As members of Canadian-based labour, environmental, faith and social justice organizations, we have come together to form a common front for the building of a green economy in Canada. We have done so recognizing that we are living in one of those critical moments of human history wherein decisions must be made that will ultimately affect our destiny as a people, a nation, and a civilization.

We maintain that, if the plan of action outlined below were to be fully enacted during the coming five years, Canada would be well on the way to creating one million new person job years. Simultaneously, we will reduce our total national greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of 88 megatonnes (Mt) a year by 2020, putting us on track to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by one third by 2025, which represents a substantial contribution towards our overall emissions reductions. Moreover, these initiatives would generate opportunities for the transition towards a more equitable as well as a more sustainable economy.

Introduction

Canada is facing a triple-E challenge relating to our environment, our economy and diversification of energy sources. We are already experiencing the ramifications of climate change; underemployment and unemployment in precarious jobs remain very high; and we must make the transition away from carbon-based energy sources. Concurrently, our economy and society are further plagued by an equity crisis marked by increasing inequalities and divisions amongst gender, race and class.

We can no longer afford an economic model that treats the planet and people as disposable goods. The time has come to chart a new economic model, one that requires a fundamental transformation in the way we produce, transport and consume goods. We need a new industrial strategy for this country. We must rethink the way we construct buildings, manufacture products and generate energy. We must rethink the way we transport ourselves, move goods, fuel industries, and heat our homes and businesses while ensuring there is affordable green energy for all. We must foster local sustainable economies, provide equitable job opportunities and contribute our fair share to efforts that reduce environmental and social harm internationally. Through this transformation, we will help break our addiction to fossil fuels and overcome persistent poverty and inequalities. Ultimately, we must build a green economy and society that transforms the modes of production and consumption, ensures energy is available and affordable, and makes the jobs we have more environmentally sustainable while simultaneously creating new decent paying climate jobs and providing “Just Transition” programs.

Download the paper here.

The post Making the Shift to a Green Economy appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

1. Caregivers for children under 18 years of age that has lower skilled positions such as babysitters, nannies, and parent’s helpers.
2. Caregivers for people with high medical needs such as the elderly or people with disabilities and/or a chronic illness.  This stream has a mix of both higher and lower skilled positions, some of which are registered nurses and licensed practical nurses.

Since its launch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has rejected 90% of all applications from workers seeking to work in Canada under the Caregiver program. That’s 917 applications and 92 approvals.  This rejection rate is extraordinarily high.

Among the approved applicants, 68% of those are from the higher-skilled occupations and 32% are from the lower-skilled occupations. Registered nurses made up for most of the successful higher-skilled applicants.

The Canadian Labour Congress has called for a clear and transparent review of the entire TFW program and is concerned that this re-working of the Caregiver program is not an improvement. It’s making it worse. The first 4 months of the new Caregiver program seems to heavily favour the higher-skilled occupations. 

The program allows a Canadian employer to employ a migrant worker to take care of children and other family members who need care.  An employer needs to apply to hire a worker under this program by first obtaining an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). This ensures that there is no Canadian worker or permanent resident available to fill the position.

Domestic work is one of the lowest paid jobs in any labour market.  We want to see the Caregiver program enhanced to extend permanent residency for these migrant workers on their arrival to Canada for care-giving work.

This is the best way to protect all caregivers from abuses and exploitations.

The post Don’t touch it if you can’t fix it – Live-in Caregiver Program appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The poll, conducted by Environics Research Group for Trade Justice Network, found that 75 per cent of respondents had not heard of the TPP, which is being negotiated with 11 other Pacific Rim countries and would cover more than a third of the world’s trade.

The survey also found:

• Seventy-five per cent of respondents were very or somewhat concerned that the deal is being negotiated in secret with no input from MPs, labour leaders, environmentalists or other experts.
• Eighty-three per cent of respondents were very or somewhat concerned that the deal could include a provision allowing multinational corporations to sue Canadian governments under trade tribunals―rather than through the courts―if they feel our labour, environmental, health or other standards contravene the TPP and would lead to a loss of profits. 
• Forty-seven per cent of respondents said Canada is more likely to lose jobs under the TPP as Canadian companies move manufacturing and other jobs to low-wage countries, such as Vietnam where the average wage is 65 cents an hour. Only five per cent said Canada is more likely to gain jobs. Forty-six per cent said they didn’t know enough to say. 

The survey of 1,002 Canadians was commissioned by Trade Justice Network (TJN), a coalition of social, labour, environmental, student and other groups concerned about the secrecy and anti-democratic provisions of international trade negotiations.

One of the most troubling things about the TPP is the fact that multinational corporations would have the power to override Canadian sovereignty and sue our governments under secretive trade tribunals.

The poll, which was conducted by telephone June 3-12, is considered accurate to within 3.2 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

You can find the Trade Justice Network on Twitter (@TradeJusticeNet) and on Facebook. 

The post 75% of Canadians have never heard of major “TPP” trade deal being negotiated in secret appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Six years into the “recovery,” 40 million people in the OECD remain unemployed, 7.5 million more than the pre-crisis peak. The unemployment rate remains above 11% in the Eurozone. Summing up the global economy, the OECD writes, “in effect, many economies have become stuck in a low-growth and low-investment equilibrium, with persistent unemployment, stagnant wages, and non-robust consumption.”

Faced with this bleak outlook, the OECD Ministerial Council devoted its meetings during the first week of June to addressing the conundrum of weak private investment. This cycle saw a deeper drop in business investment than previous downturns, but there’s only been a 5% increase in investment 28 quarters after the pre-crisis peak – the worst recovery in investment in recent memory.  The consequence has been slower potential output growth, weak productivity growth, labour scarring, stagnant incomes, and rising inequality.
From the OECD’s vantage point, investment should have been boosted by lower corporate tax rates, and indeed, over half of OECD countries have reduced corporate tax rates since 2007. But as it concedes, corporations that can shift taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions already have effective average and marginal tax rates below domestic levels.  In this context, changes in domestic tax rates have little impact on multinational corporations’ effective rates (p. 232 of the Outlook).

The Economic Outlook concludes that the slow recovery in private investment is mostly explained by weak demand, domestically and globally. The OECD points out that a 1% increase in domestic demand would lead to additional investment growth of 1% over a 5 year horizon — with a bonus 0.5% investment growth if expansion is coordinated among states.

What the Outlook didn’t draw attention to is that the OECD’s own labour-market reform proposals, implemented over the past 20 years, have helped soften demand by weakening workers’ organizations and their bargaining power. The recommendations of the 1994 OECD jobs study, now largely implemented, called for lower budget deficits and debt levels, more flexible work arrangements, weaker employment security provisions, restricted unemployment insurance benefits, and greater wage and working-time flexibility. Moreover, OECD governments (including Canada) cut public investment as part of their fiscal consolidation efforts following the crisis (urged on by the OECD), despite the fact that government investment has a relatively strong fiscal multiplier of 2.1.

Meanwhile, the IMF published research the same week advising governments with fiscal capacity against dogmatically insisting on reducing debt levels. For his part, Financial Times columnist and author Martin Wolf told OECD conference-goers that future generations would find it “unbelievably stupid” that today’s governments failed to take advantage of exceptionally low interest rates to invest in jobs and the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The post OECD warns world economy stuck in low-growth, low-investment, high-unemployment equilibrium appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

This is an immersive story told through text, images and video, best viewed on an up-to-date browser.

Click here to begin

The post Red River Women – on the trail of the murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Winnipeg (From the BBC) appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam.

Canada and Mexico were allowed to join TPP talks in 2012, after 15 rounds of negotiations had already taken place. Japan joined the talks in 2013.

The details of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement continue to be shrouded in secrecy. From the information that is publicly available, most of it from WikiLeaks, it appears that access to medicines would be jeopardised, financial stability and regulation making would be undermined, useful public policy space severely diminished, and online data privacy and security would be infringed upon.

For example, the leaked draft of the intellectual property rights chapter shows that governments are negotiating to institutionalise a regime of unprecedented protection for patents, including on medicines. This will make access to drugs unaffordable for many people and public authorities.

It also appears that public procurement at all levels will be severely constrained. This would limit the ability of governments to prioritise criteria relating to public policy aims, such as job creation, environmental protection, and human and workers’ rights, when awarding contracts for procurement.

TPP negotiators are pressuring governments to grant market access in public services and utilities. We believe that will jeopardise the quality of and public access to such services.

The leaked version of the services chapter includes a series of restrictions on governments’ powers to regulate the financial sector. International trade deals were behind previous financial deregulation in the United States, which sparked the last recession and proved to be disastrous to the international economy. 

Having been locked out of negotiations, trade unions from the TPP countries have called on governments to adopt a labour chapter that includes high labour standards and effective enforcement mechanisms, as well as several innovations. 

The CLC stands with trade union centrals in the countries of the TPP, who have urged their governments to work for a new international trade and investment framework that has, at its core, the promotion of higher labour standards, high-quality jobs, and sustainable economic development. We too believe that we cannot afford another agreement giving priority to investor rights over the rights of workers and their aspirations to decent work and decent lives.

The CLC has asked the Federal Government to conduct full hearings at the International Trade Committee, followed by a full debate in Parliament. We believe the government should issue a call for an independent impact assessment informed by broad stakeholder debate and consultation which would assess the implications of the proposed TPP on the economy, jobs, poverty, gender, human rights, culture, and the environment—in Canada and in the participating countries of the Pacific Rim.

We have seen no evidence of government action to ensure that TPP works for Canadians and not simply for multi-national corporate interests. In fact, large corporations have full access to negotiations and the proposed texts, while opposition legislators and civil society actors have been shut out of the process in all TPP countries.

As such, the Canadian Labour Congress continues to work with TPP nation labour centrals, international trade unions, and other allies on this important issue. We support the work of researchers who are using the best information available to evaluate the impacts of leaked TPP documents.

According to all the information available, TPP is not the trade enhancing set of negotiations the Canadian government makes it out to be. It is an agreement that aims to change Canadian public policy without domestic debate. That should be unacceptable to all of us.

The post It’s a secret! The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The gig-economy has generated USD $15 billion in revenues for transportation, retail, accommodation, service, and financial markets. It is projected to grow to USD $335 billion by 2025. Uber, a popular transportation company, which operates in over 50 countries, is now gaining popularity in Canada and is worth USD $40 billion with investors such as Google and Goldman-Sachs. 

Consumers believe Uber gives them choice between regulated taxi cab companies and other forms of transportation. Drivers for Uber see opportunities for flexible and independent jobs.

Sounds good: cheaper and more readily available transportation with a no-fuss app on your phone and flexible work for drivers.

But there is a caveat.  And this is why the labour movement is involved.  Beyond the obvious concerns for public safety and accessibility, it’s also part of a much broader debate around rising precarious employment and how to protect labour standards under new trends of non-standard working conditions, the growth of the service sector, and technological change. 

A recent report by CIBC found that employment quality in Canada continues to suffer, reaching a record low. The gig-economy is based on a business model where unregulated companies can generate profits, while shifting costs and risks onto self-employed, low-wage workers. This, in turn, lowers wages and standards in the regulated economy, while threatening retirement security.

As sectors are increasingly deregulated, workers and unions are pushing back in defence of labour protections and public safety

In the U.S., workers have filed class actions against emerging companies on the grounds that they should be classified as employees and entitled to ensuing benefits and protections.  In California, Teamsters launched the California App-based Drivers Association in order to unionize Uber drivers. Whereas, global unions, such as the International Transportation Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), took a strong stand against Uber, motivating UN Women to retreat from a new global partnership with Uber.

Municipalities and regulators have been all over the map with their response to Uber. Some are allowing the companies to operate while they study new rules, others are imposing fines on Uber drivers, while some countries have banned Uber altogether. 

Others argue that regulators should not be turning away from the sharing economy, but instead should re-examine taxi regulations in order to allow for greater flexibility, competition, and innovation. Uber itself has called for regulation of the industry as it currently falls in a “grey zone” that may ultimately put their operations at risk. 

Most current regulatory structures were not designed for the digital world and are ill-suited for this new economic model. It also opens the door to the type of de-regulation and self-regulation that have allowed some corporations to grow more powerful than governments—putting public health, safety, and the environment at risk. 

Beyond the question of public safety, we must decide whether this employment trend truly provides flexible new opportunities, or whether it’s yet another business model that contributes to the rise of precarious work by preying on a vulnerable workforce in a weak economy.

MORE LIKE THIS:

The post The gig-economy: Uber good or Uber bad? appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The jobs market is still stuck in the ditch. Youth unemployment jumped to 13.6% last month, with the underemployment rate for young workers elevated to 29%. Compared to just a year ago, Canada has lost 20,000 full-time jobs in manufacturing and 25,000 full-time jobs in mining, oil, and gas. In the retail sector, Canada has lost 63,000 full time and 27,000 part-time jobs over the same period. Meanwhile, more than half of all the job gains over the past year have been concentrated in the 55+ age group, a clear signal of stagnation for both young and core age workers.

That same month, the federal government balanced its budget by taking billions of dollars in “surplus” funds out of the employment insurance program. saThis week, Canadians learned that millions more in money promised to support youth employment programs went unspent last year.

“The federal government is clearly taking money meant to support jobs and using it to buy votes,” says the Canadian Labour Congress’ President, Hassan Yussuff.

“We’ve seen this all before, but never at a time when there was such an immediate need for real investment in training and in job creation. Taking money away from unemployed workers to subsidize things like tax-free savings accounts for people with money to spare, government advertising, and child-benefit cheques for families with no childcare expenses? It’s time for change in Ottawa,” says Yussuff.

The post The jobs market is still stuck in the ditch appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Canada is aging. By 2026, one in five of us will have reached age 65, and over the next 10 years we face a shortage of 86,000 long-term care beds. Considering many of us already struggle to find quality long-term care for our loved ones, it’s no wonder we worry about having the health care we’ll need in the future.

[[{“fid”:”418″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”no doctor”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”no doctor”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”no doctor”,”title”:”no doctor”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

And it’s not just seniors who are waiting. Four million Canadians don’t have a family doctor.

While Canadians wait for care, the federal government is breaking its promise to put the funds we need into the system.

Before the last federal election, Prime Minister Harper promised to renew the Federal Health Accord, committing to increasing health care transfer payments to the provinces by six per cent a year. All political parties recognized that making this commitment was the only way to ensure Canadians will get the care they need, despite a rapidly aging population and increased demand and costs.

But in 2013, the government broke that promise, tying any further increases to economic growth. Even if the outlook for Canada’s economy exceeds expectations and improves, increases in funding for health care are unlikely to exceed 3 per cent.

That means a funding shortfall of about $36 billion in health care transfers by 2024.

How does that make sense?

[[{“fid”:”419″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”36 billion cuts”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”36 billion cuts”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”36 billion cuts”,”title”:”36 billion cuts”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

We have a better plan.

One that will ensure Canadians get the care they need, when they need it. One that also creates good jobs.

Instead of cutting, let’s get back to the original plan to invest enough in the system to recruit and train the healthcare professionals we need and improve access to – and the quality of – long-term care.

Let’s also invest in universal drug coverage. Today, more than 3 million Canadians can’t afford the medication they need. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that investing just $1 billion annually would save $7.3 billion every year – a 32 per cent reduction in overall spending on prescription drugs.

[[{“fid”:”420″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”meds”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”meds”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”meds”,”title”:”meds”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

Investing in Canada’s health care system will benefit all Canadians. It will create skilled, high-value jobs and help keep Canadians healthy and able to work. These are long-term benefits that only investment can deliver for our economy.

Investing in our health care system is the better choice for all Canadians.

The post What’s the best way to improve health care – with cuts or by investing wisely? appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Solutions for A Better Future

Canadians are worried about their retirement, and the number of seniors living in poverty in Canada is on the rise. As older workers near retirement age, many fear they won’t have enough money saved. For some, the investment returns they were promised never materialized. Others just couldn’t save enough on their own. After a lifetime of hard work, no one should have to retire in poverty.

In fact, a small increase in Canada Pension Plan contributions could help make things easier. For less than a cup of coffee and a donut a day the average worker could double their CPP benefits at retirement.

So what are we waiting for?

With baby boomers about to retire in unprecedented numbers, the federal government is ignoring the looming crisis and insisting Canadians can just fend for themselves.

[[{“fid”:”416″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:”Worried about your retirement?”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”}}]]

It’s Time to Expand the CPP.

Expanding the CPP provides a simple and effective choice for all workers.

The CPP benefits everyone: It follows workers from job to job across the country, covering all workers – including the 11 million Canadians that don’t have a workplace pension plan.

The CPP is effective: With very low management costs, the CPP keeps up with the cost of living and pays out benefits until death. And it won’t cost employers more because they are already participating.

The CPP is safe: Financed exclusively by workers and their employers, you can be confident the CPP will be there for you. Because it’s a defined benefit, you’ll know exactly what you’ll get. There’s no need to worry about how the stock market will perform, or your employer’s stability, or any investment fees.

Expanding the CPP is the better choice to help today’s workers retire with dignity tomorrow.

The post Are you looking forward to retirement, or worrying about ever being able to? appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is the national voice of 3.3 million workers in Canada. The CLC brings together Canada’s national and international unions along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, and in all parts of Canada.

In the opinion of the CLC, Bill C-377 infringes Canadians’ freedom of association and is contrary to Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The bill intrudes into provincial jurisdiction with respect to the regulation of labour relations and unions and is ultra vires. Bill C-377 contravenes federal and provincial privacy legislation, and singles out and discriminates against unions compared to other organizations similarly treated in the Income Tax Act.  Finally, it will impose significant, unnecessary and unwarranted costs on the government and labour organizations.

In the words of Senator Hugh Segal, Bill C-377 is “an expression of statutory contempt for the working men and women in our trade unions and for the trade unions themselves and their right under federal and provincial law to organize.”   There is no demonstrable rationale for Bill C-377, and arguments used to justify the bill are feeble at best.  In fact, there is only one underlying reason for this bill: to single out, interfere with, and weaken unions. The Congress believes C-377 is an unwarranted, unconstitutional, venal and indefensible bill that is inherently flawed and must be withdrawn.

Download the entire submission.

The post CLC submission regarding Bill C-377 “An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act” appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

In order to begin making the transition over the next 10 years, we maintain the federal government needs to develop a renewable energy development strategy. During this period, public investments totalling $4.65 billion need to be made to simulate the development of renewable energy sources with a priority being put on public sector owned and operated wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power. The plan could also include more restricted development of small scale hydro and selected biofuels from biomass sources.

Averaged out over a ten year period, this public investment would amount to an annual federal expenditure of $4.65 billion, which is less than 2 per cent of the annual federal budget. The Canadian government must also end subsidies to the oil and gas industry that heavily favour fossil fuel-based energy development at the expense of renewables. 

This 4.65 billion dollar investment will create 92,000 full-time jobs for a year (or person job years).

Real initiatives – Renewable Energy

Canada finds itself at a crossroads. For Canadians, the choice is between, on the one hand, continuing down the path of building our old model of economy and society or, on the other hand, charting a new path for building a green economy and society for the future. We can no longer afford an economic model that treats the planet and people as disposal goods. The key to unlock the door to either of these two pathways is energy – the energy we use to fuel our industries, heat our homes and transport ourselves. Ultimately, this new economy must be fuelled not by “dirty” non-renewable forms of energy that comes from fossil fuels but by “clean” renewable forms of energy that are affordable for all Canadians.

Can we take on this challenge? Of course we can!

A green economy is more than an idea. There are lots of examples of the rapid expansion of renewable energy all over the world. In fact, Canada was even among the top ten in the world in installed wind energy, and ranks in the top-ten by Ernst & Young in terms of attractiveness for renewable energy investments.  There is no question – we need more renewable energy so we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to ensure that the future needs of Canadians are met while ensuring both jobs for today and a clean planet for tomorrow. 

Using 1% of pension funds to turn the tide

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) has invested 1 per cent of the pension fund of 400,000 workers (1 billion rand or $109 million dollars) in renewable energy. NUMSA represents workers in the in energy-intensive industries including steel, chrome, aluminum and other smelters. It also represents workers in power stations, which are mainly coal powered, as well as in car factories and other metal and engineering-related sectors. In other words, NUMSA organises some of the “dirtiest” industries on the planet, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts on climate change. 

This shows that unions are committed to meaningful action on climate change, but also shows a commitment to a socially-owned renewable energy sector that will not serve to enrich private investors. Instead, NUMSA is using the power of workers’ pension funds to transition to a low-carbon economy. 

This is the type of initiative that can turn the tide to address this situation through greater democratic direction, public intervention, community control, and social ownership over energy options and resources that are so urgently needed.

