H10

You claimed he had no policy, that is proven false. Even if someone else wrote it, why would it matter, politicians never write all their own policy. They have aides, assistants and lobbyist who write these things.

You have no clue what you are talking about, you cannot even read your own quotes, notwithstanding clause only applies to the charter, not contracts that are unrelated to the charter dummy! If that was the case the ontario government would use the clause to get out of the global adjustment charges contracts and the snow plowing contracts.

Yup, racist lying psychos like the frazier institute.

Here are hundreds of policy points http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/ Hope that clarifies things for you. Harper was bad enough that he was pm for over a decade, yet he lost to a pretty boy, a face with no policy. Think of what that means of Harper. He was so bad, hurting Canadians so badly for over a decade, that the majority of voters decided that literally an empty head would be better than him. That shows you how bad Harper really was to Canada.

I did look at his policies, I don't remember what they were precisely but it was on his site, and he had probably over 40 pages of it. All the candidates did, conservatives, ndp, and liberals including trudeau.

The discussion is misguided. Populism started in Canada, specifically Toronto, with Rob Ford. The difference is that Canada has mainly benefitted off of liberalism, whereas it hurt alot of other countries. Harper tried to copy the race baiting tactics of his Euro and American counterparts and he got wiped out badly in the election. I believe this is due to the fact that for all the advantages white Canadians have been given through white privilege and white benefits, white supremacy and white racism. They are still comparatively disadvantaged on a whole and as a group compared to most other white groups where populism is well more popular. Look at who Rob Ford was popular with, Indians, Carribeans, Africans and poor whites in West side Toronto. The wealthy downtown white elites hated Ford. Whereas Trump won most voters earning over 100k a year especially white. Canadian whites missed the slavery handouts, they got free land, but not much else and that land for the most part is not worth a whole lot today outside of the few major cities. If you cut off all the benefits and welfare in Canada, it is white people shooting themselves in the foot. It is the non-white immigrants who have to have jobs when they come to this country, who live in the cities like toronto, vancouver, montreal, calgary that are driving the economy. Whereas compared to a place like France or UK where Syrian refugees or Poles or Turks are not coming with money and are primarily taking from economy. Canada has alot of its major multi-billion dollar businesses run and controlled by Chinese, Indian, Korean and Carribean investors and business people. Where Mexicans might take jobs, or Indian h1-b visa workers steal American jobs, that just doesn't exist in Canada. Who is going to be the first to cry when they cannot sell their home they bought for $50,000 for $2 million in Toronto suburbs? Who is going to be the first to cry when they cannot sell the farm they inherited for $4 million in the rural areas outside of Toronto? For right wing populism to work in Canada is going to require someone to convince white people to hate money in Canada. A very tall order. Trudeau will be hard to defeat because if he pushes through a true progressive agenda, which I think Canada is a progressive country, and manages not to be grossly corrupt, he'd be very hard to defeat like Jean Chritien. If Justin plays his cards correctly, he might be pm for a decade and a half, and he is young enough to be pm for as long as he wants.

I agree with argus, look, its not doctors job to stop idiots from hunting for drugs, lock the druggies up so they can get clean.

Yes it is common law. Common law are in almost every case. Common law develops over time by the courts! There are common law doctrines that have evolved as a response to the internet that didn't exist prior to the charter. Common law has since developed since that case and if the lawyers did not forward the argument in briefs to the court, the courts cannot make an argument for them, or are not required to. Notwithstanding clause does not apply outside of the charter and the common law doctrines are not in those specific parts of the charter. Fraser institute is not a credible source and claim anything that is alt-right is correct. Sure section 2 can be overriden with the clause, but common law cannot! Wynne's government already imposed a contract and it was struck down, if they wanted to use the nothwithstanding clause, they'd have done it already, no need to negotiate.

