Sunday, August 9, 2015

Linda McQuaig is right: leave the oil in the soil

“Oil has become the elephant in the room,” Linda McQuaig wrote in It’s the Crude, Dude: Greed, Gas, War and the American Way. Turns out it’s the Canadian way as well. As Toronto Centre NDP candidate, McQuaig stated a simple fact on CBC’s Power and Politics: “a lot of people recognize that a lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we’re going to meet our climate change targets.”

As punishment for speaking the truth, McQuaig is now the target of corporate power. Calgary Conservative MP Michelle Rempel immediately jumped on the remark, accusing McQuaig of having an “ideological aversion” to tar sands and opposing workers in the energy sector. Alberta Opposition Leader Brian Jean labeled McQuaig’s remarks “anti-Alberta posturing” and called on Premier Rachel Notley to “actively repudiate this crazy idea in the strongest terms possible.” Presiding over his second recession, Harper warned that it’s the NDP who would “wreck this economy.” The corporate media are calling McQuaig’s remarks a “flap” that the NDP need to exert “damage control” to repair. God forbid a journalist and candidate raise in the mildest terms a basic scientific fact concerning the most pressing issue of our generation, in the hopes that an election could affect change.

Ideology vs science
McQuaig wrote It’s the Crude, Dude in the wake of the Iraq War, to bring awareness to the dangers of climate change and the way the oil industry influences politics. Quoting a 2003 report from the Pentagon—hardly a bastion of left-wing ideology—she wrote: “There’s been a tendency to regard global warming as a problem that will set in gradually, giving the world a chance to adapt and even possibly take advantage of what could be longer growing seasons. ‘This view of climate change may be a dangerous act of self-deception, as increasingly we are [already] facing weather-related disasters,’ the report states. ‘Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding.’”

A decade later, Harper finally has the Iraq War he always wanted and climate change is even more of a clear and present danger—from wildfires on the west coast to record temperatures in the Middle East. But the corporate-backed Conservatives and Liberals have an ideological aversion to science, which calls for limiting climate change to 2 degrees to avoid catastrophic change. “Nearly all politicians across the world would like to develop all domestic sources of oil and gas and coal that they have and also search for new resources. What this analysis shows is that those two positions are inconsistent. Every country can’t exploit all of their domestic reserves and keep to two degrees,” explained Christophe McGlade of the University College London. His report in the journal Nature this year showed that 85% of tar sands have to be left in the ground.

“This would seem, by any meaningful standard, to be a problem worthy of serious attention at the very highest levels. But, oddly, it’s a problem that is largely unacknowledged in official quarters,” McQuaig wrote a decade ago about US politicians refusing to face reality about oil politics, and fabricating terror threats to distract from the climate crisis: “Our wanton over-consumption of oil might be about to create a whole new kind of terror in our lives. Yet the Bush administration, which had consistently ignored and downplayed the threat of climate change and done its best to sabotage the international Kyoto accord aimed at dealing with the problem, was not about to change horses in its ‘war on terror.’ Its defense strategy would remain fixated on shadowy men in long-flowing robes, not on ones wearing business suits and bearing large checks made out to the Republican Party.” Harper is continuing the Bush legacy—stoking Islamophobia to justify wars abroad and attacks on civil liberties at home, while fueling the climate crisis.

Anti-Alberta?
It is not “anti-Alberta” to question the tar sands; the tar sands themselves are anti-Alberta, undermining the traditional territories and the communities in what is called Alberta. As McQuaig wrote a decade ago, “Getting the oil out of the tar is a horrendous task; it involves a massive, high-tech operation that causes serious environmental damage…By any logic, then, most of that tar sands oil should be left in the ground.”

Harper has tried to undermine this logic by making people in Alberta so dependent on the tar sands that they put the profits of Big Oil ahead of their own lives. When the price of oil fell, the only solution the Conservatives offered was to slash public services to balance the budget, but Notley’s election was a rejection of this blackmail. The Conservatives are trying to undo the provincial election and win the federal election—attacking Notley at the start of the campaign and now demanding she attack McQuaig.