Prairie Winds Blow Saskatchewan Towards a Renewable Future

Let’s face it, Saskatchewan doesn’t have a strong reputation for renewable energy. Fossil fuels supply three-quarters of the province’s electricity and the dependence on coal and natural gas mean that its power sector releases more carbon pollution per capita than any other Canadian province. But it seems Saskatchewan is looking towards the immense opportunity of wind power for a breath of fresh air!
Following initial research in the 1990s, SaskPower built its first wind generating facility in 2002. The Cypress Wind Power Facility has since been expanded to hold 16 turbines, producing up to 11 MW of electricity.

In 2006, SaskPower commissioned the Centennial Wind Power Facility, holding 83 turbines and producing 150 MG of electricity. Alone this facility can power up to 69,000 homes! The Government of Canada provided funding for both projects through the Wind Power Production Incentive program. Although a modest start, Saskatchewan is on its way to a more renewable future!

Canadian Green Jobs are on the Rise!

In 2013, 37% more Canadians worked in the renewable energy sector than in 2009. That’s 2,200 new jobs working towards a greener and more sustainable future!

Research into Renewables – P.E.I. as a World Leader in Wind Energy

A little known fact about Prince Edward Island – for decades it has played a key role in advancing the development of wind energy through research, testing, innovation, and collaboration. In 1980, the Atlantic Wind Test Site was opened at North Cape, PEI and later evolved into the Wind Energy Institute of Canada, which is now the country’s official wind research and development facility. In 2008, PEI introduced the Island Wind Energy Strategy that set out a 10-point plan to build on research and position itself in the wind energy sector. 

Fast-forward to 2015—PEI now hosts seven wind farms with a combined capacity of 173MW! The small island of PEI has successfully set its strategy, harnessed decades of research and become a world leader in wind power development. Now 30% of the province’s power is now supplied by wind!

Community Power in Gaspesie

The “Coopératives regroupées en énergies renouvelables du Québec” (CRERQ), is essentially a consortium of cooperatives, primarily in Gaspesie, that came together to ensure communities are at the centre of regional investments in wind energy and to avoid having developers and corporations parachute in with large-scale projects that don’t fit community needs and interests. 

CRERQ puts community-based wind farm projects in motion by applying for and acquiring tender from Hydro-Québec, and offering services like feasibility studies, help conceptualizing a project, financial planning, applications for funding insurance and helping with the process of connecting to the Hydro-Québec network. 

Many criteria have been included in their charter to ensure communities stay central to this process, for example: at least 50 per cent of the project must be controlled by the affected communities, development of local expertise, jobs, and businesses is a requirement from the very beginning of a project, and cooperatives are preferred in this example because they promote transparency and ensure a long-term relationship between the concerned parties.

Yukon Explores the Potential of Bioenergy

The Yukon Energy Corporation and Natural Resources Canada are teaming up to explore the potential for integrating bioenergy into the grid. The Yukon Bioenergy Demonstration Project looks at the challenges of integrating renewable energy technologies in Northern and Remote communities. The study aims to better understand the viability of electricity generation in the Yukon by using small-scale gasification technology and locally derived biomass feedstock (salvage and waste wood).

Exploring the potential of biomass energy production offers the possibility of new green jobs and a local renewable power supply for the north!

The post ENERGY – Alternatives for a Green Economy appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Canada is cold in the winter and only 10 per cent of our buildings are energy efficient. Green Homes and Green Buildings is about making what we have as efficient as possible, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Improving energy efficiency is a clean, inexpensive and prudent step that can pay for itself over the long term. 

Can we take on this challenge? Of course we can!

A green economy is more than an idea. There are lots of examples of energy efficiency, green homes and green buildings all over the world. Improved energy efficiency is also a proven way to create jobs. In fact, a $1.1 billion dollar homes and buildings retrofit public program could be designed to leverage $50 billion dollars in private expenditures, and that’s enough to create one million person job years of employmenti. Not only would such a program create jobs it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 million tonnes by 2020 and leave Canadians with more efficient homes and buildings, which saves us money too.

There is no question – we need green homes and buildings so we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to ensure that the future needs of Canadians are met while ensuring both jobs for today and a clean planet for tomorrow. 

Real initiatives in Canada and elsewhere

High Rise, Low Bill, Toronto, ON 

Toronto’s TowerWise program is focused on improving the energy efficiency of residential high-rise buildings. A 30-year old condominium at 15 Kensington in Brampton cut its natural gas use by 28 per cent, water use by 29 per cent and electricity use for cooling by 50 per cent. The building is now saving $65,000 per year on utility costs and will have recovered its upfront costs in under five years. 
A 128-unit rental apartment building at 24 Manor Road, constructed in 1970, had upgrades, including low-e argon filled windows and insulated balcony doors and a new roof. An 84 collector solar water heating system was also added to the roof. The building is saving more than $33,300 per year in utility costs and the payback, when increased rental income is included, is three years.

A new condominium, Appleby Woods, was constructed with high levels of insulation, sensor controlled fans and lighting as well as advanced features including a geo-exchange heating and cooling system but still cost 25 per cent less to build than similar buildings and costs 60 per cent less to operate.

Toronto Atmospheric Fund – TAF

After selling a long unused farm at a city jail in Richmond Hill, the City of Toronto invested in its future by establishing the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. Since 1991, TAF has been helping the City of Toronto meet its greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets by investing more than $50 million in local climate solutions, saving the City of Toronto more than $55 million on its energy bills.

TAF has helped the City with energy efficiency with the following:

• Co-funding energy retrofits in more than 100 City buildings in cooperation with Toronto’s Facilities Management Division.
• Providing funding and expertise for energy efficiency and renewable power projects at Exhibition Place, the Toronto Zoo, Harbourfront Centre, Toronto Community Housing, community centres and seniors’ residences.
• Structuring a leasing arrangement that allowed Toronto Community Housing to purchase thousands of energy-efficient appliances, saving $10 million,
• Green$aver, which piloted the concept of incentives for home energy retrofits that have been accessed by over 36,000 Toronto residents, who have saved an average of 21% on their home energy bills.

BUILD: the ecological way forward to greather social inclusion

In Manitoba, BUILD (Building Unrban Industries for Local Development) is pioneering a job-training program that brings together equity, economics and the environment. Following a social enterprise model, BUILD trains First Nations workers in both their communities and in Winnipeg’s inner city for good climate-friendly jobs. Affiliated with BUILD, Aki Energy has trained First Nations men and women in the Peguis and Fisher Rivber communities for jobs installing geothermal heating in loval homes and public buildings. To date, more than 100 geothermal ystems have been installed. Plans are in the works to expand this social enterprise model to three additional First Nations communities in Manitoba and to put in place another 250 geothermal installations. Manitoba Hydro predicts $157 million in savings by 2017 for the implicated communities. In Winnipeg’s inner city, young marginalized workers – many of whom are Aboriginal – have been trained and are currently upgrading insulation, plumbing and ground water heat recovery in neighbourhood homes. So far, 8,000 units have been retrofitted with enerty efficient plumbing and groundwater upgrades and 1,000 units have undergone energy retrofits.

Greening Municipal Buildings in Belledune

The village of Belledune, New Brunswick has completed energy audits on its five municipal facilities with help from Enerplan consultants. 
The work is now completed and the village expects energy savings to be approximately $29,000/year. This decreased energy use will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by these facilities by about 167 tonnes or the equivalent of taking 28 passenger vehicles off the road for a year.

Greening Municipal Buildings Through a local carbon Tax in Dawson Creek, B.C.

Dawson Creek will contribute $100 to the City’s newly created Carbon Fund for each and every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions the city produces from its own operations.

The fund will do three things:

• Encourage Dawson Creek to invest in low-carbon projects.
• The extra cost of each tonne of emissions will make energy efficient projects more cost-effective.
• The money in the carbon fund will be used to reduce emissions like improving the energy efficiency of Dawson Creek’s municipal vehicle fleet, or installing biomass heating or solar hot water systems on municipal facilities could all qualify for funding from the Carbon Fund.

The post Green Homes – real Alternatives for a Green Economy appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Budget 2015 sticks closely to the federal government’s seven-year script of spending cuts, restrained investment and tax measures largely benefiting wealthy Canadians. The 2015 budget has been advertised as the return to balance after 7 years of deficits, a period of red ink prolonged by massive tax cuts that further weakened an already sluggish recovery and added some $150 billion to the federal debt. This year’s budget caps multiple rounds of spending cuts and six years of falling direct program spending beginning with the 2010 budget. Spending cuts reached $14.5 billion a year by 2014-15, nearly $90 billion cumulatively since 2010.

The Conservative government’s pursuit of deep and extensive tax cuts have lowered revenue significantly below 1990 levels. In the nearly 10 years between Budget 2006 and the October 2014 ‘Family Tax Package’, Conservative tax measures have resulted in lost revenues of $330 billion.  This is equivalent to almost 17% of annual GDP, and over half of total federal debt.  Of the total revenue loss from Conservative tax measures, $72 billion has gone to corporate income tax cuts. If federal revenue as a proportion of the economy reached the same level today as it did in the year 2000, an extra $50 billion in revenues would be available today.  The cuts supposedly needed to balance the budget would not have been necessary.

Major Expenditures in Budget 2015

Several major expenditures in the 2015 budget were announced late in 2014 or leaked prior to April 21st, 2015. Income splitting, the increase in the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) and the increase in the Child Care Expense Deduction, all announced in October 2014, were confirmed in Budget 2015. The cost is a whopping $27 billion by 2019-2020, most of which will come from the UCCB increase. Nearly all of the benefits of income splitting will flow to the 15% highest-income Canadian families, while half of UCCB recipients are families without child-care expenses.

The annual contribution limit for Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) will increase from the current $5,500 to $10,000, at an estimated cost to federal revenues of $1.1 billion by 2019-2020. Even at the maximum annual contribution of $5,500, the TFSA is projected to cost the federal government up to $15.5 billion annually and the provinces another $8 billion when the program is fully mature in 40 to 50 years. TFSA doubling would further increase this cost, almost exclusively to the benefit of the highest income earners.

The budget also confirmed $5.8 billion in federal infrastructure investment over 6 years beginning in 2014-15. Minister Oliver announced meagre new municipal transit funding of $250 million in 2017-18, rising to $500 million and $1 billion in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The funding will go to PPP Canada to support P3 investments, despite the Ontario Auditor-General’s recent findings of pervasive waste, dubious accounting, lack of transparency, and costly liabilities retained by government in Ontario’s P3 projects.

Budget 2015 commits to further reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% by 2019, at a cost of $3.4 billion by 2019-2020. Budget 2008 had reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11% and increased the amount of income eligible for this lower rate to $400,000 in 2007, and to $500,000 in 2009. The 2013 budget also raised the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on qualified small business shares to $800,000, and indexed the limit to inflation. 

Finally, the government will increase defense spending by $12 billion over 10 years beginning in 2017-18. 

Balanced Budget

he government projects a $1.4 billion surplus in 2015-16. Finance Minister Oliver achieved this by running down the contingency fund, selling the Government of Canada’s shares in General Motors, and applying the Employment Insurance Operating Account surplus to consolidated revenues.
Direct program spending is projected again to rise after 4 consecutive years of decline, but departmental spending lapses remain high; Budget 2015 projects that $6 billion will go unspent lapse in departmental budgets in 2015-16.

The Conservative government now proposes balanced budget legislation that would automatically freeze operating budgets in the event of a deficit, precisely when governments should be spending to counteract the larger contraction in economic activity occurring in the midst of a recession.

Investment and Job Creation

Budget 2015 leaves in place the 40,000 job losses in the federal public service and Crown corporations inflicted since 2010. Canada Post and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appear nowhere in the budget.  The various measures to improve services for veterans restore roughly 200 of the 950 full-time equivalent veterans-services positions eliminated by the Conservative government.

Instead of direct job creation, Budget 2015 relies on tax cuts to create employment, with a much weaker impact on jobs. The Small Business Job Credit, announced in September 2014, lowers EI premiums for eligible small businesses, but would create just 800 jobs over 2 years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office. Undeterred, Budget 2015 commits to EI premium reductions beginning in 2017, following on a 3 year premium freeze.

The budget also announced a 10-year accelerated capital-cost allowance of 50% for manufacturing and processing.

Rather than extending access to EI benefits among unemployed Canadians, the annual surplus in the EI Operating Account ($3.4 billion in 2015) will be applied to the government’s bottom line, before premiums fall by 21% in 2017. 

Currently, claimants can keep 50 cents of their EI benefits for every dollar they earn, up to a maximum of 90 per cent of weekly insurable earnings.  Budget 2015 provides $54 million over two years to extend the current EI working while on claim pilot project to August 2016. EI Compassionate Care Benefits will also be extended from 6 weeks to 6 months.

Budget 2015 contains little in the way of new investment in education and skills training. The government commits to continuing to work with provinces and territories to renegotiate the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) and harmonize apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades. The government missed the opportunity to require employers funded through the New Building Canada Fund and the Investment in Affordable Housing program to hire and train apprentices.

The budget extends Canada Student Grants access to Canadians enrolled in short-duration programs, and makes small changes to the Canada Student Loans program, while failing to take any steps to address high tuition fees and onerous student debt levels.

The 2015 budget announces a 5-year renewal of the Aboriginal Skills and Partnership Fund, first introduced in the 2010 budget with a $210 million commitment over 5 years. The budget also announces small funding reallocations in support of a new labour-market information portal, immigrant and youth labour mobility, and the Foreign Credential Recognition Loans pilot.

Social Program Spending

The 2015 budget is remarkably silent on the health care challenges facing Canada.  The budget maintains the government’s commitment to reduce the Canada Health Transfer from 6% to the rate of GDP growth (with a minimum 3% commitment), amounting to as much as a $36 billion cut from health care. There is no mention of the need to negotiate a new funding arrangement with the provinces; no mention of the need for pharmacare or a coordinated drug purchasing program; no mention of a seniors’ strategy for Canada; and no mention of an aging Canada’s long-term care needs. What the government did announce was $42 million over 5 years for a Canadian Centre for Aging and Brain Health Innovation, and $14 million over two years to provide targeted support for innovation in health systems. There is also a commitment to renewing the Mental Health Commission of Canada for another 10 years.

On retirement security, the budget ignores the need to expand public pensions for working Canadians. Instead, the government relaxed the minimum amounts that must be withdrawn from Registered Retirement Income Funds when individuals with RRSP savings reach age 71. This will benefit baby boomers with RRSP savings, but do little for workers today without the means to save through RRSPs. Around a third of eligible Canadians today contribute to RRSPs, while unused RRSP contribution room reached $790 billion in 2013. As part of its measures targeted at veterans, the budget introduces a New Retirement Income Security Benefit for disabled veterans that would effectively guarantee a pre-retirement income replacement level after age 65. The government remains committed to exploring target-benefit plans in the federal private-sector and for Crown corporations.

Instead of a real child care program, Canadians got income splitting, an increase in the Universal Child Care Benefit, and a $1000 increase in the Child Care Expenditure Deduction.

Federal Labour and Employment Relations

Despite a rhetorical commitment to good faith bargaining with public service unions, the government signaled its intention to move forward with eliminating employees’ existing sick leave benefits and imposing a short-term disability plan instead. Budget 2015 goes so far as to book the savings from this planned step by applying $900 million to government revenues in the current fiscal year.

The Budget proposes a series of measures, minus any details, to reform the Canada Labour Code. The government intends to propose amendments ensuring that interns receive health and safety protections, and clarifying when unpaid internship positions can be offered. Having legislated significant changes to Part II of the Canada Labour Code in 2013, Budget 2015 proposes to hire back 10 health and safety officers to ensure compliance under the Code. The federal government also promises to bring forward amendments to the Code to address violence and sexual harassment in federally-regulated private-sector workplaces.

The government will propose additional amendments to the Code providing for new short-term and long-term unpaid leaves for family responsibilities, and increased bereavement leave to allow employees to balance work and informal caregiving. In multiple rounds of negotiations with federal public service unions, Treasury Board has sought to collapse various leave provisions into a single (reduced) employee bank, which the government may have in mind here for workers falling under the Code.

Environment

In line with the Conservative government’s record on the environment, this budget offers next to nothing in the way of environmental protection. The budget lacks a single mention of climate change. Under a small section entitled “Protecting Canada’s Environment,” the government commits some back-loaded funding to “continuing” or “renewed” support for the Species at Risk Act, the Pacific Salmon Foundation, the Recreation Fisheries Conservation Program, the Chemicals Management Plan, the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, and for meteorological and navigational warning services in the Arctic. The government fails to offer any comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, meet international climate change commitments, or ensure a safe and healthy environment for Canadians and future generations.

Conclusion

Budget 2015 marks the latest and perhaps the last Conservative austerity budget that has carried Canada down the road of slow economic growth, deteriorating infrastructure and public services, pervasive labour-market insecurity and upward transfer of wealth and income. The budget further erodes the fiscal capacity of the Canadian state, rejecting the opportunity to take advantage of exceptionally low borrowing costs and invest in the current and future needs of working people. Attempting to lock in the current government’s program of starving public services, advancing privatization, and shifting resources to top income-earners, Budget 2015 hopes to reinforce the message that working people can expect to receive little in the way of help, and only adversity, from Ottawa. The stage is now set for the debate over Canada’s future in October 2015.

The post Federal Budget 2015: Our analysis appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Imagine environmental groups, labour organi­zations and social justice and youth movements working together to find real solutions to tackle climate change. Wouldn’t that be cool? Well, that’s exactly what the Green Economy Network is. Spurred by Canada’s failure to take action to move toward an authentic green economy, leaders of more than twenty prominent groups formed GEN to push for a fundamental transformation of our industrial economy. Good green jobs are being created and can be further created in Canada to cut carbon emissions and develop true alter­natives to the old ways of working. GEN is now at the forefront of a new social movement striving for a low-carbon, prosperous and just future for all Canadians.   

Better public transit for all Canadians  

GEN has a comprehensive plan to address the current needs of public transit systems across the country and develop high speed rail travel between the nation’s most populous urban centres and along its busiest routes. This plan includes:

• $53.5 billion for Canadian municipal public transit systems’ capital costs over a five-year investment period starting as soon as possible
• Of this, $17.6 billion (33 per cent of the funding) does not fit within existing funding plans. It would require new funding from provincial and federal  governments.
• $25.7 billion to design and build three key high speed rail (HSR) projects. Of this figure, roughly $20 billion would go towards building the Québec City-Windsor high speed rail corridor; $3.7 billion would go towards a HSR link between Calgary and Edmonton; and $2 billion would go towards a high speed link between Vancouver and Seattle.

We need strong domestic content rules, as used by other countries (including our “free trade” partners) to ensure that our green transport initiatives create good jobs – that will also help generate the tax revenues to pay for these essential investments. We need industry policies that allow all segments of our communities to benefit.

[[{“fid”:”389″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”Gen network”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”Gen network”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”Gen network”,”title”:”Gen network”,”style”:”margin: 3px 9px; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 20.0063037872314px; float: left;”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

Canada is overdue to upgrade its inter-city rail infrastructure to bring it into the twenty-first century. Likewise, upgraded and expanded public transit systems can have substantial environmental and job-creation benefits. 

Canadians need a stronger and more comprehensive plan to develop and expand public transit. Currently, provincial and federal governments help municipalities pay for capital projects in public transportation. However, municipal governments still end up bearing the brunt of the combined operations and capital costs. We all share the benefits; it’s important to share the load. 

Moving the transportation sector to clean, green and cool

Real initiatives – Public transit and inter-urban rail

Tackling climate change will mean that we need to reduce our emissions and change the way we move people and things from one place to another. Right now, the transportation sector accounts for 24 to 28 per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

We are, as a civilization, addicted to oil.  We rely way too much on big, dirty oil. The petroleum corporations and cartels are destroying our environment and hurting other sectors of the economy. Building real alternatives to big, dirty oil is necessary and urgent.

• We need to create thousands of quality jobs while fighting climate change. 
• We need a just transition plan to a low carbon economy now.
• Can we take on this challenge? Of course we can!
• A green economy is more than an idea. There are lots of examples and transit 
• success stories all over the world. In fact, Canada is the only OECD country not 
• to provide consistent transit funding.

There is no question – we need more public transit and inter-urban rail to ensure that the future transportation needs of Canadians are met while providing both jobs for today and a clean planet for tomorrow.

Real initiatives in Canada and elsewhere

Domestic content = Jobs here in Canada

Public ownership and management of municipal transit and domestic content rules are essential to ensure that Canadian communities and Canadian workers reap the benefits. The provincial government of Québec has focused on local job creation linked to public transit development by putting in place a 60 per cent minimum domestic content requirement. Local company Bombardier recently won a $980 million contract to build 468 new subway cars. 775 new good jobs will be created at home in Québec from this public transit initiative. 

