ALF V1

EDMONTON-Nine months into new rules allowing restaurants to hire 12 and 13 year olds it is clear they are failing to protect young workers says the Alberta Federation of Labour today. The AFL released the list of employers who have submitted the paperwork allowing them to employ adolescents. The AFL also announced its intent to post the entire list on its website (see the list here) and update it regularly. The AFL received copies of the forms through a FOIP request.

Between July 1, 2005 and March 31, 2006, the first nine months of the new rules for hiring children, only 160 forms were submitted the required paperwork to the government. This is a fraction of the number of applications the government received before the new rules. According to government figures, 552 permits to hire kids under 14 were granted in 2004, and 359 permits in the first four months of 2005.

"The only explanation for the stunning drop in the number of forms is that employers are not sending in the legally-required paperwork," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "They are taking advantage of the lax nature of the new rules."

"Albertans should be deeply troubled by this development. The government no longer has any idea where most of the 12 year olds are working. If they don't know where they are, they can't protect them. This leaves these young kids vulnerable to unsafe work and to being ripped off."

The list of employers who have submitted forms reveals much about who is hiring adolescent workers. "It is big, fast food chains, for the most part," says McGowan. "The restaurant industry claimed it would be mostly mom-and-pop shops. That hasn't been the case."

One employer alone accounts for over 70 submitted forms. Max Pasley Enterprises, owners of dozens of McDonald�s restaurants in Alberta submitted dozens of forms in a three month period. Max Pasley is listed as one of the 50 largest employers in Alberta, employing more than 3,000 workers.

Before July 2005, employers were required to apply for special permission to hire anyone under the age of 14. Under the new rules, they do not require prior approval, but must still submit a Safety Checklist which demonstrates they received parental consent and have taken other precautions to protect the young worker.

"No one can make me believe the demand for hiring kids under the age of 14 has suddenly disappeared," adds McGowan. "Nine months ago, the government was saying that requests for permits was growing at about 20% per year. Employers have decided the government is irrelevant - and that is bad news for the kids working in restaurants."

The AFL also announced it is publicly posting the list of employers on its website. It will update the list as it receives new information. "Albertans have a right to know which employers are hiring 12-year olds to work in their restaurants," says McGowan. "As consumers the knowledge will help them decide how they wish to spend their money."

The AFL makes no comments about whether the employers who submit forms are safe and fair workplaces. "We have no information about the working conditions at these workplaces. We are simply providing the information to the public and letting them decide for themselves," notes McGowan.

The AFL also renewed its call to scrap the new rules for young workers. "The move to allow 12 and 13 year-olds to work in restaurants is a disaster. The government needs to admit its error and return to the old rules, which did a better job protecting children."

- 30 -

For more information call:

Gil McGowan, AFL President  @  (780) 915-4599 (cell)

The Independent Board and the Legislative Process

This report considers the independence and impartiality of the Alberta Labour Relations Board ("ALRB") in relation to allegations that the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board participated in the legislative process, specifically, the development of the Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, 2003 ("Bill 27").

EDMONTON-The Alberta Federation of Labour, Alberta's largest labour organization, released today a formal policy statement on the controversial issue of temporary foreign workers. The statement is jointly crafted by the 31 unions affiliated to the AFL, including some of Alberta's largest unions. (Read the Statement)

"The labour movement is saying three things today," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "First, employers are using temporary foreign workers as a way to suppress wages and working conditions and to avoid legitimate unions. Second, temporary foreign workers should be the last option for solving labour supply issues. We should be ensuring Canadians are properly trained first - so they can take advantage of existing job opportunities. "

"Third, the labour movement contends that the most fundamental rights of foreign workers are not protected in Canada- contrary to government and employer claims."

The entire temporary workers program has insufficient checks and balances according to McGowan. "Temporary foreign workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation due to their fragile legal status in Canada, and the labour movement insists upon far better monitoring and enforcement in the program," says McGowan.

The central position of the labour movement is best articulated by the following passage from the policy statement:

"We believe both levels of government should allow employers to use temporary foreign workers as only as a last resort, and that, when they are in Canada, foreign workers should enjoy the same rights as Canadian workers."

"It is critical to note that the labour movement strongly supports immigration and believes that immigrant workers should be entitled to have access to the full rights and privileges of all other Canadian workers.  However, we oppose the importation of hundreds of workers just to complete a job and then sending them back home. That is exploitation.

The policy statement further discusses the motivations for the use of temporary foreign workers and explores policy options for addressing the tight labour market using Canadians currently underemployed or unemployed. The AFL says the primary motivation for CNRL and other companies to use temporary foreign workers is to avoid signing contracts with Canadian unions and to prevent wages and working conditions from naturally rising during periods of tight labour supply.