Yeah common law is made up now. You just don't like facts and truth because it does not suit your argument. The gov't can impose agreements in a set of narrow tailored circumstances but they are of course subject to review in the courts, subject to the courts changing those agreements. The gov't is not a dictator who can just impose whatever contract they choose with no legal reprecussions. Sure you can declare someone an essential worker and prevent them from striking, but the workers can in turn appeal to the courts for essential worker pay! The court could reverse a similar decisions not just limited to section 2 but also common law and conventions which form part of law and the constitution in some cases. The constitution is not limited to the charter, however the nothwithstanding clause is! Its not my belief, it is accurate based on common law, no province has ever been able to successfully pull of what you described because it could not survive any court challenge. You want to declare a group of court workers essential, ok fine, but if the pay is not matched, they have grounds in common law to sue and in doctrines to sue, having nothing to do with the charter at all and not subject to the nothwithstanding clause! Elected representatives can decide how much money is paid out, but their powers are limited, as they should be. What they can do is eliminate workers through school closures, increase class sizes and make teachers redundant, reduce pay and benefits of income teachers, they have alot of tools, they can take away all kinds of ece, school psychologist, school nurses, reduce the size of board staff (who get most of the pay anyways). What they cannot do is remove or minimize teacher pay who are already in place, unilaterally impose contracts on them, force them to work against their will, etc. The same people whining about public sector employees would flip their sh*t if the government came in and regulated pay and reduce salaries in the private sector where they are working and increased their work loads and decreased their resources and stripped away their bonuses etc, etc.

I'm falling over dying, at first it started out ok, then you went out on a senile rant. How does multiculturalism and immigration or gay lifestyle cost the country billions? Do you not realize that most the tourist are coming here for the multiculturalism, the entire real estate and legal market is dependent on immigration and that the immigrant cities are carrying the economy of the rest of the country? Immigrants are bringing in foreign money where Canada has no worthwhile exports to finance their caviar and 4 wheel drive lifestyle. And how do gays cost billions? The people taking up all the services with no jobs in rural and small town Canada are the burden, the average gdp per capita in toronto is over 100k per person, the average home price is over 1 million, and it is 50% immigrants, do you really think immigrants need kenora Ontario or moose lips saskatchewan to succeed in Canada? Canadians are low iq on a whole, they waste so much money on bilingualism I just roll on the floor in laughter. You have provinces with virtually no french people blowing a gasket on french immersion that is useless. Why would Trudeau, Wynne and Notley be any different than the rest of the country, just me, me me, screw everyone else. This is how Canadians think. You want to blame immigrants go ahead. But whose fault is it that white people, native indian people, african canadian people who were living in vancouver and BC since the 1800s are selling their houses they paid nothing or $50,000 for in the 1950s for $1-$5 million. I don't know a single person who turned down the money and said, I don't want your money, I have strong Canadian values. Nope it was all gimme gimme gimme and take the money to go buy drugs to use at the injection site in Vancouver. Can't blame immigrants for our own stupidity, and Canada is a nation largely made up of immigrants.

1. The rolling blackouts and brown outs under earnie eves 2. That was 1 but there were actually hundreds more of what was termed brownouts! 3. No. 1. Ok 2. Teachers did not get raises adjusted for inflation their wages have not increased since conservatives left office. They have not gone on strike, but they have said they'd withdraw voluntary services beyond their contracts because their contracts expired and the government wasn't giving them ANYTHING! As is their democratic right! 3. Then you are being partisan, Harris ran HUGE deficits and made the ndp debt look minuscule. He really destroyed the province with huge tax cuts and asset sell offs. Harris ran deficits every year, even as he drastically scaled back services. 1. Yes. And the conservatives increased it by 50%. However the Liberals actually uploaded the responsibilities Harris had downloaded onto cities which was more than 50% of the debt. The liberals have actually done a better job than the conservatives in this regard. Harris just made the cities pay for everything, whereas the liberals took responsibility in that regard. 2. yeah 3. Unsure, I don't deny liberals are corrupt. 4. Now that is kind of silly. 5. This is where the problems start, HARRIS! Of course the Liberals did not fix it, as I said, they are corrupt, but the conservatives are much more corrupt, much more corporatist, much more creating problems. http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/leaders-ignore-real-reasons-for-high-hydro-rates-1918693.htm That is like saying you are lamb angry at a fox so you will vote for the slaughterhouse. Harris is a stronger, more corrupt version of Wynne, he is the ultimate crony capitalist. They function as the same party, the party of the elite, the rich, the party of the donors, the party of screwing the little guy and making money for themselves. The conservatives are just a little more brazzen about it.