By keeping the work in Ontario, the Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC) decision in 2006 to buy 234 subway cars manufactured at the Bombardier plant in Thunder Bay created 500-600 good local jobs. 750 workers at the Bombardier plant in Thunder Bay kept their jobs and 300 other jobs were added at the factory when the TTC purchased 204 new streetcars in 2008. 

Top priority: High speed rail

Many studies have demonstrated the feasibility and practicality of implementing high speed rail lines in Canada in major corridors, such as Windsor-Toronto-Montreal-Québec City, Calgary-Edmonton, and Vancouver-Seattle.

So far, $0 have been spent by the provinces and the federal government for this important initiative. Canada isn’t even trying. We can do better. A high speed rail network in Canada would change the face of transportation in Canada, would reduce greenhouse gases that cause climate change, would create more than 100,000 person job years, and would help bring Canada up to speed with other progressive countries where extensive high speed rail service is the norm.

And it’s not just high speed rail. Upgrading passenger rail service across the country, even where traffic density doesn’t support high-speed rail, will get more people out of cars, improve service to communities and cut greenhouse gas emission.

In the City of Ottawa:Measuring the overall impact

We need to constantly show the positive impacts of what we are proposing, and show the importance of measurement and indicators. Here is one example. The City of Ottawa recently approved plans for an $1.74 billion extension to the city’s light rail network. The city has generated particularly detailed estimates of the economic benefits this project should incur, including: 

1. Jobs. 20,000 person-years of employment during construction.
2. Economy. $3.2 billion in output from construction alone, $100 million in operating savings at OC Transpo starting in 2019, and $144 million in tax revenue.
3. Spending less on cars. $600 million in vehicle operating savings and $217 million in accident avoidance savings. 
4. Users of public transit. Increase in the ridership by nine per cent, remove over half of the buses from the downtown core, and reduce 15 minutes on average from the regular daily commute.
5. Environment. 38,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases and 1,750 tonnes of other air contaminants will be cut each year, which is the equivalent to removing 7,300 mid-sized cars from the road each year.

Learn more at: www.ottawalightrail.ca/

The post Transport – Real Alternatives for a Green Economy appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

“As expected, this is a pre-election budget, with lots of little gifts aimed at fending off critics and buying votes from certain constituencies,” said CLC president Hassan Yussuff. “It does not launch the economic stimulus Canadians need to feel better about their future,” he added.

Yussuff pointed out that the budget does not create the good quality, full-time jobs that Canadians need, especially given that nearly three quarters of all jobs created over the last six years have been precarious – part-time, temporary or self-employed.

“We needed to see more direct investment in expanding municipal, provincial and federal infrastructure, that would have stimulated investment and job creation in the private sector,” said Yussuff.

“We also needed the government to rebuild the federal government and give back the jobs that provided services Canadian rely on. For example, hiring 200 new workers in Veterans Affairs cannot make up for 950 jobs lost and the closure of nine offices that provided in-person services.”

The budget did not reverse decisions that will eliminate 35,000 jobs in the federal government, or on the decision to end door-to-door mail delivery, which is costing another 8,000 jobs.

Yussuff says he is also troubled by what appears to be contempt for federal service collective bargaining.

“The government commits to good faith collective bargaining on sick leave for federal public service workers, but threatens to impose its plan anyway if it doesn’t get its way. Continuing this attack on the public sector is not a good jobs strategy,” he said.

Other concerns:

• This budget does not reverse the decision to cut $36 billion from health care transfers, continuing instead to tie any increases to economic growth. That will not allow our health care system to keep up with rising costs and the growing and changing demand.
• This budget doesn’t help ease insecurity around retirement by raising  Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits to pull seniors over the poverty line, reversing the decision to raise the Old Age Security eligibility age to 67 from 65, or committing to expand the Canada Pension.
• Increasing the allowable contribution limit for Tax Free Savings Accounts will go disproportionately to the wealthiest Canadians – those earning over $200,000 a year. Changes to the Registered Retirement Income Fund (RIFF) rules only help people with RRSPs but does nothing for the one third of Canadian families relying exclusively on public pensions, or those who haven’t been able to put much into RRSPs. Only one third of Canadians contribute to RRSPs, and the average Canadian uses only about 8 per cent of the available RRSP contribution room.
• The budget does not provide families with the child care they need by implementing a national child care program. We know this would have paid for itself by allowing more parents – especially women, get to work. Instead we have a one-size-fits-all approach that is not a good use of taxpayers’ money, it doesn’t open one child care space and it doesn’t address the high cost of fees.

The post Federal Budget 2015: Not the economic stimulus we needed appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Unfortunately, in many provinces, minimum wages are set using vague, inconsistent and unaccountable mechanisms. They are left to stagnate for too long, pushing people and families into poverty before pressure builds and governments are forced to take action.

A generation ago one full-time minimum wage job was enough to keep someone above the low income line in a large urban area. This has not been the case for some time.

But there is a better way. A transparent process, with gradual and predictable increases in the minimum wage is better for everyone.

This timely CLC paper reviews the demographics of minimum wage workers in Canada, reviews the methods that provinces use to determine minimum wages, and makes concrete policy recommendations.  Check out the introduction below and download the entre PDF for a longer read.

Introduction

One Canadian policy that regularly requires alteration in order to remain relevant is the minimum wage rate. Constantly evolving economic and social factors prevent the minimum wage rate from being set and remaining in place for decades. Instead, the rate must be reevaluated and adjusted to reflect the current financial needs of Canadians. However, deciding what workers are entitled to as a base wage is not easily determined. What standard of living can be achieved, what is economically sustainable for businesses, and many other questions play a significant role in determining what should be viewed as a fair minimum wage.

The intention of this paper is to break down the minimum wage debate, so that the benefits of paying workers decent wages become clear. A profile of minimum wage workers will show that the stereotypical teenage employee is not the reality and many individuals are struggling to provide for their families on minimum wage incomes. Common concerns about increases to the minimum wage, such as a rise in unemployment rates, the financial impacts on small business, and alternative policy changes to address poverty will be discussed in order to break down the myth that an increase to the minimum wage will have detrimental economic impacts.

This paper also contains a section with a special focus on the main employer of minimum wage workers, large firms. Recent examples of minimum wage job advertisements, as well as academic studies on the impacts of large employers on local economies, will be used to demonstrate the significant role these employers play in keeping wages low. Some communities have already recognized this and their strategies to impose better wages on large firms will be examined.

Our end goal is to portray the inadequacy of the minimum wage in Canada, and prove that an increase for these workers is a policy change that helps everyone. Current legislation has demonstrated its incapability to provide Canadians with a decent wage, so alternatives need to be considered. The regulations surrounding setting a minimum wage rate in each province and territory will be compared, to expose the lack of accountability. Together all of this information, leads to the conclusion that our minimum wage system needs serious reform in order for it to serve the real needs of Canadian workers.

What is a Minimum Wage?

The minimum wage is a provincial and territorial labour standard that ensures all workers receive a base wage. In some provinces and territories it has been in place since as early as 1918. Legislation, usually the province’s Employment Standards Act and Regulation (although the name can vary slightly), establishes a floor wage that must be provided to all covered employees. While an employer may chose to negotiate wages above the minimum they legally may not provide a lesser wage. The purpose of this legislation is to protect Canada’s most vulnerable workers from exploitation and prevent them from receiving dismal wages for their labour.

Since the applicable legislation is provincial, all Canadian workers are not entitled to the same minimum wage rate. As of September 2014, the minimum wage ranges from $10.20 per hour in Alberta to $11 an hour in Nunavut. Not all employees are entitled to the minimum wage. Most provinces have provisions in their legislation which exempt specific workers from the protection of a minimum wage, but it varies by area. For example both Saskatchewan and Manitoba allow individuals with disabilities to be paid lower than the minimum wage if a permit has been issued. Other individuals will remain covered but are subject to a different minimum wage specific to their profession or experience level. British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario all have lower minimum wages for employees responsible for serving alcohol. A similar provision occurs in Quebec, although it applies to all workers who regularly receive gratuities in the workplace.

Download the entire paper.

The post The Minimum Wage in Canada appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The legacy of wages that barely keep pace with the cost of living plus family debt levels above 160% of disposable income has Canadians struggling to save what they need for retirement. Families are saving money at half the rate they were 25 years ago. The best available evidence shows that half of today’s middle-income earners born between 1945 and 1970 face a drop of at least 25% in their standard of living when they retire.

The sheer size of the generation about to reach retirement age, combined with inadequate savings will have a dramatic effect the economic health and vitality of Canada’s communities and local economies. Meanwhile, the federal government has changed the rules and made it even harder for people to access retirement income benefits like Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), raising eligibility from age 65 to 67.

Shrinking access to workplace pensions is only making matters worse. Today, less than 40% of workers have access to a pension plan at work. In the private sector fewer than 25% of workers have a workplace pension. For young workers (under the age of 29) the number drops to just 13%.

For their part, employers report that a major reason for not offering a workplace pension plan is the inflexibility, complexity and complications involved. This is especially the case for smaller businesses with relatively few employees.

Pensions are crucially important to the well-being of workers and their families, and the economic health and vitality of our cities and communities. For most workers with a pension, they have a union to thank. In addition to dignity in the workplace and fair compensation that unions bring to the workplace, unions negotiate pensions on behalf of workers. But not everyone has the benefit of a collective agreement or a union in their workplace. Without clear and decisive action from government, many of today’s workers (and tomorrow’s seniors) face living their final years in poverty.

We can do better than this. In fact, there is already a solution that can work, for everyone.

Expanding the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is by far the simplest and most cost-effective vehicle for both workers and employers to contribute to the cost of a secure and adequate retirement income. Virtually all working Canadians (including the self-employed) participate in the CPP. The plan follows workers everywhere they work in Canada, no matter how many times they change jobs. It provides a predictable, secure retirement benefit that is protected against inflation and continues until death. Plus it does all this at an extremely low cost.

The labour movement wants to see concrete action to improve retirement security for workers and avoid the devastating impact that a retirement income crisis will have. 

The federal government must:

• Commit to doubling CPP retirement 
• Reverse plans to raise the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67
• Increase GIS benefits to address the rising rate of poverty among Canada’s seniors
• Improve access to pensions for working Canadians and support existing workplace pension plans

The post Our solutions to the pension crisis appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

How can we make real progress to end violence against women?

1. Lobby the government to create a National Action Plan to End Violence Against Women.
2. Demand action on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
3. Work for better workplace violence legislation at the provincial, territorial and federal levels
4. Involve union men in the fight against violence.
5. Demand the reinstatement of the federal long-gun registry.

Although violence affects all women, the experience is much more severe the more diverse the woman is. Racialized, indigenous, recent immigrants and refugee women, women living with disabilities, lesbian, bisexual, queer and transgender women, aging women and young women all experience higher and more pervasive rates of all forms of violence.

Workplace violence occurs in higher proportion in female-dominated sectors: social services, health care, food/retail, and education.

• Homicide is the #1 killer of women in the workplace.
• Intimate partner violence costs Canada $7.4 billion a year.
• 2/3 of all female victims of sexual assault are under 24.
• Half of Canadian women will experience at least 1 incident of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime.
• On any given day, over 3000 women (along with their 2500 children) are staying in an emergency shelter to escape domestic violence.
• A woman in Canada is killed by her current or former partner at least once a week.
• Employers lose $77.9 million annually as a result of domestic violence.
• 1 in 10 women aged 18 to 24 report having experienced sexual harassment at work within the previous 12 months.
• Young women are killed at nearly 3 times the rate of all victims of domestic homicide.
• 20% of women in Canada live with a disability, and nearly 60% of them will experience violence in their lifetime.
• Indigenous women are 3 times more likely to report being the victim of a violent crime. While Indigenous women make up

What unions are doing

Unions have worked hard to make work safer for women by negotiating anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, better protection and intervention for female workers who are experiencing violence or abuse at home, health and safety protections and improved employee assistance and support programs.

Unions lobby governments for workplace violence legislation that require employers to develop policies and programs to help prevent workplace violence and harassment, as well as take precautions to protect workers from domestic violence in the workplace. While some provinces have strong legislation, we have much work to do to ensure all Canadian workers have the same protection. 

On December 6, 1989, fourteen women at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique were murdered solely because they were women. Canada’s gun control provisions, including the long gun registry, were created in response to this tragedy and the activism that followed. Although the registry was abolished by the Conservative government in 2012, unions and activists across Canada fought hard to keep this valuable tool for protecting women’s and workers’ safety, and continue to stand up for effective gun control measures.  

Union men have also joined the fight against violence by participating in the White Ribbon Campaign as a response to the December 6 murders. It has become one of the largest men’s anti-violence programs in the world. 

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) has documented over 600 disappearances and murders of First Nations, Inuit and Métis women, and Canada’s failure to act has provoked an inquiry by the United Nations. Sisters In Spirit vigils are held every year on October 4 to call on the Federal government to establish a national public inquiry to examine the deaths and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls. It must involve the full participation of Indigenous women, and act on any recommendations swiftly.

Unions and their allies are currently pushing the federal government to work with women’s and anti-violence organizations to develop and implement a comprehensive National Action Plan to End Violence Against Women.

The post Ending Violence Against Women appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

How can we make good, affordable child care options available to everyone?

1. Demand that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to make the vision of a national child care system a reality.
2. Ensure that child care services are flexible, universal, affordable, public or non-profit and high quality.
3. Stop the proliferation of “big box” private child care in Canada.
4. Advocate for other public services and programs and negotiate workplace supports to help women balance work and family responsibilities.

Despite all this, access to quality, affordable child care remains a serious problem across Canada. Too many families struggle to find decent child care and scramble to piece together care they can afford.
For many families, child care is the second highest expense after housing. And if you have more than one child, child care fees can exceed mortgage payments or rents. But that’s only a problem if you can find a space.

Currently:

• There are only enough regulated child care spaces for about 20% of kids under five.
• Spaces for infants and toddlers, children with disabilities, Aboriginal, and rural children are even tougher to find.
• Waiting lists are often so long (20,000 in Toronto on any given day) that many families will never reach the top.

This issue goes way beyond moms in the workforce – women who don’t qualify for Employment Insurance (EI) lack access to paid maternity or parental leave. Meanwhile, women still do the majority of unpaid work in Canada, from domestic chores to caregiving. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Why doesn’t Canada have a child care system?

By 2005, experts and advocates had finally persuaded the federal government to create child care agreements with the provinces and territories. While not perfect, it was considered a major victory.
In 2006, the Harper Conservatives cancelled those agreements. Then they introduced a taxable $100 monthly payment to parents of children under six (which barely covers 1.5 days of child care in many communities).

While some provinces have made progress in improving access to child care, only Quebec has implemented a systemwide approach to make child care affordable and accessible to everyone. Meanwhile, government have allowed for-profit child care to expand at an alarming rate, despite research showing that private child care – from small, individual centres to “big box” chains – is less likely to provide high quality care.

When child care is about profits, wages are low, staff turnover is high, and quality suffers.

What unions are doing

Unions have demanded leave to look after children when they are sick, better vacation time and other ways to balance work and family life. They have created employer-sponsored funds to help families pay for child care, and some have helped establish workplace child care centres. But without a real early education and child care system that ensures access and quality, child care will continue to be a matter
of luck — living in the right part of the country, having the money, getting on a long wait list at the right time, even having a baby at the right time.

Research has shown that Quebec’s investment in its $7 a day child care program has more than paid for itself through mothers’ annual income and consumption taxes. They increased the number of women in the workforce by 3.8 per cent, pumping an additional $5.2 billion into the Quebec economy and boosting the province’s Gross Domestic Product by 1.7 per cent. Quebec also offers extended, flexible
parental leave and five weeks designated for the other parent. 

Other provinces and territories should take a page from the Quebec approach.

It’s time for the federal government to get serious about this. Women and their families need child care services that supports women and gives them options to help balance work and family life. We know that creating a child care system from which all Canadians can gain is possible, with well-formed policy and political will. That’s why unions are pushing politicians to put child care on the agenda.

The post Quality, Affordable Child Care appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

EI is especially critical for women since we are more likely to be supporting a family on our own. An interruption in work can be devastating.

How can we ensure the EI system more effectively takes women’s realities into account?

1. Change the rules to improve benefits and reflect the reality of the working conditions of women.
2. Invest part of the EI surplus on better training and labour adjustment programs, including programs for women.
3. Expand support and funding for work-sharing arrangements under EI to reduce layoffs and build links between work-sharing and training programs.
4. Help workers balance work and family responsibilities.

Unfortunately, our EI system completely ignores the different working patterns of women. Even though we pay into the EI fund, many women are excluded from it or unfairly penalized.

Good examples of this:

• EI assumes an average work week of 35 hours when the reality for women is more like 30.
• 40% of women hold precarious or part-time “non-standard” jobs, or are self-employed.
• Just 1 in 3 of unemployed women qualify for EI benefits.
• Not qualifying for EI means no access to paid maternity, parental, compassionate or sick leave.

Even when women do qualify for EI, lower wages and unstable work patterns result in lower benefits. Only one third of the total amount of regular EI benefits goes to women, even though women now make up half the workforce.

Recent changes by the Harper government have made it even harder for unemployed women, especially those in high unemployment regions like the North, Quebec, and rural Atlantic Canada who lost access to an extra five weeks of benefits. Unemployed Canadians are now forced to accept jobs outside their field with lower wages and long commutes – difficult for women with family responsibilities. Changes to the rules for what you can earn while receiving benefits have shut out anyone working for low wages or for less than two days a week.

What unions are doing

Women with union jobs are more likely to meet the EI criteria when they need to access benefits. Joining a union is simply the best way for women to get better wages, hours of work, pensions and benefits, access to promotion and better working conditions. In fact, women in unions make $6.65 per hour more than women not in unions.

Unions lobby the federal government for changes to the EI system to make it fair for everyone. The EI system should reflect the realities of working lives and people who pay into the plan should be able to access it.

Changes should include:

• Reduce the number of qualifying hours (for regular benefits) to 360 hours, no matter who workers are or where they live and work in Canada.
• Measure a “week” as 30 hours instead of 35 when calculating benefit levels and duration, to reflect the average Canadian work week. 
• Increase the benefits period to 50 weeks. 
• Increase benefits to at least 60% of earnings being replaced calculated on a worker’s best 12 weeks.

Currently, only 3.7% of regular EI recipients receive training support, even while unemployment is high and sectors of the Canadian economy are short of skilled workers. Canada needs targeted programs to help women and workers from other equity-seeking groups to overcome barriers to employment, gain valuable on-the-job experience, and/or to acquire training in high-demand occupations and sectors.
Because work-life balance continues to present a significant challenge for women, Canada must improve compassionate caregiving benefits and parental leave for the other parent, as well as sickness benefits for workers with disabilities or illnesses lasting longer than 15 weeks.

The post Employment Insurance for Women appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Public health care is also smart economics. Our system costs less and delivers more than the market-driven alternative in the United States (that is only now being phased out in favour of a system more like ours, although they still have a long way to go). We have better outcomes on key indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy. Health care costs remain a major cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, but not in Canada, where everyone is covered.

It was a tremendous struggle to convince governments to adopt our public health care system. The market-driven alternative offers the opportunity for great profit every bit as much as it does misery and suffering for those who cannot afford to participate. Some people still only see the money and continue to work for ways to squeeze it out of care and into profit. 
Which is why public health care must be protected every bit as much as is must keep up with the times.

Canada’s population is aging rapidly, which means our health care needs are growing. But our health care needs are changing at the same time. We need access to a wider range of services, far beyond doctors and hospitals. 

Over nearly nine years in power, the Conservative government in Ottawa has done nothing to address these challenges. In fact, they have made things worse. They refuse to enforce the Canada Health Act. They eliminated the Health Council of Canada. They refuse to provide leadership, let alone work with the provinces and territories to improve health care to the point where they won’t sign a new Health Accord. In fact, they are walking away from the health care table and taking $36 billion of federal health care funding away with them. This means families will have less access to family doctors and specialists; longer waits in emergency rooms, for hospital beds and diagnostic tests; and less access to prescription drugs, home care and long-term care for seniors.

We can do better than this. In fact, there is already a solution that can work, for everyone.

Slashing $36 billion from Canada’s health care system is a deliberate step away from Canadian values toward the market-driven alternative of for-profit health care that leaves too many people out in the cold. 

We want a federal government that will:

• reverse the decision to walk away from the federal-provincial table and cut $36 billion in funding
• show leadership to reduce wait times by recruiting, training and retaining more doctors, nurses and health science professionals
• enforce the Canada Health Act and stand up to the push for privatized and for-profit health clinics
• work with the provinces and territories on a new 10-year Health Accord that includes:
  stable, predictable and long-term federal funding that grows 6% each year
  a national, universal program that provides prescription drug coverage
  expanding accessibility and improving the quality of home care, long-term facility-based care and mental health services
  improving access to health services for Aboriginal peoples while addressing the social determinants of health in Aboriginal communities.