"The bottom line for the labour movement is to urge Albertans to not believe the hype," says McGowan. "We can find a way to meet our booming employment needs, ensure that Canadians have the skills and training they need, and protect the rights of immigrants and foreign workers."

- 30 -
For more information call:

Gil McGowan, AFL President  @  (780) 915-4599 (cell)

When it comes to public debates, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to attack your opponent's character and question his motives. If you can paint the other guy as a villain, then people are less likely to hear his arguments -- let alone be swayed by them.

That, unfortunately, is what has been happening as more and more Albertans join the debate over the use of temporary foreign workers in our province's oilpatch.

Recently, former Calgary mayor Al Duerr weighed in with a guest column in which he accused union leaders of making comments with "racist overtones." He argued that one of the main reasons unions oppose a plan by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. to employ hundreds of temporary foreign workers on its huge Horizon project near Fort McMurray is because those workers are Chinese.

Aside from being entirely offensive, Duerr's comments are simply wrong. Alberta unions are pro-immigration and vehemently opposed to racism. Like most other Canadians, we value diversity and actively promote tolerance in the workplace and the broader community.

We also support changes to our immigration system that would give a higher priority to immigrants with backgrounds in the construction trades.
As a labour leader, I am proud of the strong and well-documented leadership role that Canadian unions have taken in the fight against racism.

The real reason we oppose the use of temporary foreign workers on the Horizon site is because of the union-busting labour relations practices adopted by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.

From the outset, CNRL has been trying to find ways to build the Horizon project without having to work with Alberta's traditional building trades unions.

This goal was clearly laid out in company documents filed with the provincial government and in at least one internal company memo that was leaked to our office. Of course, there is no law saying that a company has to work with unionized contractors. However, there are laws saying construction jobs must first be offered to Canadian workers before they are filled by temporary foreign workers.

CNRL may indeed have exhausted the pool of available non-union construction workers. But instead of biting the bullet and offering work to unionized contractors working under collective agreements, they have gone straight to the option of temporary foreign workers.

In essence, company managers are ignoring a viable and experienced pool of qualified workers -- union workers -- right in front them.

Our provincial and federal governments seem to have bought into CNRL's approach. By granting permits to CNRL and its contractors under the Foreign Temporary Worker program, they are actively helping CNRL bypass unionized Alberta contractors. In a sense, they are aiding and abetting in a campaign to bust unions.

The obvious question is why the company is going to such lengths to avoid working under existing collective agreements.

Other oilsands developers -- most notably the OPTI-Nexen consortium that is developing the Long Lake project near Fort McMurray -- had originally joined CNRL in trying to build their project non-union. But when they ran into a shortage of labour, they turned to the traditional unionized building trades. And the project is on time and on budget.

Instead of trying to paint hard-working Alberta tradespeople as intolerant rednecks, we should be asking if it's appropriate for our governments to be in the business of helping companies to bust unions.

The bottom line is that there is more than enough work to go around in Alberta's booming energy sector -- and there is no good reason to exclude unionized tradespeople and the contractors they work with. So let's put all these anti-union, Rambo-style management games aside -- and get on with the business of building Alberta's future prosperity.

Calgary Herald, Sun May 7 2006
Byline: Gil McGowan

When it comes to public debates, one of the oldest tricks in the book is to attack your opponent's character and question his motives.

If you can successfully paint the other guy as a villain, then people are less likely to hear his arguments - let alone be swayed by them.

That, unfortunately, is what has been happening as more and more Albertans join the debate over the use of temporary foreign workers in our province's oil patch.

Last week, for example, former Calgary Mayor Al Duerr weighed in with a guest column in which he accused union leaders of making comments with "racist overtones."

In particular, he argued that one of the main reasons unions oppose a plan by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. to employ hundreds of temporary foreign workers on it's huge Horizon project near Fort McMurray is because those workers are Chinese.

Aside from being entirely offensive, Duerr's comments - and the comments made by other observers who have attempted to paint Alberta unions with a racist brush - are simply wrong.

Alberta unions are pro-immigration and vehemently opposed to racism. Like most other Canadians, we value diversity and actively promote tolerance in the workplace and the broader community.

We also recognize that Canada is a country built by immigrants. We even support changes to our immigration system that would give a higher priority to immigrants with backgrounds in the construction trades.

As a labour leader, I am proud of the strong and well-documented leadership role that Canadian unions have taken in the fight against racism.

So why, if unions are so supportive of immigration, are we opposed to the use of temporary foreign workers on CNRL's Horizon site?