No. Do you care about a the language of a province in tajikistan? No, because it is not in Canada. I mean NB is bilingual, I am not underestimating the importance of French there, it is really bilingual 30% of the people there speak french. The problem is for ROC. There are parents all over the country who want french immersion, but it is a question of allocation of resources. Parents want alot of things that do not meet the confines of our strapped budgets, we cannot just give them everything they want, especially expensive language instruction when they have poor performance. Its not just they won't use it, less than 8% will retain anything. 6 months exchange would be far more useful, because you can actually understand and speak french. I know people who understand French in just 6 months exchange (can't read or write, but can speak and understand). Do you understands what happens to students who study french for 12 years but does not meet enough natural speakers? They can read the language, speak the language, know all the grammar but hardly understand a thing! They still cannot communicate with you. Part of this is a money issue, many English provinces have strapped education budgets. We have lots of issues. We have kids in grade 10 who studied only English, born in Canada, and still are getting nothing but C's and D's. And we are suppose to add on a language to these students who cannot pass the only language they know? We should eliminate French really except for those who want to learn in French, most kids in Ontario could benefit more from learning other important skills that really matter to them like Math and writing, reading ENGLISH. Out of a class of 30 kids, only 2-3 mainly females even care about it, for most kids in Ontario French class is a time to goof off and not pay attention because who cares you'll never use it. Teachers in Ontario spend alot of time just dealing with discipline issues. Mainy of the kids are unruly, have no respect for the teachers, the parents do not teach them any respect or education and since they are just waiting to inherit grandpas farm they feel education doesn't matter, they just want to be on their phone in class all day. In many schools in Ontario you have a 30-40% drop out rate, maybe just a couple of kids will go to university. Many of them have real problems by high school in their home lives, French is literally the last thing on their mind. I could think that an extra hour of math, writing, tech help etc or even homework would be more useful For whatever reason, it is much harder for an English speaker to learn a second language than most other groups. I seen it throughout Europe as well. Multilingualism is very common throughout much of Europe but then you get to England, and for native born English, multilingualism is rare compared to the rest of Europe. It may simply just be harder to go from a unique language like English which has no real close relatives to french than vice versa. Also American media is globally dominant, so it gives a big advantage to anyone learning English than vice versa. Throw on the general lack of exposure in English environments of French speakers and then that might be why. I've never met a native born English speaker who managed to attain any real level of proficiency in french (without coming from a french background or family) who has done this just through school as the article describes. French did not find this country and neither did English, there were millions of people living here before either group arrived and the vikings came here before them from Europe as did plenty of other groups. French are immigrants from a foreign country (France) and they are a minority compared to the English speakers in the nation. Tell me where has french been banned, preferably with links, because it sounds absurd to me, I never read it anywhere, not even as a conspiracy theory. Manitoba was occupied by metis, yes many french speakers and people i'd imagine as well. Ok, so the English did to the French what the