But what we need to actively repudiate in the strongest possible terms is not a debate on the tar sands but the tar sands themselves. As Melina Laboucan-Massimo from the Lubicon Cree First Nation said at the March for Jobs, Justice and the Climate: “What I have seen is immense changes to the land, to the air, to the climate, to the water, to the people, and to the animals. Where I come from, until my generation my family was able to live sustainably off the land. And it becomes harder and harder to do that. People and animals are sick and dying. And now across the tar sands we are surrounded by operations across Northern Alberta. We have also seen immense oil spills like the one that happened near my family, just a few miles away. It was one of the biggest oil spills in Alberta’s history in 2011… What we need now today, is Canada needs to accelerate the transition from destructive climate polluting sources like the tar sands and build a green, just economy that many of our communities so desperately want and need now…Even in the heart of the tar sands we can build a different kind of economy, with clean energy and green jobs, without compromising our families and our communities.”

Jobs, justice and the climate
Harper has been silent while the economic crisis destroyed 400,000 manufacturing jobs, and stood by while the drop in oil prices led to thousands of further layoffs in the oil industry. But now the Conservatives are attacking McQuaig and the NDP for being anti-worker.

What the climate justice movement has made clear is that the choice between the environment and jobs is “fear-mongering at its worst,” in the words of Jerry Dias, president of Unifor. As the union representing thousands of workers in the oil and gas industry, Unifor is a signatory of the Solidarity Accord against the Northern Gateway pipeline and was a major participant in the recent March for Jobs, Justice and the Climate.

As the report by Blue-Green Canada makes clear, the $1.3 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry could instead create 18,000 more jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency. From the UK to South Africa, there are campaigns for a million climate jobs, to solve the economic and climate crises, and now these demands have spread to Canada. For $4.65 billion (less than half what Harper recently gave to the military), we could create 92,000 jobs in wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power. For $25 billion (less than half what Harper gave in corporate tax cuts) we could create a high-speed rail network could create 100,000 jobs and reduce our dependence on oil. And $1 billion on a home and building retrofit program (the amount Harper spent attacking civil liberties at the G20 protest) could leverage $50 billion to create a million jobs that would reduce carbon emissions.

Damage control
In order to control the damage done to the planet and its people we need to leave the oil in the soil, respect First Nations and create a million climate jobs. Unfortunately climate justice was largely absent from the first leaders debate, which instead displayed unanimity on tar sands expansion—with only minor differences on which pipelines should transport it, or where it should be refined. Both the Green Party and the NDP have advocated more domestic refining, while Mulcair supports west-east pipelines and calls for “objective reviews”—as if the increasingly dire climate science and the lived experience of Indigenous communities is not objective.

As the upcoming Toxic Tour in Aamjiwnaang First Nation makes clear, domestic refining and alternate pipelines are no solution: “In Aamjiwnaang everything is polluted air, soil, water, and people. Some of the land Industry has now made their empire on is stolen land or ongoing projects that have little to no consent. This is a prime land for industry because it is used to refine and export. The colonial fight against industry has left indigenous communities like Aamjiwnaang in a constant daily struggle.” This daily struggle by Indigenous communities most affected by the climate crisis is leading a rising climate justice movement: 25,000 marched in Quebec City in April to Act on Climate and 10,000 marched in Toronto last month for Jobs, Justice and the Climate.


The climate justice movement deserves a voice this election, but the corporate parties and the corporate press are calling on the NDP to repudiate the slightest comment that echoes these movements. The same development happened in the BC provincial election, where NDP comments against the Kinder-Morgan pipeline were said to be the cause of their defeat. But after the election, opposition to Kinder Morgan exploded—showing the NDP’s electoral loss was not because of its timid opposition but because they didn’t go far enough in outlining bold alternatives. If the NDP leadership see statements against tar sands as more damaging than the tar sands themselves, they will sever themselves from the climate justice movement and provide no alternative at the ballot box. Instead they should defend McQuaig for helping spark a real debate this election, spend the next two months repudiating in the strongest terms the Conservatives’ and Liberals’ ideologically-driven wrecking of the climate, and be a megaphone for the climate justice movement that is trying to control the damage and promote alternatives.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Photo essay: Black Lives Matter-Toronto


“No justice, no peace! No racist police!”