The short answer is that our beef is not with individual temporary foreign worker, no matter where they come from.

What we're really opposed to are the union-busting labour relations practices adopted by one company - Canadian Natural Resources Limited.

From our perspective, ever since it was granted approval to develop the Horizon site, CNRL has been trying to find ways to build its project without having to work with Alberta's traditional building trades unions.

This goal was clearly laid out in company documents filed with the provincial government and in at least one internal company memo that was leaked to our office.

Of course, there is no law saying that a company has to work with unionized contractors. However, there are laws saying that construction jobs must first be offered to Canadian workers - including unionized Canadian workers - before they are filled by temporary foreign workers.

That's the problem. CNRL may indeed have exhausted the pool of available non-union construction workers. But instead of biting the bullet and offering work to unionized contractors working under existing collective agreements, they have gone straight to the option of temporary foreign workers.

In essence, company managers are crying "labour shortage" while intentionally ignoring a viable and experienced pool of qualified workers - union workers - right in front them.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole situation is that our provincial and federal governments seem to have bought into CNRL's approach.

By granting permits to CNRL and its contractors under the Foreign Temporary Worker program, they are actively helping CNRL bypass unionized Alberta contractors. In an important sense, they are aiding and abetting in a campaign to bust unions.

The obvious question that needs to be asked - and one which I think CNRL investors should be asking - is why the company is going to such lengths to avoid working under existing collective agreements.

Other oilsands developers - most notably the OPTI-Nexen consortium that is developing the Long Lake project near Fort McMurray - had originally joined CNRL in trying to build their project non-union.

But when they ran into a shortage of non-union labour that caused huge delays, they turned to the traditional unionized building trades. As a result, that project is now on time and on budget.

That's why all these arguments about "racist overtones" are so frustrating - they obscure the real debate.

Instead of trying to paint hard-working Alberta trades people as intolerant red necks, we should be asking if it's appropriate for our governments to be in the business of helping companies to bust unions.

The bottom line is that there is more than enough work to go around in Alberta's booming energy sector - and there is no good reason to exclude unionized tradespeople and the contractors they work with.

So let's put all these anti-union, Rambo-style management games aside - and get on with the business of building Alberta's future prosperity!

Calgary Herald, Sat July 8 2006, Page A20
By Gil McGowan, AFL President

Beyond Chicken Little: Understanding the need for measured reforms to Alberta's system for skills training

When thinking about Alberta's labour market recently, it's hard not to be reminded of the children's fable about Chicken Little. No matter who you talk to - employers, government, or the media - everybody seems to be saying the sky is falling.

In this paper we argue that while the current Alberta labour market is tight, there is no reason to over-react. The sky is not falling.

EDMONTON-The Alberta Federation of Labour today blamed government inaction on health and safety enforcement for the rising number of workplace fatalities in Alberta. The AFL made the observation on the 11th International Day of Mourning to remember workers killed because of work. The Day of Mourning was marked across the province in hundreds of workplace and community ceremonies.

"It's the dark side of the boom," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "More Alberta workers were killed in 2005 than in any other year in the past quarter century. We may be booming, but the price of that boom is being paid in the lives of workers."

"Employers are busy trying to keep up with demand, and to do so, they are cutting corners. Unfortunately one of the first corners cut is safety - with an end result of growing numbers of accidents and deaths."

McGowan firmly placed the blame on government inaction. "The government's job is to make sure employers obey the safety laws, but they are doing nothing to make workplaces safer. In fact, they are denying there is a problem at all."

McGowan points out that the government continues to claim workplaces are getting safer, despite growing evidence that things are more dangerous. Some of the mounting evidence includes:

• A 2005 CIHI study found Alberta has the highest rate of work-related acute trauma cases in the country (CIHI, April 2005).
• Alberta's 2004 fatality rate per capita was the third highest in Canada, behind only Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. (National data for 2005 is not yet available)
• Alberta had almost 170,000 officially recorded workplace accidents in 2005, up 9.3% from 2004. This is almost 500 a day.
• The WCB's 2005 Total Disabling Injury Rate (a more accurate measure of safety than the so-called Lost Time Claims rate or LTC) is up 5.4% from 2004 (It is currently 4.28 per 100 workers).

"Government claims that workplaces are safer today are contradicted by all the evidence," says McGowan. "When the government does acknowledge there is a problem, they blame workers for carelessness and 'stupidity.' This does nothing to address the real causes of injuries."

McGowan points to a series of government print ads that show unsafe work with the large label "stupid". "The government ads are a case of blaming the victim. Workers need to work safely, but employers hold the primary responsibility for making workplaces safe. And the government's job is to make sure employers obey the law."