French did to the Indians and the Indians did that to the paleo-indians. The history of Canada is one of migration, French is gone in Manitoba and is never coming back, forget about it. I consider French people Canadians, equal among all others. You want a special spot for French, they are not special, they are just like the Italians, the portuguese, or the chinese, or indians, native indians or africans in my mind. Canadian comes from the indians kanata or meeting place, not the french. The Indians and paleo indians founded the country, they were here first. French were one of the later immigrant groups after the English, Indians, africans and Scottish. Ojibway is in the same group with French, makes no damn difference to 99% of Anglophone Canada, get that through your thick head. Who cares what the majority think in China and India (the majority). English is good enough, it is the world language and all civilized people must learn it. White negros, that is some racist language you got there. And before 1759 you were slaving and right after it. French Canadians were major slavers! " Historian Marcel Trudel recorded approximately 4000 slaves by the end of New France in 1759, of which 2,472 were aboriginal people, and 1,132 blacks. After the Conquest of New France by the British, slave ownership remained dominated by the French. Marcel Trudel identified 1509 slave owners, which only 181 were English.[14] Trudel also noted 31 marriages took place between French colonists and Aboriginal slaves. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada And of course you want us to forget those slave you had in Haiti and Louisana aka new france. " In Quebec, slaves were mostly either Black or Indigenous people, with Black slaves being more 'rare' and 'valuable.' - See more at: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/race/SlaveryInCanada.html#sthash.rawoI5fr.dpuf In Montreal, one of the more famous slave owners was James McGill himself, the founder of our university. The University commonly refers to him simply as a successful fur trader, but in fact, James McGill, a member of Montreal's business elite, owned four or five personal slaves. In her soon-to-be released book, Slavery, Geography and Empire in Nineteenth-Century Marine Landscapes of Montreal and Jamaica, Charmaine Nelson, a professor of art history at McGill, examines how James McGill's business relied on slave labour. - See more at: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/race/SlaveryInCanada.html#sthash.rawoI5fr.dpuf " In fact, 85 per cent of Mr. Trudel’s confirmed owners were francophones, and the Quebec slave trade was well established before Wolfe met Montcalm. Nobody could refute Mr. Trudel’s careful research, so he was ostracized professionally, and in 1965 left his post at the University of Laval for a less frosty berth at the University of Ottawa. " http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/200-years-a-slave-the-dark-history-of-captivity-in-canada/article17178374/ The French LOVED slavery, in Quebec, Louisana, Haiti, etc. French canadians did not find Canada, paleo-indians were the first people here, they found Canada, Indians were the ones who named this place Kanata. All Canadians deserve public schools for their language and needs. All people are equal. Canada is a nation of immigrants, we are all foreigners and we are all canadians, there is no tier rankings of Canadians. A Chinese guy who just got his citizenship, is just as Canadian as you and has just as much language rights as you. we cannot put discrimination into law. 1 school, 1 single school, but 13 schools were over-represented. 13>1! The french did not request the school in 1999 and were spread out so they got none. Why should they get an empty building with no people in it! The French and English are not founding nations of anywhere except England and France. The Indians were here first, the paleo-indians the very first. They are the founder. Everyone else, French, English, German Scottish Viking whatever is an immigrant.

