ALF V1

The Alberta government is bracing for protests after introducing what critics are calling anti-union changes to the province's labour code.
Employment Minister Hector Goudreau has confirmed that extra sheriffs have been brought to the legislature this week in case of any unruly demonstrations.

The legislation bans strikes and lockouts for ambulance workers and prevents unions from subsidizing contract bids by unionized contractors competing with non-union firms.

The changes will also prevent union-supporting workers from joining a non-union company to kick start the process of unionizing the firm, a practice known as salting.

The Alberta Federation of Labour opposes the changes as does the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

CHQR Newsroom, Tues Jun 3 2008

Government officials are so concerned about the potential for strife over changes to Alberta's labour code that they have beefed up security at the legislature.

"We expect individuals to come and voice their displeasure with what we're doing," said Alberta Employment Minister Hector Goudreau Monday.

Goudreau said extra sheriffs have been brought in this week, but he would not provide any details.

"We're trying to minimize conflicts by just being more on the cautious side."

The changes announced to the labour code Monday are the first in 20 years. Among other things they will ban strikes by ambulance workers and prevent unions from subsidizing contract bids by unionized contractors competing with non-union firms.

The new legislation will also prevent union organizers from joining a non-union company to kick-start the process of unionizing the firm - a practice known as "salting."

CBC News , Tuesday, June 3, 2008

EDMONTON - The Alberta government moved swiftly today towards passing controversial labour code amendments, despite ongoing criticism from labour groups.

Just before debate started on Bill 26, the government made a motion to limit time spent on the matter. Opposition parties accused the government of stifling its opponents.

An NDP press release said the government was jamming the bill through the legislature "in time to hit the golf courses and barbecue circuit."

Liberal Hugh MacDonald said the sooner the government passes the bill, the less chance they will face opposition. "It's restricting and limiting public debate on a public bill," MacDonald said. "They want to steamroll this through and they do not want people get organized to oppose this legislation."

Conservative MLAs argued that opposition members will still have plenty of time to make their case during the seven hours the bill is in committee.

"What argument cannot be made by the opposition members within their allocated 30 or 40 minutes?" Tory Neil Brown asked.

A spokesman for the premier's office said they are hoping to have the bill passed by the end of the week, but are prepared to go into next week if the opposition prolongs the debate.

Union leaders continued to bash the bill, which was introduced Monday. It bans ambulance workers from striking and puts limits on so-called "salting" and "MERFing" practices.

Salting is when a union employee or sympathizer gets a job at a non-union workplace in order to organize workers or disrupt the company's operations. Unions argue the practice is rare, but contractors' associations say it is fairly common.

Market Enhancement Recovery Funds, or MERFs, are used by unions to help union contractors win bids. They are used, for example, to help employers provide benefits or higher salaries to their workers. The government has argued these funds distort the marketplace and harm non-union shops.

Stephen Kushner of the Merit Contractor's association says it's about protecting workers from unwanted salting practices and protecting non-union shops from unfair bidding.

"It's long overdue," he said. This morning, union leaders met for about 30 minutes with Employment Minister Hector Goudreau. They emerged unhappy. "The minister called us together not to hear our concerns or consider our suggestions, but rather to tell us the way things were going to be," said Alberta Federation of Labour President Gil McGowan.

McGowan said the bill isn't about making the market more fair or about worker choice. "What it's really about is tilting the playing field even further in favour of the merit contractors and other friends of the government."

Elisabeth Ballermann, the president of the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, said the government did little or no consultation with unions. She said the bill does nothing but hurt working people.

"There's nothing there but stripping away workers' rights, whether it's construction workers, ambulance workers, et cetera, et cetera," Ballermann said.

The NDP and others accused the government of hitting back at unions who bankrolled an advertising campaign last election attacking the government.

Goudreau said it was a hot issue on the hustings during the last election, particularly after the ads began to air.

"The ad campaign triggered a pile of discussions as we knocked on doors. They were saying why would they do that? So part of that enhanced that type of discussion. Now that's not the only reason. We've been talking about salting and MERFing for seven or eight years."

Speaking to reporters in Calgary, Stelmach said the bill came up now not because of revenge, but because the government finally had time to do it.

"I'm taking a bunch of issues off the backburner," Stelmach said. "There was only so much I could do in the first 14 months."

Debate continues today.