Day of Mourning was recognized by the Canadian Parliament in 1991. It is now commemorated in more than 80 countries worldwide. McGowan will be speaking to the Edmonton ceremony, tonight at 7:00 pm at Edmonton City Hall.

The AFL maintains a tally of all workers killed since 1905, which can be found at www.afl.org.

NOTE: AFL President Gil McGowan is available throughout the day for interviews.

- 30 -

For more information call:

Gil McGowan, AFL President  @       (780)483-3021(office) (780)915-4599(cell)

As members of the provincial government caucus prepare to gather in Calgary tomorrow for a meeting that could decide the fate of the so-called "Third Way", the Alberta Federation of Labour is urging unions across the province to put the issue of private health insurance on the bargaining table.

In a letter sent to more than 350 unions and union locals around the province, AFL president Gil McGowan says one of the best ways to stop the government from proceeding with the Third Way is to remind employers in both the public and private sectors about the high costs associated with any move towards an increased reliance on private health insurance.

"We need to let both the government and employers know that whatever services they take away from our members by 'shrinking the Medicare umbrella� we will fight to get back at the bargaining table," wrote McGowan. "The higher costs associated with this will end up being a major new financial burden for employers in both the public and private sectors."

In addition to his letter, McGowan has also met personally with a number of major union presidents who have agreed to raise the issue of private health insurance with their employers - including unions representing city workers and public school employees in both Calgary and Edmonton.

"By allowing patients to 'buy their way to the front of the line� for certain services and by allowing doctors to work in both the public and for-profit systems, the Third Way will essentially create a market for private insurance in Alberta where there was none before," says McGowan.

"The best way to avoid making health insurance a crippling issue like it is for employers in the U.S. is to stop the Third Way - at least its most controversial sections. This is definitely an area where unions can make common cause with employers - because the Third Way threatens our members� access to health care and it threatens the bottom lines of employers."

To help illustrate just how big an advantage Medicare gives Canadian employers - and how much Alberta employers could lose if the provincial government proceeds with the Third Way - McGowan provided unions with a number of telling statistics.

For example, he pointed out that the average cost for health benefits in Canada is currently about $930 US per employee per year - compared to more than $10,000 US per year for American workers with families.

He also pointed to the example of contracts negotiated by construction unions on both sides of the border. In Alberta, for example, employers who work with the Ironworkers pay extended health benefits of $1.50 Cdn per hour per employee - compared to $7.15 Cdn in Phoenix; $7.38 Cdn in San Francisco; $7.29 Cdn in Minneapolis; and $10.89 Cdn in Buffalo, NY.

-30-

For more information call:
Gil McGowan, AFL President      (780) 915-4599 (cell)    or    (780) 483-3021 (office)

Edmonton - A poll conducted by Public Interest Alberta (PIA) and the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) indicates that most Albertans do not support the Harper government's plans to replace the Child Care program of the previous Liberal government with $100 per month payments to parents of pre-school age children.

"Our poll shows that only 35 % of Albertans agree with the Harper child care program," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "The Prime Minister should take not of this - because if barely a third of the voters in the heartland of Tory Alberta support the program, imagine the response in the rest of Canada."

"One of the most important findings of the poll was that the more people know about the Harper government's child care program, the less likely they are to support it," says McGowan. "We suggest that this means that support for the program will continue to dwindle as time goes on. It really indicates that the federal Tories should scrap it entirely."

McGowan suggests that there are many good reasons for Albertans to oppose the dismantling of the old Liberal national child care program. "First, child care is more and more a labour issue," says McGowan. "The number of children in Alberta who have both parents in the workforce continues to grow - making child care a more and more important workplace issue. In 2003, 53% of all children in Alberta under the age of five (117,000 out of 219,000) had both parents in the workforce."

"When you look strictly at the 3 to 5 year old range, however, the percentage who have both parents working climbs to 71%," says McGowan. "For Alberta parents, child care isn't a luxury - it's a necessity"

However, according to McGowan, the desperate need for high-quality, accessible and affordable child care isn't being met in Alberta. "There aren't nearly enough spaces available in quality public child care centres," notes McGowan, "and while wages for child care workers remain shockingly low, most the cost of quality child care is more than many parents can bear."

With the federal Liberal national child care program, the Alberta government received $45 million this year and was in line for $70 million each year for the following four years. The province used the new federal money to fund a five point plan that is helping to create new child care spaces in Alberta; that provides subsidies for parents and that subsidizes the wages and training of child care workers.