It is people who lack personal responsibility and good moral values who are getting addicted. Doctors don't get people addicted, they do not push drugs down anyones mouth. Sure prescriptions are a factor, just like having cars to drive to the drug dealer is a factor. Whose fault it is these people go doctor shopping for drugs? Doctor's are not getting kickbacks, it is the druggies who are getting high which is the incentive, the doctors are not forcing druggies to get drugs, they get them because that is what druggies do. No, doctors treat sick people, if these people were not already sickos coming in, they wouldn't get medicine, and no one force them to take opioids.

An advanced level is not fluency. Intermediate french is not a person who understands someone speaking French to them, and if you think that, you have never been in an intermediate french course. Ok, good for your kids, does not change the fact that it doesn't reflect 99% of students going through those programs. Grade school curriculum allows any language that parents request as far as Toronto (and I think this is province wide) goes. Cannot speak for wherever you are living. I went to a catholic school in Toronto, where Italian was taught from kindergarden right through grade 8 as a mandatory class. If you had indian parents requests indian language in a school in toronto, they must go get the indian teacher.

Because there is a perception in public that teachers are overpaid so they paid the union in a quiet manner. It was bad pr, but the right thing to do. The government was trying to get teacher support without publicly getting it, because teachers are an important liberal voting bloc but are also widely disliked by other middle class and poor people. Because Wynne and the liberals are corrupt and want to destroy the economy to turn us into a have not province for revenge of supporting the rest of the country for decades. You cannot say it publicly because it is not pc, but why should Ontario be the responsible province, running balanced budgets and growing economy while Quebec and the rest get to blow their money and we have to pay their bills? Because the liberals are corrupt We tried the conservatives and they destroyed the province and had us with literal blackouts like a third world country and ecoli water. People had no electricity and couldn't drink water when Harris was in power and he was wagging war on nurses, teachers, native indians and civil servants, ran up huge deficits and sold off the public utilies. The PC party are worse than the liberals in ontario as hard as it is to believe. Maybe the NDP could be a viable alternative. Also lets not forgetting they ran John Tory as the PC candidate, the same guy putting tolls on the roads in Toronto and increasing taxing and spending every year in Toronto to expand the gravy train. Do you want to pay tolls to go to the grocery store? Because this is the kind of candidates they are giving us in Ontario.

Yes, it does broadly fall under those sections, but it is not limited strictly to those sections although it does fall larger under those sections(in part). There are other areas of constitutional law it would fall under. It would be almost impossible to craft it in such a manner to fall exclusively under those 3 parts of the charter and not affect other areas of the constitutional law and common law that makes up the constitution. It still does not apply to union bargaining in an areas of common law, that the courts have enshrined through practice in common law but do not form party of the charter! As such, any such use of the clause could just be re-litigated in manner, if not already done so, relying on the non-charter provisions in law.

Notwithstanding clause applies to section 7-15, labor rights are in section 2 freedom of association, it is beyond the scope of the notwithstanding clause to be applied to freedom of association and union bargaining and as such is impossible to deploy against labor unions and the negotiating process! However you did not even read the clause, or you would have seen that. Well as long as the province wants to keep public education, they have to negotiate a contract, eventually one side will drag the other side to court, which will order mediation and then arbitration. However the province has tried to duck arbitration knowing they are underpaying teachers for decades. So they tried to pass laws that do not stand up to merit. Eventually the province will lose.