“Black is not a crime!”

“Black Lives Matter!”


“Not another life!”

"Indict, convict: send that killer cop to jail. The whole damn system is guilty as hell!"

“We don’t die, we multiply!”

“They can’t stop the revolution. Black power is the solution!”

“Shut it down!”

"I believe that we will win!"

For more information visit Black Lives Matter-Toronto Coalition

Monday, June 15, 2015

Photo essay: Toronto rally against cuts to refugee health

Today was the fourth annual and largest day of action against cuts to refugee health—organized by Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care and with support from other health providers, students and refugee advocates.

In 2012, then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced drastic cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program, claiming it would save money and promote fairness. These cruel cuts targeted the most vulnerable people, and scapegoated them for the government’s $36 billion cut to healthcare. As Dr. Mark Tyndall said at the time, “the government has used this issue to divide Canadians, pitting those who are dissatisfied with their own health coverage against refugees. Canadians are smarter than this. This is an attack on our entire healthcare system.” Following occupations of Conservative MP offices, and an open letter by leading health organizations, the first rally mobilized health providers--doctors, nurses, midwives, and others--in more than a dozen cities across the country.



The government ignored this overwhelming medical advice and went ahead with their cruel and costly cuts, with predictable results. Following documented cases of refugees suffering from a denial of care, the second annual day of action in 2013 mobilized health providers in 19 cities across the country. The movement was growing both in numbers and in tactics—with the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care and Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers launching a charter challenge against the cuts, and prominent Canadians signing an open letter.

While the government dismissed well-documented cases of refugees suffering from their cuts, the following year there was published evidence of the widespread impact of cuts. The study “The Cost and Impact of the Interim Federal Health Program Cuts on Child Refugees in Canada” found that the admission rate of refugee children doubled after the cuts—proving that when you deny people primary care it makes them sicker and requires costlier hospital care.



Health providers kept mobilizing, and in the wake of the third annual day of action in 2014 the Federal Court issued a scathing ruling against the cuts that reflected the growing opposition. Justice Mactavish found the cuts were “cruel and unusual”: “The 2012 modifications to the [Interim Federal Health Program] potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives, of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages Canadian standards of decency...I have found as a fact that lives are being put at risk.”



But rather than reverse their cruel and costly cuts, the Harper government has wasted over a million dollars to appeal the ruling—debunking their own bogus claims about “cost savings.” As Dr. Meb Rashid, medical director of the Crossroads Clinic at Women’s College Hospital and Co-Chair of CDRC said, “Many Canadians will find it appalling to know the Conservative government is spending $1.4 million dollars in legal fees to deny health coverage to a vulnerable population rather than using that money in the most efficient and compassionate manner, which would be to simply provide important health services to refugees.”



This year’s rally took place in 20 cities across the country, a sign the government’s bogus arguments are failing and solidarity with refugees is growing. As Dr. Tatiana Freire-Lizama, who came to Canada as a refugee, said to the Harper government at the Toronto rally, “if you think you can drive a wedge between refugees and the rest of the population, you are wrong. There is no ‘us’ and ‘them.’” This solidarity will continue through mobilizing, legal battles, and the upcoming federal election—to force whoever is elected to repeal the cuts to refugees and expand healthcare for all.


Friday, June 12, 2015

Line 9: exporting oil, ignoring consent

Any day now, Enbridge could begin using the 40-year old Line 9 pipeline to pump toxic tar sands to the east coast. While Line 9 ends in Montreal and Enbridge claims it is for domestic use only, residents in Maine have exposed Big Oil’s ultimate goal of export. Meanwhile, an upcoming legal appeal by the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation has highlighted the lack of consultation and violation of their rights.