"If the Harper government goes ahead with its plans", warns McGowan, "the money for a national program - and the money that Alberta has been using to finance its own five point child care plan - will disappear.

"If that happens, our poll indicates that 61% of Albertans want the provincial government to step in and find the money to continue funding the five point plan that, up until now, has been funded with federal money", concludes McGowan. "Albertans recognize that the need for these programs is great. And they recognize that the interests of our children are too important to be ignored. Let's just hope that our leaders get the message."

-30-

For more information call:

Gil McGowan, AFL President   @   (780) 915-4599

Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, April 12, 2006

When it comes to politics in Alberta, there really have been only two issues that have dominated public attention over the last few months.

The first, of course, has been the Premier and his plans for retirement.

The second is the Third Way.

Like most other Albertans, I have strong feelings about Premier Klein's leadership.

But for our purposes today, I'll bite my lip about what I think of the Premier and focus instead on his policies for health care.

We've all seen or heard the news. For more than two years now, Premier Klein, has been telling us that the sky is falling.

He's been telling us we can no longer afford Medicare. And he's been telling us that privatization is at least part of the solution.

In many ways, this may be one of the most important political debates this province has ever had. From our perspective, the very future of our health care system is at stake.

With that in mind, over the next twenty minutes or so, I'd like to do four things.

First, I'll talk about what's actually being proposed when we talk about the third way.

Second, I'll talk about why we in the labour movement think at least some of those proposals will take us down a dangerous path.

Third, I'll talk about how those proposals, if implemented, might affect individuals, businesses and the economy.

And finally, I'll talk about what I think Albertans, from all walks of life, can and should do to protect Medicare.

So what is the Third Way?

For several years now, Premier Klein has been promising something big. He has even suggested that's he's willing to violate the Canada Health Act.

Until recently, it's just been talk. But, he has finally moved from rhetoric to action.

At the end of February, the Premier and his health minister, Iris Evans, released something called The Health Policy Framework.

It's not legislation - it's really just a skeleton of ideas. But the government has made it clear that this document will form the basis of new legislation that we could see as early as the middle of April.

It's the first time they've actually spelled out what the Third Way will involve. In a sense, they've finally put their cards on the table ... and that's a positive thing.

The other positive thing is that there are actually a number of policy directions contained in the Framework that almost everyone involved in the health care debate can agree on.

It's no secret that we in the labour movement are big defenders of Medicare. We helped create it and we still believe it's worth fighting for.

But even we can take issue with some of the proposals.

For example, we support the suggestion that there should be more teamwork between health professionals; we support the suggestion that we should experiment with replacing the fee-for-service approach to paying doctors with salaries; and we support the suggestion that there should be a greater emphasis on wellness and prevention.

If these kinds of reforms were the sum total of the Framework, I probably wouldn't be here today. And the government probably wouldn't be facing a rising tide of public opposition.

Unfortunately, the good in this document is far out weighed by the bad and the down-right dangerous.

Like many of the groups and individuals who have voiced opposition to the Third Way, there are four policy directions in the Framework that we find particularly alarming.

First, we're concerned about plans to remove the prohibitions on doctors working in both the public and private system.

Second, we're concerned about plans to allow patients to buy their way to the front of the line for certain services, like hip and knee replacements.

Third, we're concerned by the suggestion that some services may be de-listed or that new services may never be listed.

And fourth, we're particularly concerned about plans to open the door for private health insurance.

Despite repeated reassurances from the government, these are not mild reforms. This is not tinkering around the edges.

For the better part of a decade now, conservative governments like ours here in Alberta have been chipping away at our public health care system. We've seen contracting out of ancillary services; we've seen de-listing of things like vision care and physiotherapy; and, here in Alberta and in provinces like Quebec and B.C., we've seen strong moves towards increased for-profit delivery of services within the public system.

But let's be clear about one thing: if the Klein government goes ahead with the plans contained in the Framework document - in particular, if they allow people to buy their way to the front of the line for certain services and if you open the door for private health insurance - then they will be going one giant step beyond where anyone has gone before.

They will be going from "private delivery" to "private payment." They will be going from "access based on need" to "access based on wealth." They will be introducing a gold-plated tier of care for the few - and an inferior tier of care for everyone else.

And that doesn't just violate both the letter and the spirit of the Canada Health Act - it strikes at the very foundations of Medicare.

Before I dive into my specific critiques of the Framework document, I'd like to step back and take a closer look at the government's goals and assumptions ... because in the same way that buildings are constructed on foundations of concrete and steel, public policies are built on the foundation of goals and assumptions.