The post Public health care matters appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

What has the labour movement done?

Unions have long been at the forefront of efforts to reduce the gap between women and men’s wages. Until the 1950s, men and women working side by side, doing exactly the same job were paid differently. This was no secret – the first laws establishing minimum wages in Canada were written for women workers. Unions worked for equal pay for equal work through bargaining and changes to legislation, and won Equal Pay legislation at the provincial and federal levels in the 50s and 60s.

Unfortunately, employers could still get away with continuing to pay women less by hiding unequal pay in differences in job titles, benefits or bonuses. Slight differences in duties could mean big differences in wages for jobs normally held by men, and women were often streamed toward jobs considered “women’s work”. So workers had to demand equal pay for similar work – changes in legislation to close these
loopholes and ensure that minor differences between jobs could no longer be used as a reason to pay the woman less.

We call the right to equal pay for work of equal value “pay equity”. This means that jobs are evaluated on their skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. In this way, very different jobs can be compared for their value in the workplace. In 2004, a federal Pay Equity Task Force made a number of important recommendations to address the gender wage gap in Canada. Their report also recognized
that wage discrimination exists for people with disabilities, Aboriginal workers and racialized workers. The labour movement has been pushing to ensure the Task Force recommendations are put in place. The federal Conservative government says it’s not needed, despite clear evidence to the contrary, and has even made it harder for women to obtain pay equity federally.

Only two provinces – Ontario and Quebec – have proactive pay equity laws covering both public and private sector workers. Under these laws, employers must take active steps to identify and eliminate wage discrimination. Several provinces have no pay equity legislation at all. Unions push for proactive pay equity laws in all jurisdictions to make sure that workers in both the public and private sectors have their rights respected.

Collective bargaining and pay equity measures significantly reduce the wage gap for women. On average, women with unions earned $6.65/hour more than women without unions. That’s because together, women and their unions negotiated pay that reflects their skills, education and responsibilities. That union advantage translates into $552.5 million more every week paid into women’s pockets to spend on their families and in their communities.

Union Wage Contribution to Women in Canada*

The post Closing the Gender Pay Gap appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

“Today’s numbers point very clearly to what we should be seeing in next month’s federal budget,” said CLC president Hassan Yussuff.

Since November 2014, the first jobs report after the dollar dipped below 90 cents US, Ontario has lost 20,000 jobs in manufacturing. Half of those losses came between January and February. Quebec has managed to hold on to its manufacturing employment, increasing slightly over the same period.

“Instead of investing in tax cuts for wealthy Canadians, we need a federal budget that will invest in infrastructure like public transit – infrastructure that can support Canadian industry and increase productivity for local businesses by reducing congestion,” said Yussuff.

Yussuff said investments in social infrastructure such as child care and home care have similar benefits, stimulating employment and supporting private sector productivity.

“With very low borrowing costs, we can make these investments in order to accelerate economic growth and job creation while holding down our overall debt to GDP ratio,” he added.

Overall employment numbers were discouraging, with the unemployment rate rising from 6.6% to 6.8% and no new net jobs were created. There were 29,000 jobs lost in the private sector, made up for by gains of 25,000 in the public sector – mostly in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia – and 4,000 in self-employed positions.

“It is encouraging to see some public sector job creation in some provinces, and I hope the federal government is inspired to follow suit in April’s budget by investing in rebuilding federal public services such as those so desperately needed for veterans, seniors and the unemployed,” said Yussuff.

The post March job numbers signal opportunities for targeted investment in upcoming federal budget appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

How can we ensure good pensions and retirement security for women?

1. Improve Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits.
2. Restore the eligibility for GIS and Old Age Security (OAS) benefits to age 65.
3. Stop the attacks on public services and public-sector workers and their pensions.
4. Support proactive pay equity legislation to address the gender wage gap.

Why?

When you earn less over a lifetime, you aren’t as likely to be able to retire in dignity and security.  Too many women work long hours for low pay in jobs that offer little or no pension. Women’s wages continue to be lower than men’s, and women still shoulder most of the responsibility for caregiving, interrupting their careers, working part-time, or taking jobs that pay less while they juggle work and family responsibilities. Women also live longer than men, and this means they have to save more for their retirement.

This pension income gap persists even though in recent decades women have won:

• Access for part-time workers to workplace pensions and better pension vesting rights.
• Fairer Canada Pension Plan (CPP) rules for those who stop work to help raise children.
• CPP and Old Age Security (OAS) benefits indexed to inflation.

Women have achieved a higher rate of pension coverage than men (40.3% versus 37.4%) largely because we gained access to unionized public sector jobs with pensions.

But so many challenges remain, especially for the next generation of workers. Young women are more likely to work low- paying part-time jobs that typically offer no pension plan. Meanwhile, student debt loads and low wages make it impossible to save for a house, never mind for retirement. When children come along, the high cost of child care puts a huge squeeze on family budgets, making saving for retirement an impossible dream.

Why are Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) especially important for women?

• In 2008, OAS and GIS comprised 30% of senior women’s income – nearly twice as much as men’s – making them critical sources of support. Senior women who live alone, and especially elderly
• women, are among Canada’s poorest, as women tend to have fewer years of paid work and CPP/QPP contributions than men.
• The federal Conservative government announced in 2012 that the eligibility age for OAS and GIS would be raised from 65 to 67. When this change takes effect, older women will be hit the hardest.
• Senior women who live alone, and especially elderly women, are among Canada’s poorest, as women tend to have fewer years of paid work and CPP/QPP contributions than men.
• The federal Conservative government announced in 2012 that the eligibility age for OAS and GIS would be raised from 65 to 67. When this change takes effect, older women will be hit the hardest. 

What are unions doing?

Thanks to the hard-fought efforts of unions, the poverty rate among single senior women has been cut in half since 1976. Ten times as many women belong to workplace pension plans as in 1974, and the number of working women with a pension plan has grown. 

Unionized workplaces are more likely to have pensions and related benefits: 76% of unionized workers have access to a workplace pension plan, compared to 28% of nonunion workers. Because more women work in the public sector, more women than ever are paying into workplace pensions. In 2010, 88.8% of women working in the public sector belonged to a pension plan, and women accounted for 62% of all pension plan members in the public sector.

Canada’s labour movement is leading a campaign to increase the Canada Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan so that all workers in Canada can count on a decent pension in retirement. Every worker belongs to the CPP/QPP, and the plans are safe, fully-portable, and provide predictable, secure, inflation-protected benefits for life, at very low cost. Pension experts, provincial governments and seniors organizations all support increasing the CPP/QPP.

Now we need the Federal government to work with the provinces and territories to implement a fully funded plan to phase in such an increase without delay.

The post Did you know senior women are twice as likely to live in poverty as men? appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

1. We’re working for better public pensions.
   Public pensions are vital to all Canadians. Most people don’t have a pension plan at work, and many people don’t earn enough to meet their day-to-day needs and save for retirement. The labour movement has always worked for better public pensions – and in 2011, we helped win a $300 million Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up for seniors living in poverty.
2. We’re committed to improving the Canada Pension Plan.
   Over the last five years, the labour movement has been collaborating with provincial premiers and finance ministers on a concrete plan to expand the Canada Pension Plan. We are very close to achieving this key reform, which would double future benefits in a way that’s affordable for everyone.

3. We’re working in partnership with the largest seniors organizations.
   The labour movement includes many of the country’s largest seniors and retiree organizations, such as the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada (CURC). This organization helps people plan for retirement and is a strong advocate for seniors, particularly regarding health care. See the impressive list of CURC’s accomplishments here.

4. We’re continuing to push for workplace pension plans.
   Workplaces with unions are far more likely to have employee pension plans: nearly 80% of unionized employees have a pension plan at work, compared to less than 30% of non-unionized employees. Retirees with pension plans have almost double the income of those without.

5. We’re helping employers set up pension plans.
   Many small business employers want to set up pension plans for their workers but don’t have the resources to manage them. The labour movement actually helps set up and manage pension plans in small workplaces – from nursing homes to light manufacturing companies – so that more employers can provide their workers with retirement security.

The post 5 ways we are working to improve retirement security appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

1. We’re working to reduce wait times and improve access.
   Too many Canadians are waiting too long for healthcare services and treatments they need. There aren’t enough nurses and other healthcare professionals to meet the growing demand of our aging population and millions of Canadians don’t even have a family doctor. That’s why we’re advocating for a national strategy to recruit, train and retain more doctors and other healthcare workers in our public system.
    
2. We’re making sure Canada is ready for any health care challenge.
   Healthcare workers are on the front line and see for themselves where the gaps are when it comes to fighting infectious diseases and epidemics. When they see those gaps, they speak out through their unions for better systems and protective equipment to ensure our public healthcare system is prepared for any challenge.
    
3. We’re working to improve long-term care.
   Many of us are struggling to find quality long-term care for family members now, and worry that there won’t be enough room in long-term facilities when we need it. Healthcare workers, seniors and their families tell us that the existing facilities don’t provide enough care. That’s why the labour movement is working for real change on both fronts: an increase in the number of long-term care beds, and a minimum standard in the number of hours people get the hands-on care they need.
    
4. We’re improving mental health services.
   One in five Canadians experience a mental health issue or illness each year. That impacts all of us, in our communities, at home and at work. Countless Canadians aren’t getting the care they need and end up in emergency rooms looking for help. The labour movement worked with the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help create the first national mental health strategy to address these issues head on.
    
5. We believe everyone should get the medication they need.
   We’ve won prescription drug coverage and other healthcare benefits for millions of Canadian workers and their families. We’ve seen the difference this makes in the lives of our members and believe everyone in Canada deserves the same.
    

6. We’re calling on the government to reinvest in health care.
   The labour movement has partnered with community groups working on healthcare issues at the local, provincial and national level. Together, we are calling on the federal government to reverse its cuts of more than $36 billion from our public healthcare system, and to work with the provinces and territories on a new Health Accord that will expand coverage and improve access for all Canadians.

The post 6 ways we are working to improve health care appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The Canadian Labour Congress partnered with researchers at the University of Western Ontario and conducted the first ever Canadian survey on domestic violence in the workplace. We did this because there is almost no data on this issue in Canada and we know that women with a history of domestic violence have a more disrupted work history, are consequently on lower personal incomes, have had to change jobs more often, and more often work in casual and part time roles than women without violence experiences.

Being a perpetrator of domestic violence also significantly impacts a worker and their workplace. A recent study found that 53% of offenders felt their job performance was negatively impacted, 75% had a hard time concentrating on their work, and 19% reported causing or nearly causing workplace accidents due to their violent relationship. Their behaviours lead to a loss of paid and unpaid work time, a decrease in productivity, and safety hazards for their co-workers.

Here are some of the things we learned from this survey:

Experiences of Domestic Violence

[[{“fid”:”56″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”dv prevalence and gender”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”dv prevalence and gender”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”dv prevalence and gender”,”title”:”dv prevalence and gender”,”height”:”966″,”width”:”1200″,”style”:”width: 500px; height: 403px;”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

A third (33.6%) of respondents reported ever experiencing domestic violence from an intimate partner, and there were differences by gender (figure 2).

Aboriginal respondents, respondents with disabilities, and those indicating a sexual orientation other than heterosexual (e.g., lesbian, gay or bisexual) were particularly likely to have reported experiencing DV in their lifetime. In terms of indirect domestic violence experience, 35.4% of respondents reported having at least one co-worker who they believe is experiencing, or has previously experienced, domestic violence and 11.8% reported having at least one co-worker who they believe is being abusive, or has previously been abusive, toward his/her partner.

The Impact of DV on Workers and Workplaces

[[{“fid”:”57″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”dv in work”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”dv in work”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”dv in work”,”title”:”dv in work”,”height”:”654″,”width”:”1200″,”style”:”width: 500px; height: 273px;”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

Of those who reported DV experience, 38% indicated it impacted their ability to get to work (including being late, missing work, or both).

In total, 8.5% of DV victims indicated they had lost their job because of it.  

Over half (53.5%) of those reporting DV experiences indicated that at least one type of abusive act occurred at or near the workplace. Of these, the most common were abusive phone calls or text messages (40.6%) and stalking or harassment near the workplace (20.5%; Figure 3).

Ultimately, stronger evidence will help to shape legislation, policies, and practices that promote violence prevention and safety in workplaces, that hold abusers accountable for their behaviour, and that lift the burden from victims so they need not deal with domestic violence alone.

Disclosure of DV in the Workplace and Support Received

Overall, 43.2% of those experiencing DV reported they discussed it with someone at work. There are apparent differences according to gender, with men being particularly unlikely to discuss domestic violence at work.  Among all respondents, 28% said they had received information about domestic disclosure of dv in the workplace violence from their employer. Among unionized respondents, 27.2% received information about domestic violence from their union.

[[{“fid”:”58″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”disclosure”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”disclosure”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”disclosure”,”title”:”disclosure”,”height”:”699″,”width”:”1200″,”style”:”width: 500px; height: 291px;”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

Only 10.6% of all respondents think that employers are aware when domestic violence is affecting their workers, but among those who said yes, 62.3% believe employers act in a positive way to help workers experiencing domestic violence. Similarly, only 11.3% of all respondents think union officials are aware when domestic violence is affecting members, and among them, 86.6% believe unions act in a positive way to help members.

Where do we go from here?

This research has identified the scope and impact of domestic violence on workers and workplaces, but is only a first step. Immediate next steps include encouraging use of these results by governments, unions and employers to establish proactive practices to address the impact of domestic violence at work.

Some immediate changes in the labour movement include:

The Yukon Teachers’ Association has negotiated special leave that can be used when workers need time off due to domestic violence.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) has a network of social stewards who are provided training to develop listening skills, learn about available resources, and assist in prevention of a range of difficulties, including family-related problems. The program is particularly effective in Quebec.

Download the entire report and learn more about what we are doing on this issue.

The post Domestic Violence at Work appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Labour mobility refers to the free movement of workers between provinces, regions, or countries. When labour mobility between two jurisdictions is high, a worker in one can easily cross the border to deliver services in the other. High labour mobility is economically efficient, because workers can move to where they are most needed. However, there are many barriers to labour mobility, such as certification requirements when crossing provincial boundaries or visa requirements when entering another country. Typically, governments impose these barriers on labour mobility to advance legitimate social interests, such as encouraging local development or ensuring public safety.

In Canada, labour mobility is governed by a patchwork of legislation and treaties at the provincial, federal, and international level. Taken together, these programs, laws, and agreements seek to strike a balance between the free movement of individual workers and the broader public interest. This labour mobility regime has been more successful within Canada than between Canada and other countries.

At the interprovincial level, workers are mostly free to move between provinces to find employment. The 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), which was updated in 2009, requires that all provinces recognize the existing training, skills, and certification of workers in regulated occupations, ensuring that these professionals are qualified to work in all provinces and territories (there are some exceptions). In general, this framework encourages mobility while respecting the provinces’ right to regulate. Notably, this framework does not extend to apprentices and other trainees, who in most cases cannot cross provincial boundaries to complete their training.

At the international level, Canada’s labour mobility regime is much more convoluted and far more problematic. Numerous programs and treaties pursue contradictory goals and ultimately lead to a variety of negative social outcomes, including wage suppression and inflated unemployment. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) in particular has been widely criticized for its concerning social impact. Not only have migrant workers who have entered Canada through this program been abused, with few avenues for recourse, but the program has become a crutch for entire industries unwilling to pay Canadian workers an appropriate wage.

In addition to the TFWP, Canada offers a wide variety of lesser-known International Mobility Programs (IMPs) that facilitate the temporary entry into Canada of large numbers of migrant workers every year. For example, the International Experience Canada Program (IEC) provides “working holiday” visas to 60,000 international youth workers every year. A further 30,000 workers enter Canada every year as “intra-corporate transferees” (ICTs), student workers, or as the spouses of migrant workers. Altogether, around 60% of the more than 200,000 migrant workers entering Canada every year, do so through Canada’s International Mobility Programs. Crucially, unlike the TFWP, these programs do not require a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), which is a government review process intended to ensure that migrant workers are only hired where legitimate labour shortages exist. The potential labour market impact of all of these workers is startling, although a lack of data collection makes it impossible to draw concrete conclusions.

Unlike the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which is being wound down in response to public outcry, the International Mobility Programs are poised to expand in the coming years. New international treaties such as the Canada-European Union’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) will provide even greater unrestricted access to the Canadian labour market for certain categories of migrant workers. These programs and agreements deserve far more attention than they have received to date.

Recommendations

Within Canada, workers should have the right to move anywhere for work; apprentices and other trainees in particular should have greater mobility rights than they currently possess. Increasing employer investment in workplace skills development will also help to strengthen the domestic labour market. So long as there are Canadians looking for work, the solution to long-term labour and skills shortages should not be temporary migrant labour.

In the case of legitimate short-term skills shortages, or where long-term labour shortages cannot be addressed through investment in the domestic labour market, workers from other countries should absolutely be able to enter Canada. However, these workers should enjoy the same rights and protections as Canadian workers, and should be offered a pathway to permanent residency. A robust immigration system is a more appropriate and democratic avenue for shaping Canada’s labour mobility regime than secretive trade agreement negotiations.

The free movement of labour is economically efficient and is a worthy policy goal, so long as its social consequences are understood and appropriately addressed. In the interest of greater understanding, Canada’s labour mobility policies at both the national and international levels need to be informed by better data. The International Mobility Programs are especially poorly monitored and demand a thorough review and more stringent data collection protocols moving forward.

[[{“fid”:”577″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”},”link_text”:”LabourMobility-Rpt-HMK-2014-10-14.pdf”}]]

The post Labour Mobility in Canada: Issues and Policy Recommendations appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

  
Introduction

The CLC appreciates and welcomes the opportunity to provide input on the five-year review of the Wage Earner Protection Program. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act allows expedited payment of wages and benefits, up to an annual cap, owed to workers whose employer has entered bankruptcy or receivership proceedings. The CLC is proud of its role in the origins and initial development of the WEPP.

We welcome and agree with many of the findings contained in the final report of the summative evaluation of the WEPP, published in March 2014. In particular, we strongly agree with the assessment that there is an ongoing need for the type of benefits offered under the WEPP. Our primary reservation, with respect to the adequacy of the review, concerns its limitation to the period between the inception of WEPP and March 31st, 2011. The exclusion of the period after March 31st, 2011—following important changes to the WEPP—omits important details from the review. We therefore recommend that the department undertake an interim assessment of the impact of the 2011 changes to supplement the findings of the summative evaluation.

Wage Earner Protection Program Coverage

The Wage Earner Protection Program is particularly important to precarious, vulnerable workers. According to Industry Canada, most bankruptcies occur in sectors characterized by low-paid, precarious employment, without union protection. More than 60% of bankruptcies in a given year can occur in retail, accommodation and food services, personal services, and small manufacturing. As many as 7 in 10 bankruptcies may occur among business enterprises with fewer than 10 workers, where precarious employment tends to be concentrated.

It is worth noting that while employed, low-wage, precarious workers are already at higher risk of wage theft and employment standards violations, including unpaid wages, overtime violations, and minimum wage violations.

Even prior to the employer ceasing operations, employment standards enforcement and redress for wage theft is typically inadequate.
The finding of an 88% take-up rate for the WEPP among eligible workers appears high. However, trustees and receivers have a legal responsibility to inform potential applicants about the WEPP, leading to nearly complete coverage of workers losing wages and benefits due to a bankruptcy or prolonged restructuring. We question why the take-up rate is not closer to 100%.

Beyond the take-up rate for eligible workers, as the evaluation identifies, workers who are losing wages and benefits—but where no official bankruptcy or receivership was declared—are not protected by the WEPP. We are concerned that this occurs in a significant number of cases; employers have been known to shut operations and open new businesses, often under different names, avoiding formal bankruptcy proceedings altogether. Business consultants and advisers routinely weigh the merits of avoiding bankruptcy in the closure of a business, leaving workers unable to claim lost wages and benefits under the WEPP. No information was available in the evaluation regarding the number of workers affected when an employer ceases operations, but no formal bankruptcy or receivership results. We urge the government to track and provide information on this category of affected workers.  We also recommend that the government examine ways to extend the WEPP to apply in situations where no formal bankruptcy is declared.

We are alarmed at the finding that unscrupulous trustees may be advising small businesses to wait six months after ceasing operations before declaring bankruptcy, thereby avoiding having the Federal Government as a creditor. We welcomed the 2011 extension of the coverage period for six months prior to the beginning of restructuring under the Company Creditors’ Arrangements Act (CCAA) or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).  However, we believe that the reported gaming of the coverage period makes a case for extending coverage of the WEPP to two years after cease of operations prior to bankruptcy, commencement of CCAA proceedings, or the filing of a Division I proposal under the BIA. Furthermore, we urge the government to conduct an investigation into whether and how insolvent employers are being encouraged to undermine the spirit and intention of the WEPP Act. To assist with program monitoring, we recommend that a workers’ representative be included in the Joint Liaison Committee responsible for the WEPP.

