Well, the thing is that that is as inherently political question. In EVERY case some people will say it’s very worthwhile and some will say it’s a disgrace.
I am sure many in Ontario support its use in this case. Personally, I don’t, but many do.
I am not at all in favour of further educational disruptions. I doubt many Ontarians are at this time in particular. But this is a heavy handed approach. Arbitration seems more reasonable to me.
This may sound crazy but why not negotiate honestly with the teachers?
It is not teachers but other educational assistants. Teachers are well paid in Ontario, but assistants are not. I think fair and honest negotiations are reasonable, but the sides seem very far apart. One would like to assume good faith. I cannot speak for parents but I would guess they have little patience for interruptions after Covid has seemingly hurt scores for proficiency in math and reading.
A question of law…
The federal government has the option of disallowance which they are likely reluctant to use, due to sensitivity about provincial affairs.
The notwithstanding clause allows abrogation for five years of section 2 (fundamental freedoms) and 7-15 (legal rights). But it, to my non-legal mind, does not invalidate Section 1, requiring a reasonable and justifiable approach. Could use of notwithstanding be challenged on the basis of a Section One challenge? If so, who might be authorized to do it? Has this been done before?
The Canadian Encyclopedia is now online, but in some ways, it is inferior to the print editions
It’s a fair cop. Not knowing the details doesn’t make me look like a genius.
Not seeing why that’s entirely the assistants’ fault.
I suspect some assistants do deserve a better deal. Their timing is bad, after months to years of Covid interruptions. I cannot claim to know all the details either - I think they are asking for close to 12% and were offered under 2%. I do have some compassion for education workers. I wonder if this approach will impact government relations with other unions.
If Doug gets away with it this time, it will certainly affect other unions in Ontario. Why would he ever bother to negotiate, if this is allowed to stand? In a year with the highest inflation we’ve seen in decades, a 2% offer was obviously never going to fly, so he knew there would be problems. He wanted this confrontation, because he thinks he has the power to win it by main force.
If he’s right, there’s no reason at all he’ll stop there.
I’m a bit torn as to what to think here, as I sympathize with the kids – and their parents – who’ve already had their education interrupted so extensively in recent years.
One bias I have is that, although I’m neutral on the subject of unions and readily acknowledge that they’ve often been essential agencies of fairness in a world generally stacked against the worker, some unions have become altogether much too powerful and dictatorial. And among those unions, I have a special hatred for CUPE.
Among many, many disreputable actions in CUPE’s sordid history, for example, this was the union behind the Toronto garbage strike some years ago. There was no garbage pickup for nearly six weeks (naturally, timed to coincide with the middle of a hot summer). So take your garbage to a dump, you say? CUPE had their goons posted at all the dumps (transfer stations) only letting in one car or truck at a time whenever they felt like it, guaranteeing huge lineups and discouraging most from even trying. The name of the game here was maximum public inconvenience, not to mention health risk. Some people were forced to throw their garbage into empty fields, creating environmental hazards. Others paid private operators to take away their garbage, but these operators were at constant risk of being physically beat up by CUPE goons.
Yeah, that’s CUPE in my mind. Fuck them.
But I do feel for the educators affected (AIUI, this is not about teachers, who are quite well paid and have an enviable pension plan, but about assistants in schools). It would have been much more honourable for the Ford government to have insisted on binding arbitration and it’s not clear to me why they didn’t, unless it’s just about budgetary concerns.
Is a challenge based on Section One theoretically possible, if an action is not within reasonable limits? @Northern_Piper @Spoons
(If you cannot or do not want to answer, I completely understand. You are, of course, free from any obligation.)
I think some unions are necessary, some are likely needed, some too powerful and confrontational. The Uber thing made me wonder whose interests they have at heart though. I wish doctors could unionize, but they are not permitted to do so.
The issue I have is that we have seen back to work legislation countless times, but the deal has always been that if you are forced back to work then binding arbitration comes out of it and you get a deal that is fair. In this case, the Ford government is forcing them back to work AND gets to decide how much they are getting paid. NWC or not, doesn’t seem fair to me.
The Ford government believes there is little public appetite for disruption at this time. They are likely right. It did not help them to announce a big budget surplus recently.
As an outsider, I would have the thought that the Canadian federal system has some of the same anti-democratic flaws as the United States, in that low-population federal subunits have disproportionate political power in a lot of matters. This has become a huge problem in the United States, where this situation has allowed a minority to put us on the edge of fascism.
That and he know he doesn’t have to face election for quite some time and by the time the election comes this will not likely be an issue,
I would say the most anti-democratic elements of Canadian politics are:
- First past the post. It is well past time to get rid of this.
- We do not elect our Prime Minister. We elect our representative, and the party (or parties) with the most seats form government and picks the prime minister, traditionally this is the party leader. And as a traditional system, this works. But as we’ve seen tradition doesn’t always hold up to corrupt intent. I could see this becoming an issue some day.
- The Notwithstanding Clause. I understand the history behind it, but it is insane to me that the gov’t can just say “Nope, no rights for you today prole.” It is really is completely unreal to me that our rights can be taken away by fiat. If the “Freedom Convoy” were really about freedom, then this is the sort of thing they should be protesting (of course the Freedom Convoy was never about freedom as we’ve seen in the public inquiry on the use of the EMA).
These two point would also apply to the American system.
But really you don’t think giving low population jurisdictions the same level of political power as high population ones is an equally serious problem? If I were making a list for the United States, I would put that with these two as the top three.
Absolutely, but I’m talking solely about Canada.
The number of seats per province is also somewhat roughly based on population, although lower population provinces do get a slight edge. Ontario, for example, has 38% of the national population but has 35% of the seats. The territories each get 1 seat, and their population is miniscule. But overall, it is pretty fair, while not 100% perfect. I think it is a reasonable compromise.
The provincial electoral districts (1-to-1 relationship to # of seats in parliament) are determined by a non-partisan commission, and while there are different factors, the biggest factor is population equality.
So overall, 1 person has 1 vote and each vote has roughly approximately, the same amount of political power unless you live in the territories where your political power is enhanced, but really it isn’t that colossal of a problem.
The USA definitely has a massive issue with proportion of political power to population.
Also, there is a big difference between Canada and the USA in the executive. In the USA, you can quite merrily vote D for prez and R everywhere else (or vice versa). You can vote third party for prez and at random for house and senate.
In Canada, you cannot do this. You elect your member of parliament only. That’s it. If you want the Conservative party leader as PM, but you want the Liberal party MP, well, too bad. Because you either vote for the Conservative MP (such that they form gov’t) or you vote for your Liberal MP, but if they form gov’t it will be a Liberal PM.