If the foundations of a building are weak, then the structure above is shaky. And if a government's goals and assumptions are faulty, then public policies that flow from them will be weak as well.

In many ways, the problem is not with the governments goals. Both Health Minister Evans and the Premier have said that their primary goals in these reforms are to control costs and reduce waiting lists.

Frankly, who can argue with that?

But while it may be hard to take issue with some of the government's over-arching goals, the same cannot be said for some of the assumptions that their plan is built on.

To put it bluntly, many of their core assumptions are flawed. And that's where the Third Way starts to come off the rails.

The first assumption that I'd like to take issue with is the assumption that public health care is not financially sustainable.

People in government have sometimes accused people like me and other leaders in the labour movement of fear-mongering on various issues. But on the issue of sustainability, it is the government that has been running around saying the sky is falling.

The truth about health care spending in Alberta is both more complex and less alarming than the government lets on.

When I met with Iris Evans last month she said breathlessly; "When Premier Klein took power, we were spending $5 billion on health care and now we're spending $10 billion."

That sounds very dramatic. But what this told me was not the health care spending is unsustainable - but rather than the minister doesn't have a really good grasp of basic economics.

The truth is that over the period of 13 years that the minister referred to, inflation in Alberta has increase by nearly 30 per cent and our provincial population has grown by more than 500,000.

We also have to remember that, in the mid-90s, the government imposed deep cuts on health services and staffing, creating a need for substantial "catch-up" spending.

When you look past the doom and gloom being pushed by certain politicians - what we find is that when you adjust for inflation and population growth, real per person spending on health care in Alberta has actually been going up by an average of about 2 percent each year over the past 13 years.

That's the crisis. That's what the government is using as justification to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And it doesn't stop there. You can't say you really understand trends in health care spending until you break down that spending into its component parts and until you put it into the context of our provincial income.

When you do that, you see that spending on hospitals and doctors - which forms the core of Medicare - has remained almost entirely flat over the past 15 years.

You also see that the areas with the highest cost increases are actually the ones with the biggest for-profit components - most notably prescription drugs.

And then there is the question of what we can afford.

Thanks largely to a lucky accident of geology and geography, we're the richest province in the country - and getting richer.

As a percentage of our provincial GDP - which is our collective income - public spending on health care has remained stable at under 6 percent for the past twenty years.

The bottom line on health care spending is that the sky is not falling. Costs are rising, and that's a legitimate concern. But they are not as out of control as the Premier would have us believe. And they are certainly not bad enough to justify throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From our perspective, Medicare costs are still manageable - especially in a province as wealthy as Alberta.

That leads me to the second, and I would argue, even more dangerous assumption that almost all the government's Third Way proposals are built on. And that's the assumption that privatization is one of the best ways to achieve their goals on cost control and shortened waiting lists.

On the day the Framework document was released, I told reporters it read like a love-letter to private health care. That's because privatization was the strand that wound through the entire document and tied it together. It was the magic pill, the silver bullet.

But the assumption that greater privatization will lead to lower costs and reduced waiting list is just that - an assumption. And all the available research - and all the available evidence from the real world - suggests that it's a false assumption.

Take the proposal to allow doctors to work both sides of the street, for example.

The Framework suggests that by allowing doctors to take paying patients this will somehow reduce pressure on the public system.

It's a nice sounding theory - but experience shows it doesn't work in practice.

It doesn't work because there are only a limited number of doctors - and if they're working two days a week in their for-profit practice, that's two days a week they won't be available to work in the public system. The result is longer waits in the public system, not shorter. And this isn't hypothetical. These kinds of reforms have been tried in Britain, Australia and other countries. And, to put it bluntly, the experiments have failed. They haven't taken the pressure off their public systems.

On the contrary, experience shows that doctors consistently chose their higher paying private clients, and leave their public patients waiting in longer in public lines.

But allowing doctors to work both side of the street, is only one piece of the puzzle.

The government is also talking about allowing people to buy their way to the front of the line for certain service like hip and knee replacements. And you're talking about shrinking the umbrella of what's covered by Medicare by either de-listing some services or not listing new services.

When I look at all these proposals together, what I see is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Alberta government to create a market for private health care and private health insurance where there was no market before.

By shrinking the Medicare umbrella and allowing people to pay privately for things like joint replacement, they're creating the demand. And by freeing doctors to give faster access to those with thick wallets, they're creating the supply.

The big question is this: are these changes really in the best interests of Albertans? Will the creation of a market for private health care save us money? Will it improve access to care? Will it benefit our economy and serve our families better?

Our short answer to those questions is an emphatic "no" - private health care is not in our best interests.