So Quebec having just French as an official language is not unilingual in your mind? To me, that would be more or less unilingual, you are only recognizing one official language, to me that is unilingual. I don't think any province bans a language as far as I know. I have no clue what unicity is, and have never heard of such a word. If Quebec separates, I don't care what they do after that. I said the context was different. French is useful for children in Quebec and maybe NB. French is useless for 99% of anglophone children outside those regions because they will never acquire the proficiency to understand a french person. Those statements are not contradictions. French is useful in France or Congo. Teaching French in Australia is useless because they do not have interactions with real french people enough to understand the language in any large scale meaningful manner. --Le français est utile pour les enfants au Québec et peut-être au N.-B. français est inutile pour 99% des enfants anglophones en dehors de ces régions parce qu'ils n'obtiendront jamais la maîtrise de comprendre le français-- Exactly, and 99% of English speakers in Canada, or at least in the high 90s, will never have a chance for real immersive learning. Meaning that the education resources are being wasted on something we both know as people who are at least partially bilingual, is not effective and will not meet the desired goal. Having free transfers to quebec schools for 6 months would be more effective for tax payers than paying for 9 years of basic (ineffective) french programs for students from 1-9 in ontario. I am not surprised it is in contradiction of what you have seen, because when I first came across these studies I had a similar reaction. Ask yourself, what have you seen, who was it coming from? For me, it was always people promoting bilingualism and who stood to make money off of it! Some french or spanish language school usually. " There is strong evidence that bilinguals have a deficit in speech perception for their second language compared with monolingual speakers under unfavourable listening conditions (e.g., noise or reverberation), despite performing similarly to monolingual speakers under quiet conditions. This deficit persists for speakers highly proficient in their second language and is greater in those who learned the language later in life. These findings have important educational implications because the number of multilingual children is increasing worldwide, and many of these children are being taught in their non-native language under poor classroom acoustic conditions. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21771217 https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_billing.html https://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/98may/biling.htm " In Oakville, Ont., Amanda Lee’s son, Conan, was struggling in early French immersion. The school had little support for him in French, she says, and paying for a tutor at home didn’t help him keep up. By Grade 2, “one of his teachers recommended we pull him out,” Lee says. A year later, they did. “It got to the point where we thought that we were burdening him too much,” she adds. “If he was struggling in two languages then we felt we need to take some of that load off him.” " "Denise Davy, a mother from Burlington, says she pulled her daughter out of Pineland, where French immersion was prioritized, because the English program was so bad. “There were no supports, nothing available for my daughter who was struggling,” she says. “I’m not against bilingualism,” but she does take issue with “the ripple effect the [French immersion] demand is having on other programs. Parents who first enroll their kids in French immersion are quick to boast about their little ones speaking both of Canada’s official languages one day, but odds are they don’t think about their child being one of the many that drop out. “You start out with a school that has five classes in Grade 1, and by the time you hit Grade 8 there are two classes,” says Nancy Wise, the French immersion educational consultant." For the 2007-08 school year in B.C. public schools, 4,281 Grade 6 students were part of the French immersion program, thanks to an influx of late immersion students. By the time that age group reached Grade 12 last year, approximately 2,230 remained. Meanwhile in New Brunswick, Canada’s only officially bilingual province, of the 1,469 anglophone students that entered early French immersion back in 1995, less than half (only 612) stayed with the program into Grade 12, according to a 2008 report. From those Grade 12 students who then took an oral proficiency test, 99 per cent achieved at least an “intermediate” score, but only 42 per cent reached the mark of “advanced or higher.” So, what about dreams of fluently bilingual kids with the perfect accents? “I think we were naive,” says Genesee. “It can’t happen if you’re only using a language five hours a day, five days a week for 10 months of the year.” What happens after high school graduation? Turns out native English speakers living outside Canada’s sole francophone province are rather poor at keeping up their French skills as they get older. In 1996, 15 per cent of 15- to 19-year-old anglophones outside Quebec could conduct a conversation in both of Canada’s official languages. Fast forward 15 years and the bilingualism rate for 30- to 35-year-olds in 2011 was eight per cent. The bold is very common, and I have two sibling teachers and a wife teacher. Children perform poorly in bilingual education are pulled out and put back into English education and then try to play catch but are so far behind they get stuck in the IEP programs as they are several grade levels behind. This is not to say all the kids end up this way, but it is a sizable portion. Before French immersion you might have 3-4 kids getting an iep a year, with french immersion the number is like 10 of 30 kids or a third of the class. Bilingual education is a waste, you dump all these resources and only 42% of the kids can even say the most basic things in French and cannot understand spoken french for the most part but can catch a few words in a sentence here and there. They are still going to need the French person to actually understand what is being said. Why would we add to the bad by teaching kids more useless stuff. Shouldn't we be teaching them technology to compete with California and New York and Germany and London and Japan? We are so diverse we cannot have public language schools for a 5% minority, it would lead to an insane outcome. We cannot give french people special goodies for being French. You are not that special, sorry. But for Quebec, we have no reason to support French languages anymore than Polish, Mandarin or African or ojibwe. Or they could just pay for their own private language schools like you know, every other ethnic group. And speaking of cultural genocide, wasn't it you french who enslaved AFricans in quebec and forbid them from speaking their own language? I think the English sould not have any special status in Quebec. Simply their numbers justify a school, in the interest of confederation they should get one and vice versa for french in roc. But that goes for any language, if 1000 italian familes want an italian school or african families want an african school or chinese a chinese school so be it. If the french numbers are so low you cannot fill a school, you dont deserve a school plain and simple. Why do you want an empty building assigned for french or any other language, that is a waste of money. What does it mean the country was founded by two major ethnic groups, there were already millions of people living here, the scottish didn't try to say we found nova scotia you all must speak scottish where no scotts exist.

