Review-Mirror

The Ontario govern- ment's proposed changes to employment and labour laws could have signifi- cant impact on the province's agri-food industry. The proposed changes were announced yesterday in response to the release of the final report from the Changing Workplaces Review. Proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act include a commitment by the Ministry of Labour to conduct a review of ESA exemptions and spe- cial industry rules begin- ning fall 2017. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) is pleased the special advi- sors have carried forward this concept from the inter- im report rather than rec- ommending the wholesale removal of all Employ- ment Standards Act exemptions. OFA will con- tinue to express the views of our farm business mem- bers to government throughout stakeholder consultations on this issue. Farms are becoming increasingly automated, but many sectors of our industry require the dis- cerning mind and gentle touch of a person, and OFA maintains there is no justification for changes to the current, flexible approach for farm workers under the Employment Standards Act. OFA believes the rec- ommendation from the Changing Workplaces Review final report that the agricultural sector should no longer be exempt from the Labour Relations Act to be unjus- tified. OFA appreciates the Ministry of Labour has recognized the legitimacy and efficacy of Agricultur- al Employees Protection Act to protect the rights of farm workers and has cho- sen not to adopt this rec- ommendation. OFA is concerned the government will raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2019. This shows the gov- ernment chose to ignore the recommendations of their own minimum wage advisory panel in 2014 that advised the process for raising minimum wage should be depoliticised. That advisory panel also noted research generally shows raising the mini- mum wage has an adverse employment effect, espe- cially for young workers. An increase of this magnitude in the mini- mum wage leads to overall wage and price inflation. Farm and food prices are globally driven, this wage increase serves to make Ontario farmers and agri- food businesses less com- petitive, threatens food security and the sustain- ability of agricultural products available to Ontario consumers. The minimum wage advisory panel heard an almost universal agree- ment among stakeholders that the process of revising minimum wage rates should be more transpar- ent and predictable, and at arms-length from govern- ment's own near-term con- cerns. By raising mini- mum wage, the govern- ment's actions work in opposition to the pre- dictability and payroll sta- bility their minimum wage review was meant to bring to businesses in Ontario. OFA will continue work- ing together with business and farm organization partners to secure fair and respectful employment law to balance the needs of workers and the agri-food sector. Keith Currie, President Ontario Federation of Agriculture OPINION PAGE Publisher/Editor– Howie Crichton hcrichton@review-mirror.com Advertising Sales – Bill Ritchie advertising@review-mirror.com Office – Louise Haughton lhaughton@review-mirror.com Reporter-Photographer - Margaret Brand mbrand@review-mirror.com 4 – June 15, 2017 The Review-Mirror 43 Bedford St. P.O. Box 130,Westport, Ont. K0G 1X0 Ph. 613-273-8000 • 1-800-387-0796 • Fax 273-8001 editor @ review-mirror.com • www.review-mirror.com • PAP Registration No. 01601 • Printed in Smiths Falls, Ontario • The Review-Mirror is published Thursdays. Subscriptions: $33.84 online; $44.50 locally; $55.00 elsewhere in Canada; $150 sin the U.S. We acknowledge the support of the Government of Canada. Publishers ONTARIO COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION CANADIAN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION 1893-1897 — H. E. Bywater 1897-1916 — W. B. Adams 1916- — Arthur Niblock -1967 — Jim Niblock 1967-1987 — F. Lea and Phyllis Hutchinson 1987-1988 — Bob & Sandy Runciman 1988-1993 — Phil Rutherford 1993- — Howie Crichton CANADIAN MEDIA CIRCULATION AUDIT Mirror The Review Letters to the Editor The Review-Mirror accepts Letters to the Editor. Letters may be edited for content, space and libel. Please include a phone number for confirmation. It was reported in last week's Review-Mirror that Westport has received five bids, ranging from $2,372,690.00 to $3,420,180.00 to construct the new waste water treat- ment facility. Aecom Consulting Engineering is reviewing the two lowest bids to ensure that they cover the bid document specifications. The first thing that strikes one about the bids is that there is over a million dollar difference between the highest and lowest bid. When five companies bid on the same pro- ject one has to wonder how there could be such a large spread in the costing? As part of the bid process there was a meeting of the interested bid- ders, on site, and the village engi- neer pointed out that it was neces- sary to issue several small adden- dums to the original bid document. In other words the original docu- ment was clear and none of the bid- ders raised substantive issues that hadn't been covered, or should have been covered, in the original docu- ment. All five of the companies interested in bidding understood what was required, the bid document was clear and yet there is over a mil- lion dollar difference in high and low bids. I was someone, when in elected life, who was frequently around when tenders were opened and who often wondered what explained huge differences in bid prices. In almost all cases there was a staff "engineering" estimated cost for a proposed project. I was often struck by how close to some of the ten- dered prices the estimate was. In the case of the Westport project the ten- dered prices were significantly high- er than the estimated cost of the work prepared by the consulting engineers. I was always told that, to some extent, tendered prices had an ele- ment of the "economy" in them. If construction companies were really busy they might throw a bid in, way high, almost to avoid getting the work. If construction companies were slow they really had to sharpen their pencils because there was a great deal of competition to get the work that was out there. In reality a company can't put in a bid, on a job that is worth close to $2.5 million, that has any credibility, without spending a good deal of staff time and resources which costs considerable money. The argument can be made that all five bidders incurred considerable cost to put their bid together and each company would be prepared to justify the number they came up with for the cost of the project. Dare I say that maybe the old axiom, "you get what you pay for", may be at work. Nobody wants to pay a million dollars more for a pro- ject but if the extra money would result in a far superior end result would it be prudent to look at the highest bid? It is the writer's under- standing that the two lowest bids are being scrutinized. Does that mean the other bids won't be reviewed for no other reason than money? It is the writer's impression, right- ly or wrongly, that the highest bid in the case of the Westport waste water project would have been eliminated as a result of the bid cost number. If it is only the lowest two bids that are being reviewed the village will never really know what was offered in the highest bid and what the extra money would have provided. As a member of the Peterborough Utilities Commission I saw all ten- ders awarded to the lowest bidder, "subject to engineering scrutiny". It didn't happen often but there were times when a recommendation would come from staff that a tender be awarded to a higher bidder because the review by the engineers indicated the lowest bid would not do all the work, in a satisfactory manner, that was included in the ten- der document. The Utilities staff always reviewed all the tenders received to ensure that if the Com- mission awarded the lowest price it was getting all the technical compo- nents covered. When you look at all the bid num- bers for the Westport project there was a $145,000 difference between the second and third lowest bid prices. How would you feel if you had spent $50,000 on a bid for a $2.5 million project and your bid wasn't even looked at? Let's hope that the evaluation grids used by the consult- ing engineers are fool proof because the third place finisher is going to be looking for good reasons why their bid was not evaluated. At first glance it would seem like a "no-brainer" to discard a bid a mil- lion dollars higher than the two low- est bids but reviewing bids for a pro- ject with the technical sophistication of the new waste water treatment facility is more than simply looking at the lowest numbers. Mike McIntyre joymikechloe@gmail.com Dealing with wide variances in tender process Wage increase and proposed labour changes will impact agri-food industry A contractor spraying wild parsnip on behalf of Leeds Grenville County was on the Narrows Lock Road last Thursday. Spraying has become a controversial issue over the past few seasons as governments battle invasive species.

• Cover