As I've said, the biggest danger of the Third Way is that it is opening the door for and creating a market for private health insurance.

When I met with Iris Evans, I gave her a list of reasons why any move towards a greater reliance on private health insurance would not be in the public interest. And I'd like to share five of those reasons with you today.

First, an increased reliance on private health insurance would not be in the public interest because it costs more.

Our single-payer public system pools risk, thereby lowering cost. Our public health insurance system also has very low administrative costs - less than two percent of overall cost versus about 13 percent in private health care.

This explains why the American system - which relies on private insurance - is roughly twice as expensive on a per capita basis when compared to the Canadian public system.

Introducing a new tier of private insurance here in Alberta would undermine the advantages of having a single-payer system. It would fragment our system, reduce efficiencies and increase overall costs.

Second, an increased reliance on private health insurance would not be in the public interest because private health care has a much worse track record of cost containment than public health care.

Costs in the public system have been going up, but not nearly as much as costs in the for-profit health care sector.

In the U.S., private health insurance premiums have been rising at an average rate of more than 10 percent a year for each of the past seven years. The increases in premiums rates have been even higher for smaller employers.

In fact, the only way private insurers have been able to stop costs for completely spiralling out of control south of the border is by denying more people coverage, reducing the scope of coverage for those who are enrolled in plans and by charging ever-increasing deductibles and co-payments.

Third, an increased reliance on private health insurance would not be in the public interest because the companies most likely to step in and provide expanded private health insurance here in Alberta are the same American companies that have been found guilty of fraud on an almost mind-boggling scale.

Columbia/HCA, for example, was fined $745 million for fraud. Tenet Health Care was fined $683 million.

Even AON, the private insurance company that our provincial government contracted to help draft it Third Way framework, was fined $190 million.

Are these really the people we want to turn to as saviours? Are these the really people we want to invite into Alberta and entrust the care of our families to?

Fourth, an increased reliance on private health insurance would not be in the public interest because the expansion of private health insurance will hurt Alberta employers.

If the government shrinks the Medicare umbrella, workers (both union and non-union) will have no choice but to push for increased health benefits from their employers. And employers, especially in Alberta's current tight job market, may have no choice but to comply in order to attract and retain employees.

For public sector employers, this will mean less money left in their budgets to pay for the services they provide. And for private sector employers, it will mean reduced profits.

To understand just how costly the Third Way might be to employers consider these numbers: the average cost for health benefits in Canada is currently about $930 US per employee per year. In the States, the average cost is more than $10,000 US per year for employees with families.

To illustrate this point further, consider some of the numbers we've been able to gather from the construction industry. In the labour movement, we have many unions that operate on both sides of the border - and I had an opportunity to look at some of the contracts that had been negotiated by the Ironworkers in both Canada and the U.S. The numbers on health benefits were truly shocking. In Canada, construction companies in northern Alberta pay ironworkers $1.50 per hour for extend health benefits. In Saskatchewan they pay $1.60 per hour and in Manitoba it's $1.70.

But in the States, the amount they pay for health benefits is, in some cases, more nearly three quarters of what they pay for wages.

I'll give you four examples. In Phoenix, $7.15 construction employers pay ironworkers $7.15 per hour (Can) for health benefits. In San Francisco it's $7.38 per hour. In Minneapolis, it's $7.29 per hour and in Buffalo, NY it's $10.89 hour.

These costs have been literally eating American businesses alive.

The bottom line is that Medicare, as it is currently constituted, lowers costs for our businesses and gives them a huge economic advantage when competing with their American rivals. Creating a new tier of private insurance in Alberta will substantially reduce that advantage.

A move to a greater reliance on private health insurance will be particularly problematic for smaller businesses because large employers will more easily be able to afford extended health benefits. In the current tight job market that means that smaller employers will be at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to attracting and retaining employees.

With all this is mind, I ask these questions: Will your business or organization be able to afford increased health benefits for your employees? Where will the money come from? And, in a province as wealthy as Alberta, do you really think it's justified to download public costs onto individuals and business?

Fifth, an increased reliance on private health insurance would not be in the public interest because less than 35 percent of Alberta workers currently have access to supplemental health benefits through work.

These are the people most likely to received increased benefits to cover the new tier of private service that the Third Way would create. Even if you add in the families of workers covered by private insurance, more than 50 percent of the Alberta population will likely be left without supplemental insurance.

Sixth, and finally, an increased reliance on private health insurance would not be in the public interest because there is only one payer for health services - the individual citizen.

By opening the door for more private insurance, the government won't really be reducing costs, they'll just be downloading them to businesses and individuals. I ask this question: shouldn't the government consider the broader social costs of health care rather than just the focusing on getting health care costs "off its books"?