Edmonton Journal, Tues Jun 3 2008
Byline: Archie McLean

A day after the government tabled its anti-worker Bill 26: The Labour Relations Amendment Act, Albertans are wondering what would motivate such a blatant attack on constitutionally-protected rights. The answer, says the AFL, is the Bill is a reward for the Conservatives' friends in the anti-union Merit Contractors and Progressive Contractors (PCAC) Associations.

"Not many Albertans know who the Merit Contractors or the Progressive Contractors associations are," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "They have a knack for staying below the radar somewhat. Yet, Albertans need to know they are the driving forces behind the anti-worker Bill tabled in the Legislature yesterday."

"These changes didn't just come out of nowhere, and they weren't cooked up in the 2 months since the election," observes McGowan. "Merit and PCAC have been lobbying for these changes for years. And they finally got their Christmas morning."

"This Bill is about rewarding your friends in the construction industry at the expense of fairness and the well-being of thousands of construction workers."

Merit and PCAC are both organizations founded on the principle of "open shop", which is a model of labour relations which downplays unions and enhances employer rights. Both organizations have a long track record of taking anti-union stands on policy issues. Many of their members are well-connected in the Conservative party - including some who were instrumental in the defeat of MLA David Eggen in Edmonton Calder this spring.

Merit has been lobbying for restrictions on salting and MERFs for a decade. In a 2002 report called "Building A Labour Relations Code for the 21st Century", Merit directly calls for the amendments in the legislation. On MERFs: "One of the more insidious strategies to emerge in Canada & is so-called market enhancement recovery funds." (p. 32) On salting: "some unions are perverting these protections through an organizing tactic & called "salting'." (p. 27)

In its explanation for the Bill, Employment and Immigration Minister Hector Goudreau pointed to a 2004 report examining labour relations in the construction industry. The report has two recommendations - identical to the provisions in Bill 26. The committee consisted of three Conservative MLAs, a representative from the Merit Contractors and a representative from the Building Trades Council. (The Building Trades representative wrote a dissenting report opposing both recommendations.)

One of the MLAs, Brent Rathegeber, went on to become the Director for the Progressive Contractors Association after his defeat in 2004. PCAC is now headed by former Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) Director Co Vanderlaan. CLAC is infamous in construction for its employer-friendly, collaborationist approach to unionism (so-called "alternative unionism").

"This bill is not about levelling playing fields, it is about handing a big stick to the most rabidly anti-union employers in the construction industry," McGowan concludes.

- 30 -

For more information contact:
Gil McGowan, AFL President  @  780.483-3021 (office) or 780.218-9888 (cell)

NOTE: AFL President Gil McGowan will be holding a media availability at 5:15 p.m. on the steps of the Legislature to comment on the Bill.

The Alberta Federation of Labour responded today to the tabling of Bill 26: the Labour Relations Amendment Act, by declaring it a frontal attack on the basic rights of Alberta workers.

"This is what Conservatives do - squeeze workers for the benefit of employers," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "The Conservatives have long been anti-labour and this bill is their latest attempt to kick workers in the shins. They are simply using their new majority to exercise their anti-worker reflexes."

The bill restricts the ability of construction workers to join a union, strips ambulance workers of their right to strike and bans negotiated funds to bolster construction bids.

"This bill is intended to make it almost impossible for construction workers to express their democratic right to join a union by imposing unnecessary waiting and reconsideration periods," says McGowan. "They are being told their constitutional right to associate doesn't apply in Alberta."

McGowan says this kind of outrageous action is to be expected from this government. "Every time the Tories amend the Code, they make it worse. The last changes in 1988 made the Alberta Code the worst in the country. These changes make it even worse."

It is during boom times that workers are more likely to exert their rights to join a union, McGowan points out, because unions help workers get a fair share of the economic boom. "This bill is timed to prevent workers improving their working conditions during the boom. It is intended to keep workers' wages down."

"The problem of compulsory arbitration for ambulance workers is that it gives employers a free ticket to not negotiate in good faith," notes McGowan. "The union can't use the threat of a strike as a tool for getting a fair deal."

"Alberta is continuing its dubious distinction of being the most anti-worker jurisdiction in the country. During a boom when labour is in high demand, it is an odd message to be sending," concludes McGowan.

- 30 -

The president of a national union was "shocked" and "dismayed" this morning to learn of the federal government's approval of two pipelines via a phone call from Today.

A further twist shortly after that phone call revealed the National Energy Board had also not been informed of the government's decision. That board gives final approval for pipeline applications.

These applications, according to Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, were not supposed to have been approved before considering a request from the federal natural resources standing committee. CEP has a formal petition before cabinet asking that the pipelines not be approved.