We are also concerned about the fact that employers of Canadian workers may declare bankruptcy outside Canadian borders, invalidating workers from recouping lost wages and benefits. In 2013, Vertis Communications declared bankruptcy in the United States, leaving 100 workers in Canada with wages and benefits owed them. To protect workers against employers shopping between bankruptcy jurisdictions, we recommend that the Federal Government extend WEPP protection to workers employed in Canada by firms that enter bankruptcy proceedings outside of Canada.

Finally, there is no indication that the WEPP evaluation investigated the ability of foreign nationals working in Canada on temporary work permits to access the program. We recommend incorporating this element into the monitoring and assessment of the program to ensure that particularly vulnerable workers, those working temporarily in Canada, are able to recover monies owing them in the event of employer bankruptcy.

[[{“fid”:”173″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”},”link_text”:”wage-earner-protection-act-en.pdf”}]]

The post The Wage Earner Protection Act appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The CLC submitted this proposal to the Department of Finance recently to provide input on the proposed federal framework. While we recognize the focused nature of the consultation, it raises fundamental concerns of plan beneficiaries’ rights under pension legislation and jurisprudence, funding requirements, plan governance, and other core issues that the we believe properly form the basis for a wider debate.

The consultation raises important and urgent questions, such as joint governance and solvency funding requirements for DB plans sponsored by government-backed Crown corporations and similar entities, which transcend the narrow focus of the consultation, while remaining silent on and providing contradictory and underdeveloped proposals on other matters. The CLC therefore calls on the Federal Government to convene a larger debate on the rules and regulations governing workplace pensions in Canada. We believe that a larger debate is called for, since the proposed target-benefit framework is simply one response—and we believe a narrow and mistaken one—to a larger set of challenges facing Canada’s workplace pension plans.

The CLC strongly objects to

Permitting conversions that would allow the reduction of accrued defined benefits and the elimination of those defined-benefit liabilities. Allowing the retroactive conversion of accrued DB benefits to contingent target benefits would be offensive and profoundly unfair to plan beneficiaries, potentially placing the burden of adjustment on pensioners who are least able to manage. In a competitive environment, allowing sponsors to dispense with accrued defined-benefit (DB) plan liabilities will compel other employers to similarly rid themselves of accrued liabilities.

We also strongly object to the unacceptable restrictions placed on collective bargaining as well as the trustees’ role of governance that is contemplated in the consultation document. The framework’s proposal to allow conversion of defined-benefit (DB) to TB plans bears the hallmark of being solely driven by consideration of the cost of DB plans for employers. The government’s proposed framework for single-employer TB plans will do little to expand pension coverage for the 62% of Canadian workers with no workplace pension plan.

The official Submission to the Department of Finance Consultation on a Potential Federal Framework for Target-Benefit Pension Plans

Executive Summary

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is the voice on national policy issues for 3.3 million workers in Canada. The CLC brings together Canada’s national and international unions along with the provincial and territorial Federations of Labour and 130 district Labour Councils, whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, and in all parts of Canada.

In the CLC’s opinion, the Department of Finance’s proposal to explore a framework for single-employer target-benefit (TB) pension plans in the federally-regulated private sector and for Crown corporations constitutes a dangerous and irresponsible step. The CLC strongly objects to permitting conversions that would allow the reduction of accrued defined benefits and the elimination of those defined-benefit liabilities. Allowing the retroactive conversion of accrued DB benefits to contingent target benefits would be offensive and profoundly unfair to plan beneficiaries, potentially placing the burden of adjustment on pensioners who are least able to manage. In a competitive environment, allowing sponsors to dispense with accrued defined-benefit (DB) plan liabilities will compel other employers to similarly rid themselves of accrued liabilities. We also strongly object to the unacceptable restrictions placed on collective bargaining as well as the trustees’ role of governance that is contemplated in the consultation document. The framework’s proposal to allow conversion of defined-benefit (DB) to TB plans bears the hallmark of being solely driven by consideration of the cost of DB plans for employers. The government’s proposed framework for single-employer TB plans will do little to expand pension coverage for the 62% of Canadian workers with no workplace pension plan. The CLC recommends that the government withdraw the proposed framework for target benefit plans, and it urges the Federal Government to return to its 2010 commitment to implement improvements to the Canada Pension Plan.

Introduction

The CLC welcomes the opportunity to provide input on the proposed federal framework. While we recognize the focused nature of the consultation, it raises fundamental concerns of plan beneficiaries’ rights under pension legislation and jurisprudence, funding requirements, plan governance, and other core issues that the CLC believes properly form the basis for a wider debate. The consultation raises important and urgent questions, such as joint governance and solvency funding requirements for DB plans sponsored by government-backed Crown corporations and similar entities, which transcend the narrow focus of the consultation, while remaining silent on and providing contradictory and underdeveloped proposals on other matters. The CLC therefore calls on the Federal Government to convene a larger debate on the rules and regulations governing workplace pensions in Canada. We believe that a larger debate is called for, since the proposed target-benefit framework is simply one response—and we believe a narrow and mistaken one—to a larger set of challenges facing Canada’s workplace pension plans.

The Conversion of Defined-Benefit to Target-Benefit Plans

The CLC strongly believes that plan sponsors must not be permitted to eliminate existing accrued liabilities by converting plans into target-benefit schemes. Converting from DB to TB plans—no matter how efficiently managed or how sophisticated the stochastic modelling—represent a loss of security for plan members. TB plans may strive for stable benefits, but probability-based funding or funding with a provision for adverse deviation provides no guarantee and indeed reduced protection in the absence of the legal right to benefits earned for past service.

Allowing the retroactive conversion of accrued DB benefits to contingent target benefits would also be offensive and profoundly unfair to plan beneficiaries. Where they exist, defined-benefit pension benefits form a key term and condition of the employment contract, representing deferred earnings that exchange current compensation for a future pension promise. To later retroactively rewrite the terms of this agreement, and to replace the employer’s obligation to adequately fund the plan with the requirement that accrued benefits and even pensions-in-pay be reduced in the event of funding shortfalls, is deeply unjust and runs counter to the widely-shared understanding of the obligations of contract. We question whether the Federal Government has the constitutional right to expropriate active and retired members’ vested property rights in such a manner.

The consultation document explicitly contemplates DB plans with solvency funding shortfalls being given the option of a TB conversion. We are concerned about the prospect of a federally-regulated private-sector employer entering the distressed pension plan workout process or Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, with the result being a target-benefit plan that employees and retirees are herded into under duress. Inviting private-sector employers and Crown corporations to pursue conversions to target-benefit plans—either in the course of a distressed pension plan workout process or CCAA proceedings—is a dangerous step that could invite cascading efforts to dispense with accrued pension benefit liabilities.

Compounding balance-sheet pressures arising from the adoption of international accounting standards for employee benefits, which recognize actuarial gains and losses immediately, investors will pressure employers to eliminate pension liabilities even where plan sponsors themselves don’t pursue the option. Even with employer obligations to fully fund going-concern liabilities at conversion, the prospect of abandoning these liabilities would be too attractive for employers to resist. Allowing employers to relieve themselves of accrued benefit obligations is a dangerous and irresponsible step, which in an environment of intense competition and investor pressure for low risk and high returns, will compel other employers and sponsors to similarly rid themselves of accrued liabilities.

We also believe that despite protestations to the contrary, either now or in the future the Federal Government would be prepared to expand access to DB-TB conversions into the public service, just as provincial governments have done. In effect, the Federal Government is signalling to private-sector DB plan sponsors, as well as public sector employers and other levels of government, that the need for continued adequate funding of DB pension commitments is now in question. For these reasons, the CLC recommends that the government withdraw its proposals for a federal framework for target-benefit plans.

Communication of Risk

The consultation document states that plan goals and risks to members must be clearly stated up front, but this is not the experience of other similar DB-TB plan conversions. Rather, in other instances, the risks entailed in converting from a DB plan to a TB arrangement were not clearly communicated, either because plan members were misled into thinking that their benefits were “97.5% guaranteed,” or because the general promotion of ‘shared risk’ plans implied as much.1 The federal consultation paper itself is not immune from this shading, writing that categorizing benefits as base benefits in the TB model makes them “subject to increased protection.” In fact, conversion to TB arrangements, in which accrued and prospective benefits can be reduced, represents decreased protection.

The consultation paper uses the term “risk sharing,” but these plans are more aptly characterized as “risk shifting” or “risk transferring,” significantly reducing risks to the employer and passing them on to active and retired plan members. The consultation document concedes as much where it writes that “under a TBP, the risk is shifted towards the plan members and beneficiaries.”

When it comes to the specific probability that base benefits won’t be reduced, we note that the consultation document employs the threshold of 90% probability, rather than the 97.5% used in the New Brunswick model. Claims concerning the near certainty of any of these numbers must be viewed with skepticism—they are simply statistical modelling—but it is noteworthy that the bar is falling.

Similarly, the consultation paper misrepresents matters when it writes that DB plans offer “limited flexibility” for adjustments to cope with funding shortfalls, and that “plan sponsors are solely responsible for funding deficits.” This is simply inconsistent with the experience of DB plans over the previous six years, when DB plans made significant adjustments to plan provisions in response to shortfalls, and plan members shared the cost of addressing deficits in the plan. Via collective bargaining, unionized DB plan members have negotiated contribution increases, special temporary funding arrangements borne by sponsor and beneficiaries, and temporary (where possible) benefit reductions. But they have endeavoured to preserve the essential defined-benefit design of the pension plan, knowing the advantages of DB plans and the characteristically cyclical nature of the funded status of DB plans. These pension arrangements have proved in practice to be capable of flexible, creative and equitable adjustment under pressure. The last several years in the wake of the financial crisis have seen considerable pressure on DB plans. In a vast number of cases, the parties through collective bargaining have reached compromises for sharing the cost of adjustment.

Restrictions on Trustees and Bargaining Agents

We welcome the recognition made at one point in the consultation paper—although at odds with the opposite view expressed elsewhere in the document—of the advantages of plan administrators retaining flexibility and plan discretion with respect to identifying certain benefits as fully guaranteed. However, other aspects of the consultation document are in tension with this point, and co-exist uneasily alongside emphasis elsewhere on legislative prescription. These tensions and contradictions exist with respect to fiduciary duty. On the one hand, the consultation paper contemplates a “board of trustees with fiduciary duty to the plan,” but in the next breath, holds that “the administrative body of the TBP should have the capacity to make decisions in the interest of the employer, plan members and retirees.” The paper specifies that trustees would not have the power to amend plan documents, yet contemplates elsewhere they could retain these powers.

Negotiated contribution levels are a crucial part of collective bargaining over pensions, and DB plans must flexibly revisit contribution rates in the event of plan underfunding. During the last several years, private-sector and public-sector plans have revisited this question, often adjusting contribution levels as needed. Limiting this ability is a perverse restriction on the flexibility of plans. Therefore the CLC disagrees with the proposal that “a cap on the chosen variability level for both employer and employee must be provided.” This requirement would unduly restrict the decision-making of future plan members and trustees. Potential contribution rate increases must form part of a pension plan’s funding deficit recovery mechanism, precisely because the future is unknown, and because benefit reductions ought to be avoided. If contribution increases are removed from the equation by fiat, it is equivalent to sacrificing the capacity to respond flexibly to unpredictable future challenges.

Pension Coverage and Sustainability

According to the consultation paper, the government’s initiative purports “to help promote pension plan sustainability, and to continue to improve overall pension coverage and adequacy for Canadians.” In fact, pension coverage rates continue to decline rather than improve, largely because private-sector employers are unwilling or unable to offer workplace pension plans.

If the Federal Government wishes to pursue the objective of expanding pension coverage, there are a variety of mechanisms it could—and indeed would—need to pursue. Defined-benefit pension plans remain the single best mechanism for providing secure and predictable retirement incomes for workers. In areas in which DB plans do not exist, and are unlikely to exist, such as industries characterized by small workplaces and a high rate of employer entry and exit, where single-employer plans are not feasible and there is no realistic ability of the employer to make up funding shortfalls, multi-employer pension plans (MEPPs) could be made more readily available to employers and employees without workplace plans. If the Federal Government is serious about expanding and improving access for non-unionized employees, it could collaborate with the provinces and work with unions and employer associations in suitable sectors to encourage the adoption of multi-employer pension plans in areas with low levels of pension coverage.

Multi-employer pension plans have often worked well federally, and in other jurisdictions, for decades. Grounded in union representation and collective bargaining, multi-employer target-benefit plans have been able to offer pensions to workers in smaller, transient workplaces. Superior to group RRSPs and defined-contribution plans, MEPPs function like a DB plan, providing a known pension benefit calculated according to a benefit formula, set out in the plan document. They can offer early retirement provisions and survivor benefits, and pay out a commuted value on individual plan termination and death. MEPPs pool longevity risk and are invested for the long-term like DB plans, with a single pool of investment capital delivering a higher benefit than would a capital accumulation plan, for an equivalent cost. They engage actuarial oversight, and are governed by an independent board of trustees with a fiduciary duty to plan members.

Although contribution levels are ultimately subject to collective bargaining, and not fixed in law, MEPP contribution levels typically do not adjust in response to plan underfunding, and benefits can be adjusted (increased or reduced) as required. But the central role of unions ensures that stable benefits are the top priority, that benefit reductions remain the last resort only after other adjustment options are explored, and that plan members’ interests are clearly articulated and respected in the process. These advantages would be lost if the flexibility afforded by collective bargaining were constrained by legislation and regulatory prescriptions. In situations where there is no union present or centrally involved, concerns also arise over the ability of workers to avoid benefit reductions if retaliation is threatened for withholding consensus around plan changes. Non-union workers may also find themselves at a disadvantage due to a lack of resources and expertise to interpret and analyze complex proposals entailing benefit reductions. We therefore question whether target-benefit plans are practicable in a non-union environment.

The proposed framework raises the prospect of defined-contribution  (DC) plan conversions to TB plans, although even if employers converted from DC plans to single-employer TB plans, no improvement in pension coverage would result. But we find it difficult to imagine in the current environment that employers would be prepared to voluntarily convert DC arrangements into target-benefit schemes. In principle, a target benefit plan offers important advantages over defined-contribution plans, for the reasons enumerated above. However, it is unlikely that an employer sponsoring a DC plan would opt to convert to a TB plan, absent union pressure to do so. From the employer’s vantage point, target plans with fixed employer contribution rates would function in a manner similar to DC plans. Yet insofar as any variability in contribution levels is allowed, target plans would involve less certainty and potentially more cost for employers, and certainly more administrative headache relative to a DC plan administered by an insurance company. If anything, employers have a measurable incentive to convert DC arrangements not to TB plans, but to Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs), which almost entirely unburden employers of the administrative work left to insurance companies and other PRPP providers.

We are sceptical that the government’s proposed framework is intended to address the low and declining level of pension coverage in Canada. It seems counterproductive to us that the Federal Government wishes to expand pension coverage while making it possible for existing DB plan sponsors to divest themselves of past pension promises, and withdraw altogether from plan governance. Going further, removing legal protections for workers’ deferred earnings and allowing the reduction of benefits earned through past service will further deter workers from saving for retirement collectively through pension plans. If market fluctuations may reduce my accrued benefits, workers may ask, why bother participating in the pension plan in the future?  Against this backdrop, the Federal Government refuses to even discuss the improvement of Canada’s inadequate public pension plans to address the nearly 12 million Canadians in the labour force with no workplace pension plan.

In the CLC’s view, this initiative is chiefly, if not exclusively, an effort to allay employers’ concerns regarding the cost of DB plans. We believe it is unsatisfactory and inadequate to frame the question of sustainability entirely in terms of cost, more specifically the cost to the employer, and in isolation from the adequacy and security of members’ pensions. Sustainability cannot be reduced purely to a question of employer cost, with no serious consideration of the objectives of pension adequacy, security, and equity. A pension plan can, of course, deliver an extremely low benefit at relatively high cost to plan members, with a very high level of predictability and very little risk to the employer. But this is unlikely to be a plan that fulfills the goal of retirement income adequacy and retains the support of plan members.

Summary

The CLC believes that allowing plan sponsors to convert DB plans to target-benefit arrangements is a dangerous step that will potentially destabilize existing pension funding agreements and generate uncertainty with respect to the future of DB plan funding not only federally, but nationally. It risks undermining the resiliency of DB plans that are now returning to health six years following a severe global financial crisis and economic recession. DB plans are too valuable as a vehicle for pooling risk and providing predictable, secure retirement income to undermine in such a manner.

The CLC disagrees with any policy initiative that contains the notion that employees must ultimately fend for themselves in retirement, and that employers share no obligation for the welfare of workers after leaving their employ. Workers have virtually no power to shape the outcomes of financial markets and have far fewer resources than employers to manage the risks and consequences of market volatility. Their retirement security must not be left to the investment performance of the pension fund simply in a bid to insulate employers from the current actual and potential future costs of pension provision.

With this proposed framework, the Federal Government is narrowly addressing employers’ concerns to limit cost and risk, while ignoring the significant challenges to retirement security that Canadian society faces, with its various dimensions of growing financial insecurity and inadequate incomes. We are frustrated with the perversity of an initiative that not only ignores this pressing challenge, but would effectively aggravate it. Simply relieving employers’ cost pressures at the expense of plan beneficiaries represents a false solution to a much larger, urgent problem.

The CLC urges the Federal Government to return to its 2010 commitment to implement improvements to the Canada Pension Plan. A phased-in, fully funded doubling of future CPP retirement benefits remains the most efficient and cost effective means of addressing the problem of inadequate retirement savings in Canada. Unmatched by any private sector retirement savings scheme, the CPP delivers a secure, dependable retirement benefit, protected against inflation and payable until death, at a very low cost. The CPP is funded through earnings based on contributions so that future beneficiaries are not dependent on future tax revenue. Virtually all working Canadians are already members of and contributors to the CPP.

At a minimum, a national debate on the security, adequacy and sustainability of Canada’s retirement income system is long overdue. In place of its target-benefit initiative, the CLC calls on the government to begin an integrated, comprehensive dialogue on current and future retirement security needs in Canada, and the efficiency and effectiveness of our retirement income system in meeting those needs. 

The post Target-Benefit Pension Plans appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Dear Prime Minister,

On behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I write to you today to renew our call for a public inquiry into the missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada.

Earlier this year, the RCMP reported close to 1,200 cases of missing or murdered Aboriginal women and girls between 1980 and 2012. That same report highlighted the fact that this number is disproportionately high, showing how Aboriginal women and girls make up over 16% of female homicides, 11% of missing women and yet make up only 4% of the female population in Canada.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) has created a database of missing and murdered women and girls. The oldest case in NWAC’s database occurred in 1944, even though the majority of cases are much more recent when you look at the RCMP figures.

Prime Minister, with evidence like this, the only right thing to do is call for a public inquiry.

The Premiers are pushing for an inquiry, the Aboriginal leadership and communities have been calling for one, and caring, fair-minded Canadians have been supporting this call.

In addition to our calls for a public national inquiry, we are also asking that you engage the Premiers to identify actions that need to be taken immediately to protect the personal security of Aboriginal girls and women, and facilitate their access to social services, housing, health and education in order to provide holistic support to Aboriginal communities. This includes developing a national strategy to reduce poverty faced by Aboriginal girls and women.

You must begin to show some leadership and facilitate dialogue between the federal and provincial ministers responsible for Aboriginal programs and with Aboriginal leaders now.

Prime Minister, you cannot continue to isolate yourself on this issue.

Launch a public inquiry today. Do it before more Aboriginal communities are devastated, before more Aboriginal families suffer, and before one more woman or girl goes missing or is murdered.

Yours sincerely,

Hassan Yussuff
President

The post CLC President renews call for public inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The Honourable John Baird, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0G2

Dear Minister:

On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, I urge you to press the government of Bangladesh to comply with its commitments to respect labour rights and to ensure the safety of garment factories.

Following the industrial disaster at Rana Plaza last year, several governments stepped forward and committed to contribute to efforts aimed at preventing further tragedies in the garment industry in Bangladesh. On July 8, 2013, a comprehensive framework for action, the Sustainability Compact for Continuous Improvements in Labour Rights and Factory Safety in the Ready-Made Garment and Knitwear Industry in Bangladesh (“Sustainability Compact”), was launched with the initial support of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the European Union (EU) and Bangladesh.