Sure the ruling party can impose any contract, and they will lose in court, and if they lose in court and try to do it again, they will be in violation of a court order, which can lead to their arrest and held in contempt of court until they comply with the court order. They cannot use the notwitstanding clause in this instance because it only applies to certain areas of law. Brad Wall was going to try to do something similar in 2015 after losing in court in a similar type labor dispute but was likely advised that the clause does not apply universally to all court rulings and the clause could not be invoked in these type of labor disputes. I also hope you are not trying to suggest that a province can simply block someone from going to the courts. The notwithstanding clause would not be applicable to labor rights in most cases anyways. The courts are bound by the essential service doctrines that have been developed over time as a manner of convention and the fact the government has in the past used this as a justification for making forced labour and pay, will be used by the courts as a standard. Sure the ruling party can try to pass any law they want, but they are not going to be in contempt of a court order, unless they are prepared to sit in a jail cell indefinitely for contempt of court. The notwithstanding clause is not a nuclear option. A nuclear option is the most drastic thing you can do in the confines of law. Since the legislature cannot actually invoke (legally) this option, it is not nuclear. It is at best temporary and entirely ineffective. The government is not choosing to negotiate, they tried the most extreme thing they could do and it failed and they had to pay union lawyers millions in cost. They can choose to not negotiate at all(meaning teachers are without a contract). Teachers can strike, or teacher can take this to arbitration. Negotiating will benefit the government because there is going to be a great deal of back pay.

Yes a strike can be ended with legislation but there are heavy consequences. People have a legal right to strike unless they are declared essential workers. The pay is what the courts say it is not the ruling party. Actually it is entirely about the imposition of contracts. The union had no striked in a very long time, and is in a position where they can essentially strike for the entire year probably even longer, without teacher's having any cut in pay. The government knew this, so they forced a contract on them (illegally) and the court agreed they did not have the power to do this. The union now is back to the bargaining table but needs to gather demands from teachers. The ruling party could easily pass legislation forcing teachers back to work that would stand up in court, they would just have to declare them essential workers and give them essential worker pay (likely a 30-40% increase). And most teachers are not even asking for that kind of pay increase because everything over 100k in income is taxed very heavily.