When the pro-oil National Energy Board approved Enbridge’s Line 9 plan last year, they refused to consider tar sands production upstream, dismissed climate change effects downstream, restricted consultation, denied indigenous sovereignty, minimized the risk of a spill, admitted negligible jobs, and ignored climate job alternatives. But there’s a persisting myth that Line 9 will be for domestic use and not export—leading some to counterpose support for the “domestic pipeline” Line 9 while opposing the “export pipelines” like Northern Gateway and Keystone XL. But Enbridge’s claims around Line 9’s purpose are as sincere as their approach to consulting First Nations whose territories their pipelines cross.

Trailbreaker
Enbridge's “Trailbreaker” project proposed to reverse the flow of two pipelines: first use the 40 year old Line 9 (owned by Enbridge) to pump tar sands from Sarnia to Montreal; and then use the 64-year old Portland-Montreal Pipeline (owned by Imperial Oil and Suncor, who have major stakes in the tar sands) to pump tar sands from Montreal to Portland, Maine for export.

As the Globe & Mail reported in 2011: “Critics are worried the Westover plan – which Enbridge calls ‘Phase I’ – is only an initial foray, a notion supported by industry sources who on Thursday confirmed that discussions are underway toward expanding the Enbridge proposal to potentially carry Alberta oil to Atlantic tidewater. That idea, which was contemplated in 2008 but shelved during the economic downturn, could substantially extend the breadth of North American refineries – both on the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico – accessible to Western crude producers. Doing so would also require flipping the direction of another pipe, the Portland Montreal Pipe Line, which currently transports crude from Maine to Quebec. Officials with Portland Montreal say they are in talks to do just that. ‘We’re still very much interested in reversing the flow of one of our two pipelines to move Western Canadian crude to the eastern seaboard,’ said company treasurer Dave Cyr. ‘We’re having discussions with Enbridge on their Line 9 and what it means to us.’”

In 2012 a number of environmental organizations published the report Going in Reverse: the Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England. As they documented: “While Enbridge now seems to have dropped the ‘Trailbreaker’ name, it appears to be approaching the project section by section, still with an effort to bring tarsands eastward...There are several reasons to believe that Enbridge may also pursue reversing the flow direction for at least one of the Portland-Montreal pipelines in order to bring tar sands from Alberta to the Maine coast: 1) previous public comments by oil industry executives; 2) permit applications at associated pumping stations and pipelines; and 3) the shifting dynamics of the oil market.”

Because they want to win support for Phase I of the reversal by selling it as a “domestic pipeline,” Enbridge has denied the ultimate goal of export. But actions south of the border speak louder than words.

Protect South Portland
For more than two years residents of South Portland, Maine (terminal to the Portland Montreal Pipeline) have been mobilizing against tar sands, and exposing Big Oil. As Mary-Jane Ferrier, spokesperson for Protect South Portland, explained in an interview: “In 2009 the pipeline had applied for permit for reversal, which lapsed in 2013. The lapsing of this permit became public. We realized they got the permit from the city without any kind of scrutiny. Someone found the design drawings showing 70-foot smokestacks built on our waterfront. It really exploded on the public. The Natural Resources Council and 350 Maine had a big march in Maine in January 2013 against bringing tar sands through the pipeline. We then got 4,000 signatures for a citizens’ initiative on the ballot, when we only needed 900.”

Using familiar tactics, Big Oil argued that opposing tar sands would destroy jobs and the economy, and spent three quarters of a million dollars to defeat the vote. But the campaign continued—despite threats from the American Petroleum Institute to sue the city, and attempts to stack meetings to quash votes. In July 2014, City Council voted in favour of a Clear Skies Ordinance, which bans the loading of crude oil onto tankers in South Portland’s harbor.

As Mary-Jane Ferrier wrote, “A year and a half of planning, strategizing, mobilizing, persuading and doggedly attending meetings was about to come down to an end. On July 21, we packed the auditorium again. Long lines of people who wanted to speak formed. The meeting seemed to go on forever as, one after another, people went to the podium, some in wheelchairs, or with walkers, some with babes in arms, boys and girls who, to get to the mike, needed a chair to stand on. It was as if they wanted to bear testimony to something sacred happening. This city was about to speak up for the earth. When the 6-1 vote in favor was announced the auditorium erupted in cheers, hoots, laughter, even some dancing and a lot of hugging. I found myself in tears.”