A press release issued by Enbridge Tuesday lauding the decision is what prompted the call to CEP, a known opponent of the pipelines, citing the need for better Canadian energy security.

One pipeline will run from Hardisty, Alta. to Superior, Wis.; its initial capacity will be 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil.

The other pipeline will transport diluent, a liquid used to allow non-upgraded oilsands to travel by pipeline, from the U.S. Midwest to Edmonton.

The standing committee urged the federal government to delay the decision of the two applications "until the standing committee has reviewed all of the implications on this, and other proposed pipelines on Canada's energy security ... development, public interest, and that the standing committee has reported its findings to the house."

The request was only tabled, not passed, and remains on the books.

"This is an official government standing committee (asking) the gov to hold on until they get to look at it, and make recommendations to the government -- they get the centre finger .... they gave them the royal salute," said Coles from his Ottawa office.

A response from the federal government about the approvals isn't expected until later this afternoon.

Coles said he can't understand why the prime minister wouldn't listen to his own standing committee, chaired by a Conservative, on such an important issue.

"These guys are like drunken sailors just doing the bidding for big oil.

"I was in Louisiana when (Stephen) Harper went on about the huge role Canada has to play in the energy security of the United States ... Canada has no national energy security; people in eastern Canada are completely at the mercy of the Yanks.

"What is going on here?"

Asked what he was going to do now, Coles replied first, "Get over the shock of having you tell me."

Then "We are not going to sit on our hands," he promised. "Why is the prime minister concerned about the energy needs of the U.S. and not the energy needs of Canada? Why is that question not in the public eye?"

The Alberta Federation of Labour is another opponent to the pipelines which it has likened to a bitumen superhighway, taking Alberta resources and jobs south.

Disappointed but not surprised at the federal approval, Gil McGowan, president, said the federal and provincial governments seem to be blind to what's going on.

"The energy companies are in the process of establishing a continental energy system in which Alberta is being assigned the role of low value extractor, and the Americans are reserving for themselves, the role of high value upgrader and refiner."

And that is neither in the Alberta public interest nor the broader Canadian public interest, said McGowan.

"Our leaders, both at the federal and provincial level, don't seem to care. We feel very strongly they're letting the public down."

"Instead of letting energy companies, and the American state department determine our energy future, our leaders should be blazing their own path, but clearly that's not happening."

Fort McMurray Today, Page A1, Wed May 14 2008
Byline: Carol Christian

The Canadian Labour Congress has called a National Consumer Boycott of Robin Hood flour, oatmeal, and baking products. The boycott is at the request of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and is in support of 61 locked-out members of UFCW Canada Local 416P in Ontario who are waiting for Horizon Milling to negotiate a fair collective agreement. Your support can help these workers win their struggle.

Provincial NDP Leader Brian Mason thinks it's unfair that unions outspent his party on television advertising by a margin of more than 10 to one in the recent provincial election.

"The main conversation that took place in the election was not between the opposition parties and the government -- it was between Albertans for Change and the government," Mason told The Journal on Thursday.

Just whose fault was that? The government's? Albertans for Change's? Or our sad-sack opposition parties'?

I'll grant it's odd that the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, the United Nurses of Alberta and the Alberta Building Trades Council chose to form a front group -- Albertans for Change (AFC) -- to present voters with their case against the long-standing Tory government, rather than throwing their money -- estimated at $2 million -- and organization might behind Mason's party.

But the very fact the unions did not support their traditional allies in the NDP shows precisely why a gag law limiting advertising by third parties -- special interests, unions, citizen organizations, etc. -- would be a threat to democracy, rather than an enhancement of it.

In the coming weeks, if the Tory government goes ahead with a bill curtailing ads such as those by the AFC, expect all those in favour to claim it is necessary to preserve our democracy.

But don't believe a word of it.

If Mason's NDP had offered unions the solid chance they were seeking to unseat the Tories, the unions would have backed the NDP. But the unions looked at the two opposition parties on the left -- the Liberals and the NDP -- and decided neither was capable of upsetting the Tory government that organized labour so despises. So they chose instead to form their own umbrella organization, the purpose of which was to convince Albertans to vote for some party other than the Tories.

Thankfully, we live in the one province left in all of Canada where groups of voters such as AFC can still legally launch their own campaign for change during elections. In every other province (and federally), such an independent advertising strategy would have been prohibited. Severe restrictions on third-party ads during elections have given the registered parties a monopoly over the agenda.