What did I say that makes you think I am in an alternate reality? You were the guy arguing for Quebec having just French as its official language, is that not correct? Where did I say French is useless for kids? Did I make that statement? Or was it in a different context? I said French was useless largely in Ontario for 99% of kids because they will never be able to have any meaningful grasp of the language nor even communicate nor understand the most basic French with other people. And I am person who took French for 4 years of university. It is just not possible for kids to absorb that content in Ontario. They do not have enough interactions with real French speaking natives. They'd learn more French in a 6 month exchange to Quebec than in 9 years of elementary education. Studies demonstrate that children who are taught in a multi-lingual environment have poorer performance and lower aptitudes and test scores than unilingual ones. If we stop teaching English in schools, our children won't speak anything in Ontario. The other point I might add, is what benefit does it serve to French people or Quebec to have French taught in schools in Ontario among the 95% English speaking population. They are not going to learn enough french to ever communicate you. The fact we are paying for French speakers to get services is the respect to the French/Quebec. Go ahead leave, we don't care, we are tired of our tax dollars supporting you and you being bitter about it. Quebekers have the same passport as we do. You want your own country, not my problem, frankly most people I know don't care, it wouldn't affect them except maybe lower taxes and more services, once all the billions we use to support Quebec through transfer payments is erased. I would prefer Quebec stay, like I would prefer all provinces stay, but if Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and or Toronto wants to leave then so be it. I am not begging anyone. You discriminate against aboriginals, against arabs, against chinese, against afro-quebekers, I doubt that you do not treat people as 3rd class citizens. I don't see where Ontario treats people any worse than Quebec. You made an allegation that French parents cannot send their kids to French schools. I have no knowledge of such thing being true, I am asking you a question as to where is this happening. PEI has a small number of French, if the French do not have the numbers to merit a school, that is to support it financially at least numerically, then they should not get a school. You have to have the numbers, otherwise 1 french parent in a 99% anglo speaking community can demand a multi-million dollar school. Isn't NB officially bilingual, it would seem they should have many french schools. Just because someone is taking you to court does not mean they have the numbers, show me evidence there was thousands and thousands of french kids trying to enroll to make french schools I also just skimmed the case and saw of the just 13 communities, only 1 had no school, 3 schools were underfunded but 13 were adequately funded. Have you no understanding that many English schools (particularity catholic) are underfunded as well? And I am guessing that alot of these schools were probably Catholic which is why they were underfunded. Only 1.4% of the BC population is just french speaking only, so no surprise, people don't know they exist. If Quebec leaves, the constitution will have to be amended. There will be no justification for allowing special goodies for French people when the largest bloc of them have left the country, it makes no sense. You cannot realistically believe the other provinces are even dealing with bilingualism other than for Quebec's existence (except maybe nb). French is not even in the top 5 foreign languages in BC, why would they make so much accommodations for such a tiny population? It is like you are literally insane and believe that just being French should grant you some special status even if the only reason for that status existing (Quebec) leaves the union. I would fully expect Quebec to pretty much become French only if they left the union, they are not offering English services out of kindness but rather as part of a deal with other provinces. Who cares, I'd prefer if all the French people go back to France or Quebec and separate if they are just going to whine about driving up cost for tax payers by not assimilating and getting special language schools that their numbers do not justify. If you are going to live in an English province then just learn English. I'd also recommend those in Quebec to learn french.

Not at all, obamacare is doing well and many people are signing up and even trump had to back track on repeal and replace.

The province of Ontario already lost in court, the union is now making the list of demands. People cannot be forced into a contract unless declared essential workers, of course which would go with essential worker pay.

Then your point is wrong. Obama stopped the bad 18% of Bush tax cuts and put a ceiling on them. Obama passed the ARRA, TARP was signed in by Bush but passed by a democratic congress and democratic senate. This was a policy democrats agreed on. Government bailouts are not really anti-democratic. How would the dems, who have tons of bankers and auto businesses going to let the banks and autos fail when the headquarters are all in new york and Pelosi (house speaker) district in Cali or detroit for the autos? It was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by the dems that staved off the great recession, not tarp. Republicans largely opposed this bill and voted against it, and it wasn't passed until, Feb 2009 when Obama was firmly in office with dems in senate and house. Obama increased the min wage (bush opposed) and passed harp and hamp to save homeowners, somehting republicans opposed. Further affordable healthcare act has nothing to do with bush and is a tax policy and economic policy that Obama is most known for.

I agree there is a practical issue. Most likely, the most practical way would be to work through government registries and whatever money raised (lets say it is raised privately on a crowdfunding type website) would be distributed to the people in the affected areas via cheque. Or of course,this would be many many people. I would not worry about building schools or hospitals. Mainly because those don't get build with traditional aid and Haiti has tons of issues with land ownership laws that make building these very hard where they are not already established. The real issue is actually people not having money to pay for hospitals or education rather than the empty buildings. Individuals with money can choose to pool their money to build schools or they can choose to pay school fees for their kids in existing schools. I guess taxation would depend on Haitian tax law, which I would not pretend to understand, these are essentially donations, so ultimately it would enter the tax system I'd imagine through sales taxes or land taxes or someone's income. The one thing that is certain, is that giving any organization a large sum of money and hoping they distribute it to poor people will simply lead to graft, corruption and outright theft. Even in other countries where infrastructure is built, it is largely useless. The locals won't have money to pay the staff, or don't have money to pay the school fees, or don't have money to buy the medicine, or to pay for it, or to rent the hospital beds, etc.