There have been similar campaigns along the east coast of the US. After the NEB approved Line 9 last year, more than a dozen communities in Vermont voted against the reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline. While continuing to deny its intentions to pump tar sands to Maine for export, Big Oil is continuing to fight local communities. In February of this year Portland Pipe Line Corporation filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the City of South Portland—and a legal defense campaign is under way.

Chippewas of the Thames
Regardless of the ultimate destination of oil going through Line 9, it and other tar sands projects violate indigenous rights. The Chippewas of the Thames First Nation have appealed the NEB’s approval of Line 9 because they were not consulted—a problem as old as the pipeline itself. As Myeengun Henry of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation explains, “Line 9 has been flowing light crude oil through Chippewas of the Thames traditional territory for 40 years without our consent. It is time for industry and governments to honour the treaties and wampum belt agreements. Indigenous nations and all residents of Canada are responsible for the safety of our Mother Earth!”

Enbridge appears prepared to start pumping toxic tar sands through Line 9 even before the result of the legal appeal. So last month the Chippewas of the Thames filed an application to stay order, explaining “The Applicant will suffer irreparable harm as a result of losing its opportunity to reasonably participate in consultations regarding their constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights if the stay is not granted.” Reinforcing how little it cares about consent, Enbridge responded that “this lack of expedition on the part of COTTFN is manifestly prejudicial to Enbridge and provides sufficient reason along for the Board to dismiss the Application…Equity comes to the aid of those who are vigilant and not those who, like COTTFN, sleep on their rights.” As part of its patronizing and colonial response, Enbridge cited decisions against the KI and Musqueam nations—and the NEB shamefully, but not surprisingly, sided with Enbridge. As Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy responded, “First Nations rights are not subject to industry or government timelines. Enbridge position alienates First Nation partners and makes it impossible to work together in a mutually respectful way…The problem with Line 9 is not unique.”

Indeed, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission includes a specific call to action for corporations to respect Indigenous land rights: “We call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their land and resources. This would include, but not be limited to, the following: Commit to meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with economic development projects.”

Climate action
Despite attempts by Big Oil to trample on local communities and Indigenous rights, the climate justice movement is continuing to grow—led by Indigenous communities defending their land, and with growing support from the labour movement demanding a new kind of economy.

As the Toronto and York Region Labour Council recently wrote, “We don’t have to choose between the economy or the environment. Real climate action means investing in mass public transit, clean energy infrastructure and affordable housing. It means expanding low-carbon sectors like health, education and sustainable agriculture. By taking real climate action, we can create an economy that is more fair and equal and offers hundreds of thousands f good new jobs. We want an economy where workers win, communities have more democratic control, and those most impacted and impoverished are the first in line to benefit. An economy that honours Indigenous peoples’ rights and recognizes their role in protecting the land, air and water for everyone. An economy that respects the limits of the environment made clear by climate science.”

Take action:
* sign the petition supporting the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation
* on June 15 hear a panel of speakers from the Chippewas of the Thames, 7pm at Friends House (60 Lowther)
* on June 16 join the court support rally, at 180 Queen Street West: 9:30am pack and courts (7th floor) and 11am join the support rally outside
* on July 4 join we>tar sands actions across the country, and on July 5 join the March for Jobs, Justice and the Climate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOS1S9_ppjg

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Support home care workers

While the Ontario government cuts hospitals and downloads care onto the community, and Community Care Access Centre CEOs give themselves hefty pay hikes, both have forced frontline health workers onto cold picket lines to fight a wage freeze.

Cutting and privatizing healthcare
For years the Ontario Liberals have cut healthcare and closed hospitals, including five planned hospital closures in Niagara. According to the Ontario Health Coalition, “For the last seven consecutive Ontario budgets, public hospitals have faced real dollar cuts to global budgets. Ontario now funds its hospitals at among the lowest rates in Canada.”

Health professionals who work at Community Care Access Centres (CCACs)—including registered nurses and nurse practioners, physiotherapists, occupational, respiratory and speech therapists, and social workers—provide essential care to patients recently discharged from hospital, those with chronic health problems, and those with end of life care. Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA) president Linda Haslam-Stroud’s own parents depend on CCAC workers, and as she said, “It was only because of these care co-ordinators (that they could live at home).”

