charter.rights

Hudak's fate is sealed if people were listening to CBC radio this morning. When asked what he stood for, he merely criticized McGuinty without saying he would do it differently. The only change he is promoting is for swapping out experience and putting in his own inexperience and fumbling approach to nothingness....

His husband wife, Debra Hutton his chief adviser isn't either. She helped Harris get the political noose while he was Premier. Too bad he doesn't have the balls to stand up to her.

Unions don't operate in secret. Their executive and voting members are employees embedded in the workforce of a plant, and they spread the word. Most union meetings are consensus driven. That means there is lots of discussion pros and cons before a vote usually is called. There is lots of time for any member to stand up and speak to an issue. There is no need for a secret ballot on any issue. In my experience the whiners within union membership are those who are too lazy to attend meetings. They think they can go over issues that have already been settled by a majority of the attending members. If they are not interested in attending the meetings then their hard luck.

Where the drug is in the possession of another and the recipient is injected by them.

According to a wiki article, Saudi Arabia law is based on Islamic principles. By restricting other cultures from emigrating there they are merely trying to protect their own culture and traditions....something you appear to support....

Hey. It is a valid query. I mean she was nowhere in her career and suddenly she is advising the Premier of Ontario on political matters. She was instrumental in the killing of Dudley George since she was the one pushing for the police to move in. Harris went along.

That may be difficult since his wife wears the pants in the family. She was also Mike Harris's executive assistant and director of issues. (I wonder if she was doing Harris too?). In any case Hutton is calling the shots, and taking direction from Mike Harris.

Wrong again. No obvious possession, no charges. It is not illegal to use drugs in Canada. You are wrong and can't admit. What a fool you are to ignore these facts.

From the Criminal Code of Canada: But your request is nothing more than a red herring in avoidance of admitting your error. Next time before you open your mouth I suggest that you do the research yourself rather than ending up looking like an embarrassed fool. ....still waiting for your apology.....

What an ultra maroon. Possession is illegal, not use. Get over it and quit being a cry-baby about being wrong. Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy When you are ready to apologize for your mistake you might gain some respect back.

Obviously you are not making arguments to reasonable-thinking people. Your use of fallacy argument is disappointing and sophomoric at best. But if you are making lots of money at it then you might want to put some money away because with your poor attempts evidenced here the gravy train will eventually run dry.

Unless they have committed another crime, they are released in the morning without charges. The purpose of arresting them is for their own protection, not for criminal activity.

Semantics: a non sequitur.....and your persistence is now a red herring fallacy argument. Surely you are capable of making a real argument.

Wrong again. The Union is obligated under their own constitution. Unions must pursue grievances. They do not get to vet them. Now that is not to say that the Union steward or the rep will advise the member not to pursue it, but it is the member that has a right to file a grievance and it must be given all due attention.

Actually is IS legal to use drugs in Canada. In many provinces possession of small amounts of pot is not illegal at all. Those with a medical marijuana license issued by health Canada can smoke freely and openly and are allowed to possess as much weed as can be reasonably consumed in a week. They are also permitted to grow the stuff for their own use. Methadone is a controlled substance as well and is distributed in store front centres to those that need it. In injection sites and health centres (as you can see from the Supreme Court ruling) it is also not illegal to possess intravenous substances brought into the centre. Insite is not the only safe use site in Canada, ya know...

That isn't possession or suspicion of possession. They have to have some evidence of intoxication...which is difficult to prove in substances other than alcohol without a blood test. But in any case it is a whole different issue. The union's obligation is to protect the workers collective rights and defense is part of that protection.

You might want to look at the law. Not even in the US can someone be charged and convicted for suspicion of possession. The actual possession must have been witnessed by the police or an informant. However, once the substance has been consumed you can no longer be charged for either possession or being suspected of using.

You would be wrong again. The union is OBLIGATED to provide the resources to defend a member if the member files a grievance against an employer. Someone who is mentally ill as an example and who had previously requested help from a supervisor and was refused might well file a grievance. And if that inaction caused a mental episode, the employer could be found liable for the actions of the employee, even if death resulted. But the point is restated: The Union is obligated under their own standard constitutions. That is the nature of unions and collective membership.

None of that detracts from the fact the the unions are obligated to protect a member that files a grievance. As well the requirements for drug testing can only be justified where there is a chronic and persistent demonstration of impairment through alcohol or drug use. Anything else is an invasion of the employee's privacy.

Sementics, a non-sequitur.

That wasn't the question. The question was: And the answer is YES! And in many cases the Union may have a program that pays for the members legal services.

Incorrect. The union is obligated to defend any member terminated who wishes to file a grievance. But then you are cherry-picking a scenario, which is a far cry from your original premise: I answered the question factually.

Not necessarily true in this election since voting started a month ago with mail-in voting and then 10 days of advance voting. People could have made up their minds early and locked in their votes.

Yes they are protected by the union. And if the drug use stems from an addiction then it is likely that going to treatment will allow the operator to keep his or her job (depending on the circumstances of the accident). As I said "use" of illegal substances is not a crime. Only possession is.

You are wrong. It is only illegal to "possess" controlled substances and there is no law about injecting, ingesting, snorting or smoking any of them. If the injecting, ingesting, snorting or smoking consumes the controlled substances before the police arrive, they cannot issue any charges.