Kenney starts by claiming Bill 6 was an “attack on farmers”. An alternate way to view Bill 6 is an effort to better protect farm workers who have traditionally been highly vulnerable to employer mistreatment. Kenney declines to explain how Bill 6 negatively affects farmers and ranchers and thus constitutes an attack (perhaps because the actual effect is very small).
Kenney then asserts Bill 6 was imposed without consultation. That is not true. The government of Alberta consulted with farmers for years on safety. The Tories concluded education was enough. The NDs drew different conclusion and passed Bill 6. They then engaged in further and lengthy consultations on the substance of various regulations. One can reasonably disagree with the outcome of consultations. One cannot reasonably claim there were no consultations.
But wait, then Kenney says, even if there were consultations, the resulting “Bill 6 is simply another example of government knows best interference.” So I guess no form of consultation would have been good enough and his concerns about them was just a rhetorical strawman?
Anyhow… regulation is not the same thing as interference. Regulation is legitimate government activity designed bring about the public good when, for example, the market fails to do so. Giving workers basic health and safety rights and access to injury compensation is a well established form of regulation in every other industry in the country (and other countries) and in agriculture in most other provinces.
The NDs are then accused of having “no respect, understanding or appreciation for the values and traditions that make Alberta strong”. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. There is none provided. Instead, Kenney transitions into platitudes about “hard work”.
He ends with a promise to deep six bill 6. It is not clear what this means but he suggests developing workplace safety rules that “recognize the unique circumstances” of farms and ranches. Since the NDs have not yet rolled out their own farm OHS rules it is unclear how he can know that the NDs’ rules won’t recognize these circumstances (now who is being ideological, Jason?).
He ends by suggesting it is possible to “modernize workplace safety so that everyone wins.” This glosses over the fact that workplace safety regulations are basically about distributing costs among employers and workers. Safer workplaces see employers bear additional costs. Less safe workplaces see costs (in the form of injuries) borne by workers.
Overall, a pretty vague and facile statement.
-- Bob Barnetson
Alberta's Agriculture minister,Oneil Carlier, admitted to the lack of clear consultation that took place early on when the bill was introduced. The only reason they extended the consultation was because of the farmers protest. They back tracked on their intent to include family members only after strong protests. I understand the need for worker protection and whether including WCB in the process is the right approach remains to be seen since there are other avenues such as private insurance, which may be more efficient. This is, in my opinion, just another example of a government more concerned with its own agenda rather than policies that make sense. It is this type of governing that will lead to their demise in the next election. The current AB NDP government policies offer clear reasons why socialism, in the long term, does not work.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I apologize for the slight delay in publishing your comment; I was in meetings yesterday afternoon.
DeleteIt looks like we’re not going to agree on the consultation discussion so I propose parking that issue.
I appreciate your comments about insurance; the study commissioned and then hidden by the Tories in 2015 clearly demonstrates that private insurance (even if made mandatory) did not provide adequate compensation in cases of serious injury or death.
The rest of your comments are hard to respond to. Governments get elected to enact policies they feel are in the public interest. The NDs granting farmworkers employment rights is no more or less an agenda than the Tories unwillingness to grant them.