Hence Mason's whiney complaint dressed up as a defence of fairness in elections is really a demand for spending laws that ensure parties and their leaders are the only game in town during elections. If Alberta has a gag law in place by the next provincial election, the unions will be forced to funnel their money through a party or parties or forget about trying to have an impact on the outcome.

Why are so many people in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada convinced that elections must be the exclusive purview of official political parties or otherwise they are unfair?

I can understand why party leaders have swallowed this tripe: It serves their selfish interests. Third-party advertising bans ensure parties have no competition for voter attention. Issues the parties don't want raised don't get raised because no one other than the official political parties is permitted enough advertising on television or radio or in newspapers to raise voters' awareness.

Why shouldn't groups of dissatisfied citizens be permitted the same spending limits as official parties?

We are told by the parties, the courts and ethics watchdogs that gag laws prevent Big Money from buying elections, that they preserve a level playing field. But level for whom?

Gag laws give official parties monopolies over debate during the most crucial event in a democracy -- an election.

If such laws level the field, it is only for official parties, not for official parties and third parties and ordinary citizens.

What if you are a voter on the right who favours massive tax cuts, but the only party on the right is so eager to prove itself moderate that it won't advocate the depth of cuts you favour? The parties on the left aren't going to take up your case, so you and others who agree with you are shut out of the debate when only parties are permitted to spend significant sums on ads.

Similarly, what if you are on the left and you believe free trade must be ended but no left-of-centre party is prepared to go so radical? How do you ensure your issue is debated if all the parties can ignore you?

Perhaps low voter turnout is connected to the lack of alternatives the official parties offer. Gags laws would only make that apathy worse.

Finally, consider how foolish it is of the Stelmach government to propose third-party spending limits right after an election in which Alberta witnessed the biggest third-party campaign in its history and yet the government that was the target of the ads was returned with an expanded majority.

If ever you needed proof that gag laws are unnecessary, our recent provincial election is it.

Massive third-party spending failed to sway voters when they didn't want to be swayed.

Money doesn't automatically buy elections.

Edmonton Journal, Sun May 11 2008
Byline: Lorne Gunter

Months after the provincial election, with the closure of the spring legislature session now a beacon of light at the end of a long, dark tunnel, there's still a lot of denial out there.

Apparently, what happened on March 3 when Ed Stelmach defied the wise guys and won a massive landslide victory didn't actually happen.

Or if it did, there was some kind of underlying skulduggery that tricked dopey Albertans into voting Tory for the 12th consecutive time.

They really, really wanted change, but voted against change anyway.

What a bunch of dummies.

Alberta Liberal leader Kevin Taft was warming up to the theme last week based on two inconsequential events that have been blown up into mega-proportions.

The first is a meeting that Calgary MLA David Swann held (reports put the massive crowd at "25 to 30") to discuss the need to not only unite the left, but perhaps start a brand new party.

An overwhelming majority of Albertans rejected the Liberal, NDP and Green brands in the last election - for a number of very good reasons.

The other catalyst for change is a paper that Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan sent to select members of the denial media trying to rally the troops on the left - and the loony left.

McGowan's most recent attempt to change the course of Alberta political history turned into a train wreck when his "No Plan" anti-Stelmach attack ads back-fired and building trades, AUPE and other union members saw $2.2 million in dues flushed down the toilet.

"It worked in our favour," the premier winked last week.

He talked about the cards and calls received from "upset" union members.

Now the premier wants to put a tight noose on third-party advertising as part of his proposed "full package" of election reforms.

McGowan's new plan is the same-old, same-old excuse that vote-splitting, and not offensive policies and lacklustre leaders, caused the demise of the left on March 3.

So he wants the Liberals, NDP and Greens to cut a deal and not run against each other.

But it's Swann's apparent delusion that the Liberals, NDP and Greens are fundamentally the same thing that defies all logic.

Of course, it was Swann who talked the Liberals into campaigning on shutting down oilsands expansion and winter natural-gas rebates.

That allowed Stelmach to resurrect the ghost of Pierre Trudeau's NEP. It was a landslide winner. Even Taft occasionally comes in from his space walk.

While he insisted "we should be looking at all the options," there really is only one.

"Going to a new party and trying to build a new party from the ground up doesn't make sense," he confessed.

"The Liberals have the chassis that everyone else needs to bring about political change," Taft added.

That's if you buy into Kevin and his media buddies' untested theory that change is in the air. Thousands on March 3 didn't.

"There could be a different name, could be a different leader, could be different policies," he said.

"But there is a very strong base here."

That's exactly the point that Swann clearly doesn't get.