These services should allow people the flexibility and independence to access care from home, but governments are cynically using home care to justify cuts and privatization. As Natalie Mehra from the Ontario Health Coalition explained, “The story from the Ministry of Health has been that the cuts to hospital care and the downloading of ever more acute and complex hospital patients is not a cut—it is ‘transformation.’ This is utter nonsense. Not only is it a cut. It is the systematic dismantling of vital hospital services that are never replaced in home care. And it is the privatization of vital hospital services to private clinics that undermine single-tier Medicare.”

CCACs show what happens when you privatize healthcare. As Bob Hepburn outlined in the Toronto Star a year ago, “First, executive salaries at Community Care Access Centres, which govern home care in Ontario, have skyrocketed while low-paid workers who actually deliver services to patients haven’t seen their incomes rise in a decade — and in many cases have actually suffered significant drops. Second, the 14 CCACs are now using tax dollars meant for patient care to pay for lobbying firms that advise the CCACs on how to ‘sell’ their message to politicians at Queen’s Park. Third, barely 40 to 50 cents of every tax dollar earmarked for home care actually reaches the health-care professionals who deliver services to patients. Stunningly, the rest goes to executive salaries, rent, administrative costs, care coordination and corporate profits. Fourth, a reign of fear and intimidation imposed by CCAC bureaucrats has effectively shut up critics of the system, especially those employed by private companies that have contracts with CCACs to provide the workers who actually deliver services to patients.”

Downloading services into the home also transfers care to unpaid domestic labour, disproportionately affecting women. Now the CEOs who awarded themselves massive pay hikes are trying to impose yet another pay freeze on home care workers—also disproportionately women—while the Liberal government turns their back on patients.

Braving the cold against a wage freeze
But 3,000 members of the Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA) have gone on strike at 9 of 14 CCACs across the province. After a two year pay freeze, all they are asking for is a 1.4% increase—the same as that received by the 57,000 registered nurses working in hospitals, long-term care and public health.

While home care workers are braving the cold against a wage freeze, the CEOs are basking in the sun—like Richard Joly, CEO of the North East CCAC, who gave himself a 48% pay hike (from $176,000 to $260,000), and according to ONA is currently on vacation in Mexico. As Haslam-Stroud said, "While we are there for you in your homes, schools and communities, the CEOs are continuing to award themselves hefty increases, in most cases, and jetting off to Mexico during a crisis in home care. The public should be angry and this government should be taking action."

Scabs don’t heal
Instead of respecting home care workers and paying them a fair raise, CCACs are putting patients at risk by using untrained replacement workers. As Haslam-Stroud explained, "Information has been received from inside the South West CCAC that accounting staff and HR are doing this work. It is totally inappropriate for our patients to have their wounds assessed by accounting and HR staff. The referrals for registered nurses to assess wounds should come from a doctor, the family members of home patients and long-term care facilities. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care should be taking immediate steps to address this unacceptable practice and get back to the negotiating table with a reasonable offer for our essential nurses and health care providers."

Meanwhile the Liberal government—who created this crisis in the first place by cutting hospitals and encouraging privatization—is pretending nothing’s wrong. Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins claimed that “CCACs have developed contingency plans and are working with all of their partners to ensure patients continue to receive the care they need." The mainstream media are dutifully playing along, with headline likeOntario health workers strike could cause hospital backlogs,” blaming the chronic hospital backlog created by government cuts on a few days of home care workers fighting back.

Patients above profits
We need to support home care workers as part of putting patients above profits. We need to reverse hospital cuts that are downloading services, and where there is a need for homecare it shouldn’t be contracted out to for-profit corporations but provided by nurses and personal support workers—who  are well paid for the vital services they provide. As Margaret Marcotte, a labour relations officer for ONA in Windsor, said on the picket line, “My appeal is this: call the CEOs of your CCAC, call your MPPs, call your local LHINs and demand they get back to the table and negotiate a fair deal.”

Join a picket line—for more information visit ONA.