing "must-comply" rules including fines for non-compliance, and required reporting of information by employers and officials.[1] It also creates a Patient Ombudsman to respond to patient complaints against public hospitals, long-term care homes and community care access centres, as if the problem lies with health care workers and not the government's refusal to guarantee health care as a right for all.

The bill also represents a continuation of the government's austerity agenda by implementing compensation limits for public sector executives. In doing so, the government is suggesting that it's agenda is "fair" in that everyone must accept attacks on their wages and working conditions. It is paving the way for more attacks on all public sector workers by making an example of executives in the public service, as well as MPPs themselves.[2]

The Liberals are trying to hide the fact that it is the austerity agenda itself which is corrupt. Making it more transparent will not change this fact. Meanwhile, the PCs try to expose corruption so they can replace the Liberals as the champions of austerity. They talk about accountability and transparency for purposes of hiding that the whole direction serves narrow interests. They also attempt to divert working people from taking up their own agenda and instead get them embroiled in a debate over who is or is not corrupt or when an election will be called. It all serves to restrict working people to act within the agenda of the ruling circles.

As demonstrated by the votes of the people against attacks on health care in the recent referendum, as well as strike votes by public serveants, the people are saying No! to austerity and privatization and all those who champion this agenda for society.

Notes

1. The Act introduces new powers for the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, the Integrity Commissioner with the ability to review executive expenses, and the Registrar to provide guidance and direction on lobbyist conduct, and the power to prohibit lobbying for up to two years.

2. The Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 stipulates that public sector employers must adhere to nature of the framework of the bill which is to "limit the compensation and payments and elements of compensation and payments that may be provided to designated executives, including salaries, salary ranges, benefits, perquisites, discretionary and non- discretionary payments, payments payable on or in connection with termination, performance plans, incentive plans, bonus plans, allowances and any other form of remuneration."

The Act would also allow the minister to request reports be made by employers to show compliance with the Act, with penalties up to $5,000 for those that do not. The sectors that fall under this new Act are hospitals, institutions that fall under the Education Act, universities, colleges, Hydro One, Ontario Power Authority, Ontario Power Generation, and all community care access corporations under the Community Care Access Corporations Act, 2001. It affects all executives unless they fall under a bargaining unit.

Finally, the bill requires MPPs to post their expense information online and requires the Speaker of the Legislature to publicly post online all MPP expense information. It also requires public institutions to securely retain records and requires broader public sector organizations to publish their business plans and other relevant financial documentation.

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read Ontario Political Forum
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  ontario@cpcml.ca