One-in-four Alberta voters are red-scarf-wearing, big "L" Liberals. Heck, they even get misty-eyed when Pierre Trudeau's name comes up.

There's no known cure.

Among them, there's a faction that see Liberalism not as a political philosophy, but a means to an end.

As long as there are Liberal governments from time to time in Ottawa, being an outpost Alberta Liberal can become very lucrative.

That was the case for Senator Grant Mitchell and Senator Nick Taylor, who both paid their dues as Alberta Liberal leaders. They're just the tip of the iceberg.

"I've worked hard to keep our distance from the federal Liberals," insisted Taft. But now he's hinting he's as good as gone, attitudes could change.

He called Liberals' attempt to reinvent themselves "a very organic process."

But so is compost.

Edmonton Sun, Sun May 11 2008
Byline: Neil Waugh

EDMONTON - The Alberta government is considering changes to campaign finance laws that would effectively mute groups such as Albertans for Change, which ran high-priced attack ads during the March election, says Premier Ed Stelmach.

The legislation would also bring party leadership races under the umbrella of campaign finance laws, a move that was loudly demanded by critics during the 2006 Tory leadership campaign.

Stelmach said he would like to introduce the legislation as a package this fall. He was unclear if the legislation would ban third-party spending or simply put limits on it.

"It's something that really piqued my curiosity during this last campaign, though I believe the strategy backfired on whoever came up with the idea," Stelmach said of the campaign.

Albertans for Change was a union-backed effort that ran splashy election advertising attacking the government's record. The ominous voice accusing Stelmach of having "no pla-a-a-a-n" was easily the most recognizable refrain of the campaign.

The exact cost of the ads -- which were supported by the Alberta Building Trades Council, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta and the United Nurses of Alberta -- has never been made fully clear, but estimates have pegged it at more than $2 million, more than double the NDP and Liberal budgets combined.

AFL president Gil McGowan accused Stelmach and the Conservatives of trying to muzzle opponents with the new laws. "This is a disturbing development and it doesn't bode well for democracy in this province," McGowan said. "He's just trying to shut down the voice of the labour movement as a voice of dissent on the left."

NDP Leader Brian Mason said it's unfair that unions could outspend his party on TV ads by a more than 10-to-one margin.

"The main conversation that took place in the election was not between the opposition parties and the government -- it was between Albertans for Change and the government," Mason said. "And I think that had a serious impact on the election."

Mason, who has pushed for new campaign finance laws, wants Stelmach to ban corporate and union donations and implement a system of public campaign financing, as the federal government and some provinces have done.

Stelmach has shown little enthusiasm for the idea.

Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said the Albertans for Change ads may have hurt his party.

"We had nothing to do with that spending whatsoever," Taft said. "And yet, on the doorsteps, we were often getting lectures about how 'You guys are running those terrible attack ads on Ed Stelmach.' So we got dragged into it."

While Albertans for Change was essentially delivering the same message as his party, Taft said their involvement could set an ugly precedent.

"I mean, they've opened the door now. What's to prevent next time any group from advancing all kinds of extreme views? I think we have to think that through."

Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of Ottawa-based Democracy Watch, said Alberta remains a laggard in Canada in implementing election campaign finance reforms.

He praised the province for considering limits on third-party advertising, which the Supreme Court has said is constitutional.

Federal rules cap the total amount of third-party spending at roughly $172,500 for national campaigns.

Conacher, like Mason, also called for a ban on union and corporate donations.

"If you believe in one person, one vote, you should be limiting what any one person can spend in politics," Conacher said.

Stelmach and his Tory leadership opponents faced strong criticism for not disclosing all the donors to their campaigns, which under current laws they were under no obligation to do.

Some candidates, including current cabinet minister Ted Morton and former minister Lyle Oberg, have never disclosed any of their backers.

Stelmach also came under attack -- and was investigated by Alberta's ethics commissioner -- for offering "exclusive" access to people willing to pay $5,000 to attend private soirees that were intended to raise money to pay off leadership debts. Stelmach quickly cancelled the private receptions after they were reported by the media.

"Alberta has the best provincial premier in government that secret money can buy," Conacher quipped. "That's both undemocratic and unethical."

With the Liberals and NDP facing possible upcoming leadership races, the timing of Stelmach's changes come at a politically opportune time.

"I don't plan on going anywhere for the next four years," Stelmach said. "But others may."

Edmonton Journal, Fri May 9 2008
Byline: Archie McLean, with files from Jason Markusoff