Since then, additional governments have announced their support for it. The Sustainability Compact calls on the government of Bangladesh to make a number of legal and practical reforms to ensure respect for labour rights and to improve building and fire safety. At the time, EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht made clear that failure to comply with the Sustainability Compact would lead the EU to consider “appropriate action” under the Everything But Arms trade preferences arrangement.

On the occasion of the first anniversary of the Sustainability Compact, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), IndustriALL and UNI Global Union prepared a detailed and critical assessment of the government of Bangladesh’s compliance with its terms (attached). As it clearly demonstrates, little progress has been made on implementing its terms. On several points, the government has completely failed to take action while on others the progress has been limited and long-delayed. The government of Bangladesh’s apparent lack of urgency and purpose is shocking given that four million garment workers depend on the successful implementation of the Sustainability Compact. This situation is completely unacceptable — we cannot allow another industrial disaster to claim the lives of garment workers due to the government’s inaction and manufacturers’ misconduct.

I again urge the government to raise these concerns with the government of Bangladesh, as well as with the brands incorporated and/or doing business in Canada which source garments from factories in Bangladesh. Corporations also have a responsibility to ensure that workers’ rights are fully respected in their supply chains.

I look forward to hearing from you about steps your government will take to ensure that the government of Bangladesh complies in a timely manner with the terms of the Sustainability Compact. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need any further information.

Yours sincerely,
Hasssan Yussuff
President

The post CLC pushes for worker’s rights in Bangladesh appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

• We’ve been there at work, in the courts, and in the streets to defend the rights of our members, their partners and their families.  
• We’ve been there to protest injustice and violence. We’ve taken on and won court cases to end discrimination.
• We’ve won labour arbitrations for fair and equal treatment.
• We’ve changed laws and transformed our communities and our country.
• And we still have work to do.

Together We’ve changed the law!

Working together with communities and allies, unions have helped gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans and queer people win:

• the right to equal benefits for our partners and children
• the same right to bereavement leave, family leave,
• and parental leave days as other workers
• the same right to pension benefits for our partners
• the right to a safe and harassment-free workplace
• legal recognition of equal marriage
• the inclusion of gender identity in provincial
• and territorial human rights codeser We’ve changed the law!

The post Together We’ve Got PRIDE appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Introduction

On behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) we appreciate this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs).

We would like to make four recommendations.
1. Collect Better Labour Market Information

First, we need to collect better labour market information.

Public policy must be based on solid evidence, not anecdotal claims of a general labour and skills shortage. Indeed, a growing number of studies suggest these claims are seriously exaggerated.

Moreover, the latest Statistics Canada Job Vacancy Survey shows there were 6.7 unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy. That ratio more than doubles when you include under-employed Canadians.

Clearly, the big challenge we face is a shortage of jobs, not a shortage of workers.

That being said, it is widely noted that there are some shortages in specific regions and occupations. However, getting detailed information on these vacant jobs is a tough task.

The Statistics Canada Job Vacancy Survey is a good start, but it does not provide data by specific occupation and it lacks regional and local detail.

We recommend the federal government increase funding to Statistics Canada so it can develop more detailed labour market data.

2. Create Labour Market Partners Forums

Second, we need to adopt a partnership approach.

The introduction of the Canada Job Grant demonstrates that unilateral action results in confusion, conflict and poorly designed programs.

In contrast, studies show that labour market programs are more effective and equitable when developed in partnership with key stakeholders.

The labour movement plays a critical role in training through collective bargaining, sectoral training funds and delivering apprenticeship programs in a variety of skilled trades.

Training programs must match skills with jobs. But workers want more than just firm specific skills. They want broadly based training that provides a wide range of skills, including better literacy and essential skills upgrading.

They also want those skills recognized with a certificate or credential so they are portable in the broader labour market.

We recommend that under a renewed set of LMDAs, the federal government, and each province and territory, should be required to establish a Labour Market Partners Forum with representation from key stakeholders including government, labour, employers, education and community organizations.

3. Expand Access to LMDA Programs

Third, we need to expand access to LMDA programs.

The last two EI Monitoring and Assessment Reports provide details about recent net impact evaluations of LMDA programs.

The evaluations show that the Skills Development programs are very effective. These involve the longer term training interventions which often lead to a credential.

According to the evaluations, Skills Development programs increased the incidence and duration of employment, and increased earnings, for people over both the short and medium term.

This is good news. The goal of LMDA programs must not be to simply push everyone back into the labour market as fast as possible into any job.

The goal must be to help workers get the skills they need to improve their long term employability and land good jobs with decent wages.

More than 1.3 million Canadians are unemployed today. However, less than 40% of them are eligible for EI. Too many Canadians are being left out in the cold when it comes to LMDA programs.

We recommend the federal government expand eligibility for LMDA programs by establishing a national eligibility requirement of 360 hours for unemployed and underemployed workers to access training.

In addition, we recommend that EI Part I Income Benefits be extended for the full duration of LMDA training programs. People need to be able to pay their bills and put food on the table while participating in a longer term training program.

4. Increase LMDA Funding

Fourth, we need to invest more in training.

The OECD has repeatedly noted that Canada is near the bottom of the industrialized world when it comes to public expenditures on active labour market measures.

We need more investment in training and not just shifting money from one pocket to another like the federal government is doing with the Canada Job Grant.

Expanding eligibility and funding for LMDA programs would not add any new costs to the government’s budget.

The funding would come from the EI Operating Account which is made up of contributions from workers and employers.

The EI fund is currently not using the full amount that may be spent on LMDA programs. According to the EI Act, up to $4.4 billion can be spent on LMDA programs this year. However, only $2 billion is being transferred.

Furthermore, the EI account is forecast to have a $3.8 billion surplus this year and large surpluses in the years ahead.

It does not make sense to have unspent LMDA training dollars when the EI account is in surplus and unemployed Canadians need to upgrade their skills.

We recommend that instead of using surpluses to freeze or reduce EI premiums, part of the surplus should be used to expand eligibility for LMDA training programs.

Conclusion
Once again, thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to your questions and comments about our recommendations.

Thank you.

The post CLC Presents to House of Commons Committee on the Renewal of Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Each month, Statistics Canada releases its unemployment rate, and many use it to talk about job creation in Canada. Monthly unemployment rates move up and down, making headlines but revealing little. As work patterns change, with greater use of part-time employees and other forms of precarious labour, the headline unemployment rate becomes less and less useful on its own. The labour force is comprised of far more than simply employed and unemployed workers.

A broader and longer-term analysis, and better labour market indicators are required to give insight into the various ways that workers in Canada responded to the recession and weak economic recovery. This paper takes an in-depth look at the recovery and the current state of the labour market, to highlight current challenges in the way we look at the labour market, and propose alternative indicators that should be part of Statistics Canada’s monthly releases to better inform the public about the real state of the labour market.

Slowing Job Growth

Canada’s labour market recovered the total number of jobs lost during the recession by November 2010, leading to claims of a robust recovery for workers. A closer look shows that job creation has stagnated and hasn’t kept up with population growth among working age adults.

When we set up an index  job level at 100 prior to each of the last three recessions—as shown in Graph 1—we find that although the most recent recession had the most rapid loss of jobs, employment losses were relatively shallow and employment returned to pre-recession levels earlier than prior recessions. Nearly five years out, however, it’s a different story. Growth in employment now lies somewhere between the previous two recessions, mirroring the long, slow recovery path following the 1990’s recession.

[[{“fid”:”217″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”index of employment growth”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”index of employment growth”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”index of employment growth”,”title”:”index of employment growth”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

The employment rate, that is the proportion of the working age (15-64) population employed shown in the Graph 2, has recovered only half-way to its pre-recession peak. This indicator also shows employment growth has completely stalled over the past year and half.

[[{“fid”:”218″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”employment rate”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”employment rate”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”employment rate”,”title”:”employment rate”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

[[{“fid”:”220″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”change in labour market”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”change in labour market”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”change in labour market”,”title”:”change in labour market”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

The jobs that have been recovered are disproportionately part-time and precarious. As seen in Table 1, part-time jobs grew at twice the rate of full-time jobs (5.9% vs 3.3%), and account for 40% of the job growth between 2008 and 2013—even though part-time positions only make up one out of five jobs (19%) in the labour market. All of the growth in part time jobs was among underemployed part time workers, meaning those who want more hours of work.

Unemployment rate has stalled and does not tell us the full story

Nearly five years after the end of the 2008-2009 recession, Canada’s headline unemployment rate has remained fixed at 7.2% (December 2013), a level first reached mid-2011. But rather than a static group of individuals, large numbers of workers flow in and out of unemployment each month. Recessions affect these flows in various ways, for example fewer people quit their job or decide to enter the labour market when the job market looks dismal. Following a recession, there is usually an increase in the number of workers that are unemployed for extended periods of time.

The proportion of workers who were unemployed for over 12 months rose dramatically following the prolonged 1990—1992 recession (Graph 3), accounting for over 15% of unemployed workers five years after the recession was officially over.

[[{“fid”:”223″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”long term unemployment”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”long term unemployment”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”long term unemployment”,”title”:”long term unemployment”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

The rise in long term unemployment was not as dramatic following the 2008-2009 recession, but remains a concern at 12% of all unemployed workers, double the pre-recession level.

Underemployment is larger than Unemployment

Underemployment can be thought of as the unmet need for paid employment. For example, a person may be unable to find full-time work, but manages to find part-time work. There is still an unmet need for more hours of work, even though this person is no longer counted as unemployed. A person may want a job, and be actively seeking work, but they are not immediately available. Alternatively, a person may wish to work, but has given up searching, and possibly even engaged in unpaid activities such as care work. In each of these cases, usually grouped together as marginal labour force attachment, there is still an unmet need for paid employment.

Statistics measuring these concepts are used by Statistics Canada to generate supplementary unemployment rates, labelled R5 through R8. Unfortunately, these supplementary unemployment rates are more restrictive than the current international standard1. This affects who gets counted as underemployed.

Download the report here.
[[{“fid”:”601″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:”2014 – CLC Underemployment Is Canadas Real Challenge.pdf”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”}}]]

The post Underemployment is Canada’s Real Labour Market Challenge appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

What’s in it for us

Introduction

The 2014 Federal Budget lacks any vision about how to stop growing inequality and stimulate the economy.

The Conservative plan continues to focus on austerity measures to balance their budget by 2015, and rests their hopes for economic growth on no-strings attached corporate tax cuts. But this plan is not delivering the promised investments in R&D, machinery and training needed to create better paid and more secure jobs.

To compensate, this budget introduces a myriad of small, limited and targeted measured in R&D and training, proposes to create internships instead of good jobs, all paid for with more spending cuts, such as cuts to federal employees’ sick benefits and increased costs to retirees benefits.

Overall, federal government spending will be lower in 2014-15 compared to this year, dragging down economic growth and job creation.

The Economic and Fiscal Context

The major economic problem faced by Canadians today is not government deficits, or balancing the budget by the next federal election. The most pressing problems faced by Canadians are a sluggish economic recovery, a stalling job market, and record high levels of household debt, along with inadequate employment insurance coverage and lack of retirement security. Canadians expected their federal government to tackle these problems in the 2014 Federal Budget. Instead, this budget stays the course on a path that hasn’t worked for most Canadians.

Canada’s economic recovery has been weaker than expected due to low business investment, high household debt, and weak global growth. Lower than expected exports along with a slowdown in construction starts, and historically high consumer debt, along with ongoing budget cuts, are having a negative impact on Canada’s economic growth and its labour market.

The Federal Budget points to a strong record of job creation compared to other G-7 countries. But job growth in Canada hasn’t kept up with population growth. Canada has had more population growth than many of these nations, and when the increase in job seekers is considered, Canada falls behind the rest of the pack. Job growth stagnated in 2013, particularly for workers under 55.

Canada’s unemployment rate remains higher than it was prior to the great recession, at 7.0% in January 2014, more than 1.3 million people. It is discouraging to look for work when there is only 1 job available for every 6 unemployed workers seeking work. The underemployment rate, which includes underemployed part-timers and discouraged job seekers, was 14% in January 2014―double the official rate.

Exports have been slow to rebound post-recession, and predictions of stronger economic growth have repeatedly been moved back. Still, signs of strengthening global growth and corrections in the value of the Canadian dollar have led to modestly rosier predictions for our economy, between 2.2% and 2.5% for 2014. These predictions are predicated on increased global demand, and on Canada reaping the rewards of that through higher exports. Even if this growth materializes, improvements in exports are necessary, but not sufficient to drive improvements in our economy and labour force.

A synthesis between smart economic development and pro-active labour force development is required to meet the challenges facing Canada today and in the future. High underemployment, low productivity growth, rapid technological changes, and an ageing population are serious challenges that Canada is facing. We must tackle them to sustain and improve economic and social well-being.

The Canadian Labour Congress has called for action in five areas to help create a prosperous and equitable economy in 2014 and beyond: training and skills development; infrastructure; income security; retirement security and fair taxation.

A. Training and Skills Development:
What we need:

Canada’s economic success and future prosperity depend on a skilled and educated workforce. Unfortunately, Canada falls well below the OECD average in the average hours of job-related, non-formal skills training for employees, and employer investment in skills training generally. We also lag well behind many of our major OECD competitors in terms of adult participation rates in job-related non-formal education—including the U.S., Germany, Norway, Belgium, and Denmark.

We need a skills development strategy in response to a growing skills gap, an ageing workforce, and the need for greater educational opportunities for groups such as Aboriginals, recent immigrants, and youth.

We need better collaborations between all skills development stakeholders, more and better labour market information, and better labour market planning.

We need investment of new money in training workers in Canada, instead of making it easier for employers to bring in more vulnerable migrant workers. What we don’t need is money taken away from programs that are already addressing specific issues of labour market integration, such as support for unemployed and underemployed workers in the area of literacy and numeracy, to have it given to subsidize employers.

The goal should be to invest in building the best educated, skilled, inclusive and adaptable workforce in the world. We need the 2014 Federal Budget to make nine strategic investments to ensure Canada is a lifelong learning super-power:

1. A new Early Childhood Learning and Care Fund. It should work with the provinces and territories to ensure all Canadian families can find affordable, high-quality early learning and care spaces when and where they need them.
2. Stable, predictable, sustainable, and equitable investments in First Nations education. This requires immediate investments in classroom-level funding to close the gap, coupled with annual escalators so that investments do not once again fall behind. Funding is also required to support existing regional First Nation Education Organizations and to create new ones where needed. Investment in First Nations education should include funding to support language and cultural programming, maintain existing schools, and build new schools. The federal government must conduct ongoing meaningful dialogue that respects First Nations control of First Nations education.
3. Increase funding for the Labour Market Agreements (LMAs) with the provinces and territories so they can be rolled out on a broader scale. LMA programs prioritize the needs of vulnerable unemployed workers who are under-represented in the workforce, including: immigrants, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, women, older workers and less skilled individuals. A recent federal government study by Employment and Social Development Canada shows these programs have been very successful: 87% of participants got a job; 72% increased their weekly earnings; and 87% received a credential.
4. Increase funding for the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) which transfer Employment Insurance (EI) funds to the provinces and territories for training and skills development programs for EI-eligible clients. According to the EI Act, up to $4.3 billion dollars can be spent on training this year―but only $2 billion will actually be spent. And, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the EI fund will have a large annual surplus for the foreseeable future.
5. Expand eligibility to EI training and skills development programs provided through the LMDAs so more workers can upgrade their skills. It should allow workers with 360 qualifying hours to access the LMDA training programs. And it should allow employed workers to access EI benefits for education and training leaves as part of a formal training plan. This would represent an extension of the current apprenticeship training provisions under EI, which provide income support for apprentices during the classroom part of their training.
6. Invest new money in the Canada Jobs Grant. The federal government should abandon its plan to fund the Canada Job Grant by cutting money from existing LMA and LMDA training programs that are helping vulnerable, unemployed and low-skilled workers.
7. Make investments that will increase apprenticeship promotion, recruitment, hiring, training and completion rates. It should ensure the income assistance provided to apprentices under the EI program is effectively aligned to their needs by eliminating the waiting period and/or pre-approving EI claims for apprentices. It should also partner with unions to create programs that will increase the participation of women in skilled trades.
8. Return to a robust permanent immigration system and introduce measures to prevent employer exploitation of migrant workers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. It should ensure all immigrants to Canada receive a Canadian Certification of Skills based upon an efficient, objective and transparent assessment of international credentials and work experience.
9. Finally, the 2014 Federal Budget should invest in better labour market information and collaboration between skills development stakeholders, and establish a national Labour Market Partners Forum that includes labour, business, government, and the education sector.

What is in the budget:

There are multiple targeted initiatives in the 2014 Budget to address training and skills development. Despite the fact that claims of a widespread skills shortage have been repeatedly debunked by economists, this government centers its programs in this budget around the assumptions of too many jobs without people. As has been the case in other recent federal budgets, most of what is contained in the budget is not new money, rather rehashing of previous announcements or re-allocated spending.

1. Funding for the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act – the budget allots $120 million for First Nations K-12 education as well as building and repair of schools, starting in 2015-2016. Many of the details of this Act have yet to be worked out, but hopefully this funding is a step in the right direction for First Nations youth.
2. Training for vulnerable workers:

This budget contains no mention of funding for Labour Market Agreements, which expire this year. It appears that the federal government remains determined to use this money to fund their Canada Job Grant program, which the budget indicates is going ahead on April 1st, with or without the provinces.
The funding for Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities was announced in Budget 2013. Notably, vocational training for individuals with Autistic Spectrum Disorders will be funded through Autism Speaks Canada and the Sinneave Family Foundation.

3.  Labour Market Development:

The EI Account was in annual surplus in 2013, and is expected to be in annual surplus again in 2014. EI Premiums have been frozen through to 2016/2017. Despite high demand for training, the federal government ignored calls to expand funding to the LMDA, or expand access to LMDA programs.
Targeted Initiatives for Older Workers – this budget renews the program introduced in 2006, at a cost of $25 million / year for 3 years. This addresses the needs of workers over 55 who have been affected by significant downsizing or plant closures. Second chance programs are necessary and important, but should not be limited to those over 55, as workers under 55 have had a particularly difficult time during this protracted recovery.

Job Matching Service and National Job Bank – continued improvements of the National Job Bank bring the technology in line with the 21st Century, but remains inaccessible to many, and doesn’t address the very high unemployment to job vacancy ratio many workers in Canada are struggling with.

4. This budget makes modest efforts to help apprentices through several targeted programs:

The EI waiting period will now only apply to the first period of an apprentice’s classroom training, and be waived for subsequent training. However, EI claims for apprentices will not be pre-approved, which leads to significant delays in receiving benefits for many apprentices.

Canada Apprentice Loan Program – $100 million in interest free loans to first time Red Seal apprentices through the Canada Student Loans Program. Apprentices will be able to access up to $4,000 per period of technical training, and should help 26,000 apprentices per year.

Investing in Apprenticeship Technical Training – a pilot project to examine innovative ways to deliver technical training and reduce non-financial barriers to apprenticeship completion. This includes remote learning and e-learning, as well as in-class simulators.

5. Youth Unemployment – The federal government’s Youth Employment Strategy, in place since 2006, barely touches the tip of the iceberg for struggling young workers in Canada. This budget announces several initiatives that sound great, but are unlikely to address structural issues facing young workers today and in the future.

Canada Accelerator and Incubator Program – adds $10 million per year for 4 years to previously announced funding, for total funding of $100 million. For profit and non-profit organizations will bid for funding to mentor young entrepreneurs.

Internships in High Demand Fields – $30 million over two years for an Industrial Research Assistance program, which will fund science internships in small and medium sized enterprises. $10 million over two years will be administered by the Youth Employment Strategy.

Supporting paid internships in small and medium sized businesses by reallocating existing Youth Employment Strategy funds of $15 million per year, to fund a maximum of 1,000 internships for recent post-secondary graduates.

Eliminating Vehicles from Canada Student Loan Assessment –There is currently a $5,000 exemption limit for vehicles when students list their assets on a Federal Student Loan Application. Students will no longer have to list the value of their vehicle, at an expected annual cost of $7.8 million per year.

Women Entrepreneurs – $150,000 to study the increase of mentorship among women entrepreneurs.

6. Immigration

Building on reforms to the Temporary Foreign Worker program in 2013, the budget spends $11 million over two years to limit the use of the program in high-unemployment areas and to encourage employers to transition to a Canadian workforce. Details on how this might be accomplished are thin.

This budget replaces the suspended Immigrant Investor and Entrepreneur program with an Immigrant Investor Venture Capital Fund pilot project. Details of the pilot project are not provided.
Expression of Interest System – this program would allow governments and employers to target highly skilled individuals who are interested in coming to Canada. Expressions of interest would be sorted and ranked, and government and employers could consider candidates based on their labour market needs.