At this point I'd like to one make one thing very clear. We in the labour movement do not want to bargain for increased private health insurance coverage. We don't want to add an extra burden on our employers. And we don't want to have to deal with another item on the bargaining table that could cause tension and possibly lead to strikes.

Our strong preference is to maintain a comprehensive and universal public system. But make no mistake: if the government starts shrinking the umbrella of Medicare coverage, we will have no choice but to act. We will have no choice but to attempt to fill the gap at the bargaining table.

With all sincerity, I hope it never comes to that. It won't be good for our members, it won't be good for business and it won't be good for Alberta.

I'm fiercely proud of the fact that the Canadian labour movement has always fought for health care benefits for all Canadians, not just our members. And that will continue to be our priority.

But if the government proceeds with the Third Way as currently proposed, they'll be opening a Pandora's Box.

As it stands right now, Alberta employers cover extended health benefits costs for about 582,000 individual Alberta workers. If you add a new tier of care, that's a good indication of how many people will be demanding more private coverage from their employers.

Of course, other than hips and knees, we don't know yet what services your government plans to let people buy faster access to. So we don't know exactly how many new benefits we might have to bargain for and how much benefit costs might increase. But for each item they add to the list, the cost to employers to cover the gap will go up.

One way to estimate the cost would be to look at monthly cost being projected by Accure Health, the private insurance firm associated with Jim Dinning. They're planning to offer a plan that will cover access to services like hip and knee replacements - at a cost of $70 per month.

So if all 582,000 Albertans who currently have extended health benefits are successful in getting that kind of coverage - that would translate into an extra cost to employers of about $41 million a month and more about $492 million a year. And that's just for the one procedure.

At the end of the day, I'm left with many troubling questions about the framework document. For example, why would the government want to download so such significant costs onto businesses and individuals?

Why would they want to undermine the economic advantage conferred by Medicare?

How, if their goal is to control costs, are they going to do that by opening the door to private insurance which we know from experience is much more expensive?

And if their other goal is to reduce waiting list, how are you going to accomplish that by let doctors work both sides of the street - a practice we know will probably lead to longer public waits, not shorter? I know that the buzzword for the government on this issue is "choice." They say that people should have the free to choose where to spend their money - even if they're spending it on health services.

In democratic western societies, we've always tried to protect individual choice - and that's a good thing.

But we've also said that reasonable limits often need to be placed on choice - especially when an individual's choice might have adverse effects on other individuals. That's why we say people don't have the right to choose to drive down the highway at 200 km/hour or the right to smack their neighbour in the head when they have an argument.

Given that private insurance drives up cost and has the potential to increase waiting lists for everyone, I would argue that it's reasonable to prohibit access to it. It's a clear example of the public good trumping the narrow interests of wealthy individuals.

The majority of Canadians and Albertans understand this. It's just too bad that whoever wrote the Framework document didn't share that insight.

In conclusion, I just like to say this: Private health care and the Third Way may be Ralph's hobby horse, but Albertans don't have to hop on board.

All the evidence shows that privatization is the wrong way to go. The evidence also shows that there are many potential fruitful avenues for reform within the public system.

The bad news is that our Premier, despite his impending retirement, seems determined to proceed. And there's nothing more dangerous than a politician with a bad idea who knows he's not going to face the voters again.

The good news is that while Ralph may be riding off into the sunset, the majority of his caucus members are not. THEY will have to face the voters.

That's, frankly, is why I'm here today. We in the labour movement are often on the opposite side of issue compared to business. But in this case, I think our interests coincide.

We don't want our members to lose health benefits - and you don't want to face increased costs.

Medicare gives individuals security and access to top notch health care that, in most cases, they would otherwise be unable to afford. But it also gives business an economic advantage especially when it comes to competing with their rivals south of the board.

Medicare is an important part of the Canadian Advantage and the Alberta Advantage. It's an Advantage we should not give up lightly.

That's why I want you to help us send a message to the government.

With the Premier's retirement announcement, the Third Way is teetering. But it needs one more big push to knock it over.

We in the labour movement will be doing our part. But I'm a realist.

Here in Alberta, the Premier and the health minister can afford to ignore angry letters from people like me. But they really stand up and take notice when they hear from people like you.

The Third Way may be on life support, but, more than anyone, you and your colleagues in the business community have the power to pull the plug.

So thank you for taking the initiative to establish this committee. I hope that, after gathering the information you need, you capitalize on the power you have to stop the Third Way before it becomes an albatross around the neck of the Alberta economy.

Thank you.