July 27, 2016 - We can vote ‘YES’ to the tentative PSA and ensure a stable and predictable future for our profession as our Charter challenge for binding arbitration makes its way through the court system.
Or we can vote ‘NO’ and face continued unilateral action with the possibility of permanent cuts totaling over $1 billion.
It’s not a perfect choice. Far from it. And while I know certain specialties have expressed unique concerns, it’s the choice that’s before us. Indeed, there’s no guarantee the government will return to the negotiating table if we vote ‘NO.’
And while not perfect, there are still many benefits if we vote ‘YES,’ especially when compared to the alternative: continued unilateral action with possible and permanent cuts totaling over $1 billion.
That’s why we’ve launched votePSA2016.ca, a new online hub with clear and direct information on the benefits of voting ‘YES’ and accepting the proposed PSA (and this new email format).
This is a big decision. It certainly isn’t an easy one. As you make it, you deserve access to the facts about what this Agreement means to the future of our profession. You can continue to view all the information about the proposed Agreement by visiting the Tentative PSA Infohub.
To ensure we continue to provide you with the most relevant information, we’re also launching an ongoing feedback mechanism through ThoughtLounge.
I thank you for your continued commitment to listening to the facts and for your openness to engaging in a serious discussion about the future of our profession.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the OMA at PSA2016@OMA.org. We are committed to answering you as soon as possible.
With thanks for all you do,
Virginia M. Walley, MD FRCPC
President, Ontario Medical Association
What others have to say:
“I personally believe this is the best deal that could have been negotiated under the circumstances and a negative vote will not ensure a better Agreement but rather persisting times of uncertainty and the possibility of further unilateral government action.”
– Dr. William L. Orovan
“We have achieved very strong language to ensure government takes no more unilateral action until our (Charter challenge) about arbitration is settled.”
– Dr. Scott D. Wooder