7. Improvements in Labour Market Information – The central premise of this budget is based around anecdotal information from employers that a skills shortage exists, rather than critical analysis of hard evidence.  Despite desperate need for improved labour market information, this budget is completely silent on the issue. Policy based on partial and unreliable information is unlikely to address real needs. Canada does face real labour market issues that cry out for policy responses from the federal government, but this budget largely fails to address them because they refuse to examine the evidence.

B. Infrastructure for a Good Jobs Economy:
What we needed:

Greater investment in infrastructure increases Canada’s productivity while addressing the needs of Canadians. The CLC called on the federal government to launch, in partnership with the provinces and cities, a major multi-year public investment program. Such a program has to include increased support for basic municipal and First Nations infrastructure; mass transit and passenger rail; affordable housing; quality, affordable childcare; energy conservation through building retrofits and renewable energy projects.

The 2014 Federal Budget should encourage value-added production and investment in key sectors, along with green jobs and green skills initiatives, which will enhance innovation, training and labour productivity.

The federal government can take the lead in sectors and industries that demonstrate promising technological innovation that is based on the opportunity for growth, productivity growth, higher-than-average incomes, environmental sustainability, and export intensity.

The CLC supports targeted measures to sustain and create good jobs in manufacturing, and to maximize job creation in industries linked to the resource sector and green economy.

We need to involve all key stakeholders, sector by sector, industry by industry, to look at potential growth and needs. We need to invest in an economy built on a highly qualified workforce where growth and wealth are fairly shared, creating better paid and more secure jobs.

Federal and provincial governments must assist in a transition to a more sustainable economy by supporting research and development; education and training programs; demonstration projects, such as public building retrofits; programs to retrofit low-income and rental housing; and other initiatives which demonstrate the job potential of a more sustainable economy.

What is in the budget:

The 2014 Federal Budget doesn’t show the needed leadership to build Canada’s future infrastructure to support productive and sustainable economic growth. For a total of approximately $1 billion of investments that have been announced, most of it is going to repair, rebuild or replace current infrastructure, such as the Champlain Bridge in Montreal ($117M in 2014-15) or the Windsor-Detroit corridor ($195M in 2014-15), and to measures that were previously announced, such as support for Canada’s auto industry, with $250 million in 2014-15. The other measures are for targeted and limited research and development initiatives.

C. Employment Insurance (EI):
What we needed:

Employment Insurance is a necessary complement to training and skills development, and a good jobs strategy.

In its 2012 budget, the Conservative government introduced measures preventing more unemployed workers from getting access or keeping EI benefits while between jobs. Seasonal and temporary workers are directly affected, many of who are young workers and women.

These changes saved the federal government money that was used to pay down the deficit ahead of schedule. The Actuarial report on EI had projected EI coverage levels to return to their 5-year pre-recession average of 43%, but instead coverage has reached all-time lows of 37%. Savings from the lower coverage rate have helped the federal government pay down the deficit faster, at the expense of unemployed workers.

Ottawa should scrap the recent changes introduced to the EI program. The budget should also provide means to improve access to EI. Currently just 37% of unemployed Canadians receive EI benefits. The CLC calls on the government to implement a uniform, national entrance requirement of 360 hours worked for EI benefits, to increase the benefit level from 55% to 60% of insurable earnings, and to base benefit and duration calculations on a 30-hour work week.

What is in the budget:

There are very few measures around Employment Insurance in this budget. The premium rate remains frozen at $1.88 through to 2016/2017, and is forecast to fall to $1.47 in 2017 / 2018. The operating account recorded an annual surplus of $3.1 billion in 2013, and is forecast to have an annual surplus of $3.6 billion in 2014. The annual surpluses are being used to repay the deficit accumulated during the recession. The remaining amount owed to the federal government should be repaid in time for 2015.

Only one change to Employment Insurance is proposed, enhancing access to sickness benefits for parents of critically ill children. This is expected to cost about $1.2 million per year.

D. Retirement security:
What we needed:

With high personal levels of debt above 160% of income and stagnant wages, Canadians are finding it difficult to adequately save for their retirement. The CLC calls for concrete actions to improve retirement security for workers in Canada.

Commit to enhancing the Canada Pension Plan, acknowledging the more than 11 million Canadians without workplace pension plans, and inadequate retirement savings among current and future middle income-earners.

• Increase GIS benefits to address the 40% jump in Canada’s senior poverty rate between 2007 and 2010.
• Reverse Budget 2012’s commitment to raising the OAS/GIS eligibility age to 67 beginning in April 2023.
• An action plan to expose and limit mutual fund, group RRSP, and defined-contribution pension fees, as part of the government’s efforts to improve financial literacy among Canadians.
• Reverse the concessions forced on federal public-service employees in Budget 2012 (eg. raising the retirement age for new hires from 60 to 65) in recognition of the strong performance of the fund in 2013, the likely improvement in the funded status of the public-service pension plan, and the $28 billion removed from the federal public-service employee pension fund in 2000.

What is in the budget:

The 2014 Budget fails entirely to recognize the inadequate retirement savings of too many Canadians, and furthermore, outright rejects the common sense solution favoured by a majority of Canadians.

While the rest of the budget document crows about the federal government’s economic record, on the subject of expanding CPP they cite a fragile economy as the reason to avoid providing the next generation of workers in Canada with retirement security.

“Expanding the CPP… would impose a burden on employers and employees. For example, doubling the CPP replacement rate would result in an estimated increase… of up to $2,600 per worker… The Government heard the concerns of small businesses and believes that now is not the time to consider an expansion of the CPP given the fragility of the global economic recovery and the importance of small businesses in supporting the recovery domestically.” (Economic Action Plan 2014; p.95).

E. Fair Taxation:
What we needed:

Due to ongoing corporate tax cuts, corporate income taxes make up a falling share of all government revenues. Between 1997 and 2009, tax revenues of all levels of government fell from 36 percent to 31 percent of GDP, creating a $75 billion per year shortfall. At the same time, the tax system has become much more unfair. There have been deep cuts to the top personal income tax rates. The top combined federal-provincial income tax rate today is 43 percent, one half the level of the early 1950s. Dividends and stock options are taxed at much lower rates than wages.

Citizens are much better off paying taxes for public services than they would be paying for equivalent private services themselves. A study has shown that the average Canadian receives public services worth $16,000 every year, much more than she or he pays in taxes. Public health care paid for through taxes, is far more cost efficient than health care funded through private insurance, and lowers costs for both private employers and governments. Public services offer large economies of scale, and have no profits syphoned off.

Taxes also pay for income transfers so key in a fair society―such as Old Age Security (OAS), child benefits, disability benefits, and social assistance―which provides greater income security to all working people, a basic cushion for those most in need, and greater economic stability in times of high unemployment. The equalizing impacts of public spending are all the greater when the tax system is progressive, taking a higher share of the income of those who can afford to pay.

Because of the lost ability to maintain and improve social programs and public services, the vast majority of Canadians were made much worse off by tax cuts, like the two-percentage-point Conservative cut to the GST.

Corporate tax cuts have failed to encourage new investment while undermining our tax base. Corporate tax rates should be returned to at least 19 percent for all industries. At the same time, generous tax credits should be available to support tangible investments in productive, job-creating initiatives.

In addition, corporate tax cuts have allowed private, non-financial corporations in Canada to hoard over $575 billion dollars in cash reserves, money that is not invested in creating jobs in Canada.

To help create jobs and help fund investments in infrastructure, training, and income security, the Finance Minister should have provided a framework for corporations to put that money to work in the 2014 Budget, or he should have taken it back and invested it for the benefit of all Canadians.

What is in the budget:

The 2014 Federal Budget is a continuation of the Conservative agenda to balance the budget by 2015 by cutting program spending and federal worker’s benefits. Instead of putting the “dead money” back to work to create better paid and more secure jobs, the 2014 Federal Budget will be a drag on economic growth, spending $1 billion less on programs in 2014-15 compared to 2013-14. The Federal Budget continues to rely on its no-strings attached corporate tax cuts as the main measure to stimulate the economy.

In order to pay for the $12 billion per year in corporate tax cuts, the Federal Budget confirmed freezes to budget operations, announced cuts to benefits for federal employees, such as sick leave provisions for current employees and retiree benefits for future retirees. The Budget also announces increases in revenues from tobacco products, and from certain targeted tax loophole closures

Conclusion

The Budget is a matter of choice. Clearly, the choices presented today confirm that the Canadian government does not want to take advantage of its current fiscal position to invest in the expansion of a more sustainable economy, productivity, training, and helping to create good jobs while ensuring Canadian workers’ income security today and in years to come.

Cutting federal spending to balance the budget is not good for the economy. It slows down short-term economic growth and prevents Canada from reaching its maximum potential.

This budget stays the course – a course that is undeniably the wrong course for Canada. This budget mostly re-allocates spending, rather than making new investments where they are critically needed. A grab bag of boutique measures and unproductive corporate tax cuts are paid for with continued austerity. This is not a budget that will help create jobs in 2014.

The post Federal Budget – 2014 What’s in it for us? appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

But what did corporate tax cuts really deliver? What has happened to those tax dollars that were given away to corporations? Did cuts in corporate income tax really increase investment in research and development and in staff training? Did it boost productivity? Have we seen faster growth than what was observed prior to those corporate income tax cuts? Did we create better paying and more secured jobs? What has been the impact of cutting corporate tax rates on government revenues and services? Did Canadians get the promised return on their investment? The answer is a resounding No.

[[{“fid”:”175″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”},”link_text”:”what-did_corporate_tax_cuts_deliver-2014-en-web.pdf”}]]

The post What did Corporate Tax Cuts Deliver? A Background Report for Corporate Tax Freedom Day 2014 appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) is seriously broken. The proposed regulatory changes do not go far enough to address the TFWP shortcomings.

The programs have grown to epic proportions with no meaningful oversight or authentic measures to hold employers, labour brokers or immigration consultants accountable.

The program is serving as a wage suppression and displacement tool, negatively affecting both migrant workers and members of the national workforce.

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) recently released research analysis drawn from the Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey and from Citizenship and Immigration Canada data shows roughly 75% of the new jobs created in Canada in 2010 and 2011 were filled by employers accessing temporary work permits despite 1.4 million Canadian residents being unemployed. Clearly, the national workforce is being displaced from available job opportunities.

Planned government reforms, announced at the end of April intended to address flaws inherent with the TFWP, will not be adequate nor genuinely address the scope of the problems associated with granting of temporary work permits to employers, labour brokers or immigration consultants.

The federal governments unchecked expansion of the TFWP into all sectors of the labour force—particularly in what are termed the “low-skilled” occupational categories—National Occupational Classifications (NOC), Codes C &D—is enabling employers to pursue a low wage agenda and displacement strategy that negatively affect the labour force and our economic recovery.

In addition, and for too long, far too many temporary migrant workers have been subject to a wide array of abuses, inadequate workplace protections and exploitation at the hands of labour brokers and employers eager to take advantage of an unchecked system.

The situation is untenable for all workers, no matter where they come from.  Comprehensive and dramatic policy change is needed immediately.

The CLC calls for an immediate end to the growth and abuses within the TFWP and related pipelines that are displacing workers and enabling a low wage agenda that benefits employers and hurts communities and workers-no matter where they come from.

We acknowledge there will be situations of skills shortages; however, we must have a transparent and objective method in place to verify the need to issue temporary work permits. Proven methodologies exist and have been applied to the Canadian labour market in the past—they must be utilized now.

Given demographic trends of an aging population/declining birth rates and global competition for newcomers, we call for an urgent transition toward enhanced annual intake of immigrants (i.e. 400,000/year) and more robust pathways for migrant workers to obtain permanent resident status rather than maintaining temporary migration schemes.

Given that over 1 million Canadians are currently unemployed and more than 3 million are underemployed, it is evident that employers claims that so-called “low-skilled workers” (NOC, Codes C & D) are in short supply is unjustified.

The TFWP has tripled in size over a short period with employers returning year after year and in increasing number. The largest increases have been in the low-skilled occupations—sectors where workers have the least protections and lowest wages. The addictive and repetitive pattern of employers’ accessing the TFWP/low-skills programs indicates these are not temporary jobs.

We call for the end of employers’ access for temporary work permits in the “low- skills” categories (NOC, Codes C & D), excluding the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) and Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP). The phase-out of this program must begin immediately. At the same time, we are demanding the government expand pathways to permanent resident status for migrant workers currently in these streams.

We recognize that migrant workers in the SAWP and the LCP are categorized as “low-skilled” under the NOC system and that there are valid reasons to challenge the classification of caregiving, for example: as being ‘low-skilled’.

Both of these temporary migration streams within the TFWP have a long history and persistent problems.

For example, seasonal agricultural workers are tied to one employer; denied a pathway to permanent resident status despite annually returning to Canada, in some cases for decades; and in most cases, denied the right to unionize.

Reforms are required to this stream, including reinstatement of access to social service provisions which these workers pay for. In addition, seasonal agricultural workers must be provided the option of a path to permanent resident status.

Live-in caregivers are required to live in their employer’s residence for the term of their contracts subjecting them to workplace exploitation and sexual abuses.  The proposed regulatory changes do not address this long standing policy shortcoming. Rather than persist in requiring a live-in residence obligation for live-in caregivers, we recommend the regulations be amended to allow live-in caregivers to live independently of the employer’s residence with accommodation support being provided by the employer as part of the employment contract.

While there is a pathway to permanent resident status, under this program it is not a fair or just route. These workers are also prevented from taking educational training and development opportunities. This too is unjust.

Fundamental and far reaching changes are overdue for both of these program streams; hence, we demand that a meaningful consultation process with stakeholders be established that will lead to the implementation of requisite changes.

Summary

Labour and our allies are demanding comprehensive policy change in three-key areas.

The entire TFWP must be immediately scaled back in scope and there must be an end to employers access to “low-skilled” occupations streams (NOC, C&D), excluding the SAWP and LIC. Strong new eligibility requirements for employers seeking temporary work permits must be established and accountability and punitive measures to address violations must be strengthened. A meaningful consultation process must be established that will lead to the implementation of needed and wide-ranging reforms.

Comprehensive investments are needed immediately in job training and apprenticeship programs. Return to a robust national policy of permanent immigration that contributes to nation building.

Comments on the proposed regulatory amendments

It is noteworthy that the impact statement accompanying the proposed regulatory changes acknowledges the TFWP was designed to contribute “to Canada’s economic development by allowing employers to hire foreign workers to meet their short-term labour and skills needs only when qualified Canadian citizens or permanent residents are not readily available.”

This mandate is reiterated a number of times in the background paper. For example, the backgrounder also states, “When labour shortages are acute, the TFWP should be a last resort for businesses so they can continue to grow and create more opportunities for Canadians.”

There is abundant evidence that with the rapid expansion of the TFWP since 2006 these criterions (see bolded sections) have not been upheld in a rigorous manner.

Royal Bank of Canada/iGATE being granted temporary work permits for over forty workers who were being trained by workers already employed and who would have been displaced, stand as one prominent example. There is good reason to believe that this is not an isolated incident. Media reports have revealed that a number of the big banks have been maintaining this practice for some time.

The release of a 475 page document obtained by the Alberta Federation of Labour documenting thousands of employers who successfully obtained Accelerated Labour Market Opinions (ALMO) and temporary work permits for high-skilled workers to staff convenience stores, fast food restaurants and gas stations raises questions as to the integrity of the program rules are being followed.

In addition, the Globe and Mail revealed that over 33,000 employers had successfully applied for LMO’s in the period from 2010-2012. A review of the employers listed in this data set adds yet more doubt to the integrity of the TFWP.

Download the full report. [[{“fid”:”213″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”},”link_text”:”tfwresponseenglish.pdf”}]]

The post Response to the Proposed Regulatory Changes Amending the Immigration and Refugee Act as it Relates to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

But since 2006, the Harper government has made it much easier for employers of all kinds to use migrant workers. It’s like they’ve built a pipeline that can be easily tapped into.  Employers are now able to hire temporary migrant workers to harvest crops, fly planes, drive trucks, care for children and elders, respond to trouble tickets on IT help desks, and—incredibly—serve coffee at Tim Hortons and flip burgers at Wendy’s!  

[[{“fid”:”210″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”page from comic book”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”TFW comic book”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:null,”attributes”:{“alt”:”page from comic book”,”title”:”TFW comic book”,”class”:”media-element file-default”}}]]

Check out this great comic that illustrates the situation..(4mb full resolution)

The post How the Conservatives expanded the temporary worker pipeline appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

The general federal corporate income tax rate stood at 28% in 2000. It was cut to 21% under the Liberals, and then cut in stages, from 21% to 15%, under the Conservatives. The most recent cut was from 16.5% to 15%, effective January 1, 2012. The corporate tax rate remains the same in 2013, at 15%.

The argument to cut corporate income tax has been that increased, after-tax, corporate profits would be re-invested in company operations, boosting economic growth, productivity, and jobs. However, studies have shown that rising corporate after-tax profits have not resulted in increased real investment.

Instead, cuts in corporate income tax have contributed to a significant increase in cash reserves held by corporations, delivered higher compensation to CEOs, cost Canadians billions in lower than expected government revenues, led to a higher federal deficit and debt, and cuts to public services.

Corporate income tax cuts have helped private, non-financial corporations in Canada hoard more cash. According to Statistics Canada, the cash reserves of non-financial corporations increased by $72 billion in 2011, from $503 billion in cash reserves by the end of 2010 to $575 billion by the end of 2011. This extra $72 billion of “dead money” is money not at work increasing productivity, or creating more and better jobs in Canada.

When looking at taxes and cash reserves of Canada’s largest non-financial companies, those listed on the S&P/TSX Composite Index from 2001 to 2011 (financial companies and conglomerates are excluded because they typically hold large financial investments as part of their ongoing business), we find that the top-10 Corporate Hoarders have collectively accumulated $27.7 billion in cash1 since 2001.

In line with cuts to the statutory federal and provincial tax rate, the effective tax rate of Canada’s largest non-financial companies (that is, taxes actually paid to the federal and provincial governments as a share of pre-tax profits) has fallen, from 40% in 2001, to 32% in 2011.

The leading cash hoarder in 2011 was Teck Resources Limited, which accumulated over $4.4 billion in assets over this period.

[[{“fid”:”169″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”link_text”:”corporate-tax-freedom-day-2013-en.pdf”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”}}]]

The post What did Corporate Tax Cuts Deliver? (2013) appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Immediately upon becoming Prime Minister in 2006, Stephen Harper cancelled agreements with all provinces and territories that were intended to form the basis for Canada’s first national child care program — together with the federal dollars that went with them. His government “replaced” the long-awaited national program with a $100 monthly cheque-in-the-mailbox for families with children aged 0-6 years. These cheques add up to a hefty public expenditure — $2.5 billion a year, now topping $15 billion in total — with no tangible result.

In 2008, Canada ranked at the very bottom on quality and access in a UNICEF study of 25 countries.

What we all gain?

All Canadians gain from quality child care in multiple ways.

Children gain – High quality child care provides the intellectual and social simulation that promotes cognitive development and social competence, as well as a good quality of life.

Families gain – Child care supports parents going to school, training or working. It helps them balance work and family while helping provide a route out of poverty for low income families. 

Women gain – Reliable child care is fundamental for women – it is “the ramp that provides equal access to the workforce for mothers1”. Most Canadian mothers with young children are in the labour force; in 2012, 69.7% with a 0-2 year olds, 76.6% with a 3-5 year olds and 84% with a 6-15 year olds were employed. 

The economy gains – A Quebec study showed that each $100 public investment in child care yielded tax revenues of $104 to Quebec and $43 to the federal government. A Canadian study found that each public dollar spent on child care returned $2.54 in short-and long-term benefits to society and was a top economic stimulus.

We all gain – Today many people are concerned by data that shows that Canada is becoming a more unequal society, with increasing inequality between younger and older Canadians, between races, social classes, and between men and women. The idea that quality accessible child care has a key role to play in creating a more equal Canada is now part of the public and political discussion about the connections between health and wealth, public services and social justice, economics and democracy, taxation and fairness.
We all gain if child care is high quality – Quality very much matters in child care. This is a solid conclusion from three decades of research. High quality early childhood programs provide children with many kinds of social and learning benefits but can be ineffective or even negative if quality is mediocre or poor. This is especially true for children from poorly resourced or low income homes.

We all gain from universality in child care – Today families across the economic spectrum need and want good quality early childhood programs for their children.  Research shows that all children gain, not just those considered to be developmentally at risk.  And experience with health, social and education programs shows that societies gain in social inclusion and general well-being from broadly inclusive, high quality universal programs ― especially if they encourage democratic participation.  

Overall, research evidence and common sense show that we all stand to gain the most when child care is designed as a universal system that includes all children and families ― affluent, modest income and poor, children with disabilities and without, newcomers to Canada and those who settled generations ago, young parents and grandparents.   

Can we all afford it?

Canada spends considerably less than do many other countries on early childhood education and care.  Although the benchmark recommended by UNICEF is 1% of GDP, international studies show that Canada’s public spending is lowest among 14 OECD countries. Yet by international measures (such as per capita GDP), we are wealthier than many of the countries that spend much more on children and families.  And when it comes to early childhood programs, some less wealthy countries spend as much as 2% of GDP, compared to Canada’s 0.3%.

High fees are one of the main barriers for parents seeking child care in Canada. The main reason that fees are too high for ordinary families is the low level of, and inconsistency of, Canada’s public child care funding.  This means that staff wages (the biggest cost in a child care budget) and other expenses like food, equipment and rent are directly dependent on the ability of parents to pay.  As a result, both access and quality often suffer.

Parent fees vary widely across Canada, reflecting how, and how much, different provinces/territories spend on child care. Quebec has the lowest parent fees; Quebec parents pay $7/day ($154/month) for all incomes, all ages, all forms of regulated child care. Manitoba’s and P.E.I.’s provincial governments, like Quebec’s, set parent fees: respectively $431/month and $566/month for full-day toddler care (median), while the median toddler fee in Ontario was $925. And there are huge fee ranges within some provinces too. Parents may pay $1800/month or even more in Ottawa or Vancouver!   

Read the entire report..[[{“fid”:”207″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”},”type”:”media”,”attributes”:{“class”:”file media-element file-default”},”link_text”:”child-care-canada-scarce-2013-08-20-en.pdf”}]]

The post Child care in Canada: A scarce resource – the report appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Today, it is unacceptable that many of our First Nations should be subjected to conditions where there is no access to safe potable water. The following examples of the deplorable conditions that exist in many First Nation communities clearly demonstrate that access to clean water for First Nation citizens is not a priority for Canada. These conditions would not be tolerated in any municipal setting and if they are to occur, swift and decisive action is the norm and is expected.

In 2005, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development issued a very critical review of the activities  undertaken and lack of progress made by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Health Canada in providing safe  drinking water to First Nations. Finally, on March 22, 2006, INAC and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) agreed to the Plan of Action for Drinking Water in First Nation communities. First Nations continue to be frustrated by the lack of real  progress being made in addressing the shameful conditions of many First Nation communities. The government’s recent  Action Plan Report obscures the fact that very little progress has been made on the fundamental issues facing First Nations  access to safe drinking water.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted the human right to water in 2002. And  yet, in 2008, at least 85 First Nation water systems are in high risk and there are close to 100 boil water advisories in various communities. The access to safe potable water not only ensures the protection of the community’s health and well-being but it is also inextricably tied to its economic well-being. The conditions illustrated in the following case studies point to Canada’s lack of interest in making life better for its First Nation citizens and I hope this will serve to show the real conditions for far too many of our First Nations citizens.

Read more – Download the PDF

The post “Boiling Point” A profile of the water crisis facing six First Nation Communities in Canada appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

Leading economists, including bank economists, say that Canada’s economic recovery is stalling due to slowing business investment, high household debt, and weak global growth. Lower than expected exports along with a slowdown in construction starts, and historically high consumer debt, along with ongoing budget cuts, are having a negative impact on Canada’s economic growth and its labour market.

The latest projections published by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the Bank of Canada and major banks have reduced the expected economic growth in Canada below 2% for 2013. Private sector economist real GDP growth estimates used in this 2013 federal budget have also been revised, from 2% as predicted in the Fall 2012 Economic and Fiscal update to 1.6% for 2013. At that level, growth will be too slow to absorb job seekers, and this will maintain and even expand the number of Canadians looking for work.

Canada’s unemployment rate remains higher than it was prior to the great recession, at 7%. Canada counts 1.3 million unemployed workers. It is also discouraging for many unemployed Canadians to look for work when there is only 1 job available for every 5.7 unemployed workers seeking work. The real unemployment rate, which includes involuntary part-timers and discouraged job seekers, is 10.8% in February 2013. Meanwhile, the Conservative government introduced measures in 2012 forcing unemployed Canadians to look for jobs that do not exist or run the risk of loosing their EI benefits, which they paid for, if they do not agree to take lower paying jobs for which they are over-qualified, and at a distance of up to one hour’s travel time.

The federal government’s fiscal position is excellent when compared to others. The deficit stands at just 1.4% of GDP in 2012-2013. Total Canadian net government debt in 2011 was the lowest among G-7 counties, at just 33.3% of GDP, compared to the OECD average of 80.4%. Interest rates remain at historically low levels and the government of Canada can borrow through 10-year bonds at under a 2% rate of interest.

Considering the state of the economy, the labour market and the relatively strong fiscal position of the Federal government, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) was calling for action in this 2013 federal budget in five areas to help create good jobs in 2013 and beyond, and improve income security: infrastructure; sectoral strategy; training; income security and retirement security.

Unfortunately, the 2013 federal budget will continue with the Conservative’s fiscal austerity agenda, with cuts to balance the budget by the next federal election. The Conservative government is counting on faster growth after 2013 to compensate for the slower growth projected for 2013, plus announced cuts, to balance the budget in 2015-2016. Direct federal government program spending will fall by $4 billion in the coming fiscal year, the result of deep spending cuts already announced in the 2012 budget combined with some tiny increases in the new budget. The deficit is predicted to go down from $25.9 billion in 2012-2013 to a surplus of $800 million in 2015-2016.

Labour’s plan for more and better jobs and income security

The Canadian Labour Congress was calling for action in five areas to help create good jobs in 2013 and beyond, and to improve income security: infrastructure; sectoral strategy; training; income security; and retirement security.

A. Infrastructure:
What we needed:

The federal government’s infrastructure program was set to expire in April 2014. Greater investment in infrastructure increases Canada’s productivity while addressing the needs of Canadians. The CLC called on the federal government to launch, in partnership with the provinces and cities, a major multi-year public investment program. Such a program has to include increased support for basic municipal and First Nations infrastructure; mass transit and passenger rail; affordable housing; quality, affordable childcare; energy conservation through building retrofits; and renewable energy projects.

What is in the budget:

The 2013-2014 federal budget shuffles existing investments in infrastructure into a 10 year and $53 billion allocation of new and existing funding available to all levels of government to build roads, bridges, subways, commuter rail and other infrastructure, starting in the 2014-2015 fiscal year. This $53 billion will come from an already committed $32.2 billion consisting of the gas tax fund and the implementation of the GST tax rebate, $14 billion in support of major infrastructure, including $4 billion for federal infrastructure spending, and $1.25 billion to renew the P3 Canada Fund that has proven to be ineffective. Some of this infrastructure money will be reallocated to fund Aboriginal infrastructure, such as $155 million over 10 years to support investment in First Nations infrastructure projects on reserves.

No additional infrastructure spending is announced for 2013, despite slow economic growth in 2013 and the need to rebuild our infrastructure. On top of that, infrastructure spending available to municipalities will be decreased from an average of $3.25 billion to an indexed $3 billion in 2014-2015. This is very disappointing considering the need to invest more in infrastructure to improve productivity while addressing needs of Canadians.

B. Sectoral Strategy:
What we needed:

Canada’s over reliance on exporting unprocessed and semi-processed resources has a negative impact on jobs and our economy. The 2013 federal budget should encourage value-added production and investment in key sectors, along with green jobs and green skills initiatives, which will enhance innovation, training and labour productivity. The CLC supports targeted measures to sustain and create good jobs in manufacturing, and to maximize job creation in industries linked to the resource sector and green economy.

What is in the budget:

The 2013 federal budget recycles and extends multiple announcements supporting manufacturing, such as a two year extension to 2017-2018 for manufacturers to accelerate the capital cost allowance for new investment in machineries and equipment; $920 million to renew the Federal Economic Development Agency for 5 years, including $200 million for the new Advance Manufacturing Fund in Ontario; secure funding for aerospace and defence strategic initiatives; and continued support for forestry with $92 million over 2 years. Most of these fairly positive measures will be implemented only after April 2014 despite the need for more today.

Nothing in this 2013-2014 federal budget addresses the need to encourage value-added production and investments in sectors, along with green jobs and green skills initiatives. The Conservative government of Canada is missing a great opportunity to expand economic growth by assisting investment in transforming the natural resources extracted in Canada, and instead continues to export jobs abroad with its over reliance on exporting unprocessed and semi-processed resources. What is even more disappointing is that nothing is done to support investment in green jobs and greens skills initiatives to help reduce the ecological footprint of our economic activities and build a more sustainable economy for future generations.

C. Training:
What we needed:

Canada’s economic success and future prosperity depend on a skilled and educated workforce. Unfortunately, Canada falls well below the OECD average in the average hours of job-related, non-formal skills training for employees, and in employer investment in skills training generally. What is needed is a skills development strategy in response to a growing skills gap, an ageing workforce, and the need for greater educational opportunities for groups such as Aboriginals, recent immigrants, and youth. What is needed is better collaborations between all skills development stakeholders, more and better labour market information, and better labour market planning. What is needed is investment of new money in training workers in Canada, instead of making it easier for employers to bring in more vulnerable migrant workers. What we don’t need is money taken away from programs that are already addressing specific issues of labour market integration, such as support for unemployed and underemployed workers in the area of literacy and numeracy, to have it given to subsidize employers.

The CLC calls for a national, tripartite skills development strategy in response to a growing skills gap, an ageing workforce, and the need for greater educational opportunities for groups such as Aboriginals, recent immigrants, and youth. While this budget talks about addressing these issues, there is very little in terms of new money or new initiatives.

What is in the budget:

While it is clear that Canadian employers do not provide enough training, what today’s announcement on training does is shuffle money around and take money away from training provided to workers who don’t qualify for the Employment Insurance program, and give it to subsidize employers to do something they should already be doing: provide training to their new workers.

Budget 2013 outlines a three point plan to address Canada’s labour market needs:

The Canada Job Grant, which uses money allocated to literacy and numeracy training and other forms of support for low-skilled unemployed workers who do not qualify for Employment Insurance;
Creating Opportunities for Apprentices, which reallocates existing money to implement much needed initiatives for apprentices in Canada;
Supporting Job Opportunities for All Canadians, which has some new money for internships and newcomers, but mostly continues or reallocates existing spending for persons with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples.

1- The Canada Job Grant

The Canada Job Grant takes $300 million-per-year from the current $500 million Labour Market Agreements (LMA) going to provinces, and allocates it to a grant for job-related training. Employers will apply for grants to provide their employees with training, up to a maximum of $15,000 per employee. One third of funding will come from the employer, one third from the province, and the federal government will provide the final third. It is not clear that the new Canada Job Grant will support portable, certified training for jobs in highly skilled occupations.

The money can be used at existing training institutions, but details will have to be negotiated with the provinces and others. Employers, educational institutions, and labour unions will be consulted in this process. The renewed LMA with Canada Job Grants will be implemented for 2014-2015, as the current LMAs expire in 2014.

While initiatives to foster a training culture within Canadian workplace is certainly much needed, this should not come at the expense of much needed existing training for low-skilled workers.

Current training spending through LMAs and LMDAs meets this critical labour market need. Adequate literacy is one key skill that many Canadians lack. The LMA is the sole source of government funding for workplace literacy training. A 2003 study found that almost 1 in 2 Canadian adults (age 16-65) lack adequate reading and numeracy skills1. For example, in Ontario 70% of literacy training funding is provided through the LMDA and LMA. Literacy and numeracy training enables Canadians to take on higher skilled, in demand job training, such as construction trade apprenticeships. Statistics Canada finds that a 1% increase in literacy results in a 2.5% increase in productivity and a 1.5% increase in output per capita. Nothing justifies the current reallocation of money from literacy into the hands of employers. More money should have been allocated to do both.

The federal government will also renegotiate LMDAs with the provinces and territories to “reorient training to labour market demand.” Budget 2013 specifically mentions that employers will be consulted, but neglects worker representatives. Labour unions should be involved in consultations renewing LMDAs, since the $1.95 billion-per-year is paid out of the EI fund, which employees and employers pay into.

2- Creating Opportunities for Apprentices

The 2013 federal budget reallocates $4 million over 3 years to harmonize apprenticeship requirements across Canada, and to ensure that assessment methods make sense. This measure will improve the certification process and mobility of Canadian workers. This is welcome news that will assist Canadians in finding jobs in their field across Canada.

The 2013 federal budget will also ensure that federal projects and projects with federal funding will employ apprentices. This includes funding directed toward affordable housing and the new Building Canada Infrastructure Plan. This is something that the Canadian Labour Congress has been calling for years, and we are pleased to see this action in budget 2013.

3- Supporting Job Opportunities for All Canadians

The 2013 federal budget also puts in place targeted measures for specific groups under-represented in the labour market.

Current Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities will be renegotiated with the provinces and territories. Existing agreements will be extended for one year, to March 2014, to allow time to negotiate new agreements. The focus of the new agreements will be “demand-driven” training. The budget also has a one time funding of $2 million over two years to fund the creation of a Canadian Employers Disability Forum to share best practises for the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities. It also provides for the extension of the annual $15 million to enable workplace adjustment for persons with disabilities

The budget reallocates $19 million to educate youth about high demand fields. This will prove of little use without better labour market information and better co-ordination between employers, educational institutions, and labour. Budget 2013 continues support for programs aimed at increasing high school graduation rates for high-risk youth.

It also increases support for internships for recent post-secondary graduates – $70 million over three years for an additional 5,000 paid internships, on top of the 3,000 paid internships announced in budget 2012. Since experience is currently one of the key skills shortages, this is a good initiative to address the unemployment and underemployment of youth.

The budget reallocates training for On-Reserve Income Assistance Recipients with $241 million over five years to provide training to First Nations youth currently receiving income assistance. The funding is split between personalized job training and service delivery infrastructure for reserves. This funding is only available to reserves who make it mandatory for youth receiving Income Assistance. Provincial workfare rules apply.

The 2013 budget proposes measures to ensure that employers only hire temporary foreign workers when there are truly no Canadians available. Employers who truly require temporary foreign workers must have a plan to transition to a Canadian workforce over time. But no details on how they would achieve this have been provided. Budget 2013 also proposes user fees for employers accessing the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, to offset costs. Budget 2013 introduces new money to expand the Temporary Resident Program and the Citizenship program.

There is nothing in the 2013 budget to assist women in their labour market integration, such as support for access to male-dominated jobs or implementation a quality, affordable childcare program.

Of all measures announced to better connect unemployed and under-employed workers with better jobs, almost 85% of the money announced is money shuffled around. Only 15% of it is new money. While some of these measures are welcomed, more should have been done and new money should have been allocated to these initiatives.

D. Employment Insurance (EI):
What we needed:

In its 2012 budget, the Conservatives government introduced measures preventing more unemployed workers from getting access or keeping EI benefits while between jobs. Seasonal and temporary workers are directly affected, many of who are young workers and women.

Ottawa should scrap the recent changes introduced to the EI program. The budget should also provide means to improve access to EI. Currently just 37% of unemployed Canadians receive EI benefits. The CLC calls on the government to implement a uniform, national entrance requirement of 360 hours worked for EI benefits, to increase the benefit level from 55% to 60% of insurable earnings, and to base benefit and duration calculations on a 30-hour work week.

What is in the budget:

The 2013 federal budget confirms that the EI account is in surplus and there is no need to cut EI benefits to those who need them most. Based on the 2013 federal budget estimates, the revenues extracted from EI premiums paid by employers and employees will be $1.4 billion more that benefits paid to EI beneficiaries in 2013-2014. This surplus will double to $2.8 billion next year (2014-2015), then $4.1 billion in 2015-2016.

While we claim that the EI account has remained in surplus during the great recession, when factoring in the $57 billion of surpluses accumulated since the mid-90s, the revised estimates show that EI debt that was accrued because of the great recession will be eliminated by 2016-2017. As a result, the 2013-2014 federal budget already projects to reduce EI premiums to $1.53 per $100 of insurable earnings in 2017-2018, down from $1.93 to be collected in 2016-2017.

On top of that, workers’ premiums paid to EI will continue to subsidize an EI premium credit for larger small businesses. Employers with EI payrolls of over $15,000 (up from $10,000 last year) will be getting a tax credit of up to $1,000. This is paid out of the EI accounts.

Instead of taking away surpluses from EI to balance its budget and announce cuts to EI premiums without any consultations, Ottawa should scrap the recent changes introduced to the EI program and improve access to EI as proposed above.

E. Retirement security:

With high personal levels of debt above 160% of income and stagnant wages, Canadians are finding it difficult to adequately save for their retirement. The CLC continues to call for a doubling of future CPP benefits, phased-in on a fully pre-funded basis.

Most provinces agree that improving the CPP is the best way to ensure that seniors can live in dignity in retirement, but the federal government is dragging its feet. The CPP delivers a defined benefit, fully indexed to inflation, and operates at much lower cost than the proposed Pooled Registered Pension Plans, which will generate large fees for the financial sector and provide a much less secure income for workers in retirement.

The CLC also calls on Ottawa to reverse its decision to move the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS to age 67. The CLC further calls for a 12% increase in the GIS to eliminate poverty among the elderly.

What is in the budget:

In its 2013 federal budget, the Conservative government announced few measures dealing with retirement security. They announced that work will be done with partners to improve financial literacy among seniors, but they do not allocate any resources to achieve this objective. They renewed their willingness to implement Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPP). They proposed to introduce changes to distressed pension plans without providing details on how. But there was no announcement on the need to improve the retirement security of Canadians by expanding the Canada Pension Plan and returning the eligibility age of Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Security to 65.

Worse, the 2013 budget is eliminating federal registered Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital and is phasing-out Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital tax credit used by many Canadians as a pension scheme to help achieve their retirement security, while these corporations invest those savings to maintain and create jobs in Canada. The 15% tax credit applicable to a maximum of 5,000$ per year and match by most provinces will be decreased to 10% in 2015, and 5% in 2016, and eliminated after 2017.

We can afford it:

The federal government’s economic plan is based on the false assumption that if it cuts corporate taxes, the money flowing to companies will be spent to create economic activity and jobs in Canada.

The general federal corporate income tax rate was cut by the Liberals from 28% to 21% between 2000 and 2006, and from 21% to 15% under the Conservatives. Despite a few announcements to close loopholes, the Conservatives continued to cut corporate taxes from 19% to 15% between 2009 and 2012, despite the financial crisis and while running deficits.

Corporate tax cuts have cost Canadians billions of dollars in lower than expected government revenues, led to a higher federal deficit and debt, and led to cuts to their public services and programs.

In addition, corporate tax cuts have allowed private, non-financial corporations in Canada to hoard over $575 billion dollars in cash reserves, money that is not invested in creating jobs in Canada.

To help create jobs and help fund investments in infrastructure, training, and income security, the Finance Minister should either have provided a framework for corporations to put that money to work in its 2013 budget, or he should have taken it back and invested it for the benefit of all Canadians.

Cutting federal spending to balance the budget is not good for the economy. It slows down short-term economic growth and prevents Canada from reaching its maximum potential growth when strategic investments are made to stimulate jobs today.

Conclusion

The budget is a question of choice. Clearly, the choices presented today confirm that the Canadian government does not want to take advantage of its excellent fiscal position to invest in the expansion of a more sustainable economy, productivity, training, and helping to create good jobs while ensuring Canadian workers’ income security today and in years to come.

Today’s unemployment rate is 7.0%, and the budget projections set the unemployment rate to go down to only 6.9% in 2013. This is not a budget that will help create jobs in 2013.

Instead of taking advantage of its fiscal position and trying to put dead money to work by getting more Canadians working in 2013 and beyond, this budget contains no significant new investments in infrastructure in 2013. The budget also reduces investments in infrastructure in 2014 2015. There is also no sectoral strategy to add value to natural resources extracted in Canada, which would prevent jobs from being exported from Canada.

This budget also reallocates money in training instead of investing more money in training. It transfers money formerly allocated to support unemployed workers to employers to subsidize training that they should already be paying for.

All this will take place while ongoing cuts are maintained which will continue to affect services, have a negative impact on job creation and on the income security of Canadians.

1Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRDC) and Statistics Canada, Building on Our Competencies: Canadian Results of the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey 2003 (Ottawa: 2005), Catalogue no. 89-617-XIE

The post CLC Analysis of the 2013 Federal Budget appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.

There is a guide for health and safety reps for when there is an injury or fatality at work.

We even have a guide for the police to use when investigating corporate criminal negligence in cases of serious workplace injuries and fatalities. The Guide is entitled, Death & Injury at Work: A Criminal Code Offence.

Has your labour council, union or have you contacted your local law enforcement about death and injury at work? You should.

The post Death and Injury at Work, Prosecutions appeared first on Canadian Labour Congress.