Wayward Son

I basically agree with the statement below. I have nothing good to say about my previous union, but I fail to see how this bill would accomplish anything to have made my previous union any more accountable to myself. It is none of the business of non-union members what a union is spending its money on, and it should not matter whether non-union members. Small limited government only when they care to be I guess. Some Conservative MPs are expected to vote against the bill. Edmonton-St. Albert MP Brent Rathgeber said the amendments would improve it, but he plans to oppose it because it is based on a “fallacious” premise that receiving a tax deduction is the same as getting federal tax dollars. Mr. Rathgeber, a former labour lawyer who represented management, said he expects other Conservative MPs to join him in voting against the bill. “As a legislator, I’m just having a difficult time determining exactly what the public interest is in this type of legislation,” he said. Mr. Rathgeber said unions are essentially private clubs like law societies or industry associations that benefit from tax deductions. “So I just cannot accept the premise that tax-deducted union dues is somehow akin to public dollars and therefore creating a public interest,” he said.

I don't think it has ever happened (not that I am saying that it will happen this time). In the early 90s Lamar was only justice not appointed the PCs. In the early 50's Kerwin was the only justice not appointed by the Liberals, so it has been lopsided before (in terms of political party that appointed the justices), but I see no evidence that appointments have been or are being made based on political ideology. I haven't paid much attention to Harper's appointments, but certainly his most recent appointment (Wagner) seems to be a solid pick, so I have no issues with it. This is not like the United States where as far as I am concerned things have become little more then a farce where each SC judge rules based on their political ideology and then finds legal precedent or reasons to support their position. People with a decent amount of knowledge can predict with about 90% accuracy how the US supreme justices will rule. I see no evidence of that being the case in Canada for any of the 9 justices. The other potential fear you raise is the idea of the court being stacked with young conservatives, who would therefore be able to influence the court for a long period of time (In the US before 1970 judges served an average of less than 15 years, since 1970 the average has exceeded 25 years, and in choosing Roberts as chief justice at the age 50, and with no supreme court experience, was clearly an attempt by Bush to influence the court politically as much as Rehnquist did during his 19 years as chief justice). I can see how this would be a concern (whether it is young conservates, Liberals or whoever being appointed), but I don't see this being the case either. Harper's appointment's have all been in the normal 55 - 65 age range for previous appointments. There have been few exceptions to this in the past (McLachlin, Larmer and Kerwin were all about 45 - and all incidently became chief justices)

Not at all. The Catholic union simply signed a deal with a "me too" clause. Preferring that others put in the effort and expense to not only fight for their own rights and benefits, but by default, do the fighting for the Catholics as well. It is not the first time either. The "me too" clause removes any moral standing from their agreement. The same arguments were made in Quebec and New Foundland about the separate school systems. Both got rid of the needless expense and blatent discrimination through a simple constitutional ammendment (in 1997 for New Foundland and 1999 for Quebec). No they do not. The government and separate school boards need to stop spreading this completely baseless lie. People do not direct where their school taxes go. Tax revenue goes into general revenue and it's distribution has notthing to do with which school system people support. The government does not direct money to catholic or public school boards based on whether or not people check that they support the public or catholic school boards. The ONLY thing that does is indicate to the government how much support the separate school board has or does not have. Nor is the funding to school boards the same per student. In the district I last lived in the funding per student was roughly 12G per english public school student, 14G per english catholic school student, 17G per french catholic school student, and 21G per french public school student. It is a little difficult to compare the real costs of the french boards against the english boards (in this case) as the french public board receives a geographic circumstances grant of $2800 per student for covering a large area with few students (a grant for which there would be no need if there was one school board as far as I can see) and as the french boards receive a language grant of $2400 per student compared to $134 per student at the english boards (Perhaps supporting to my anecdotal experience from 15 years ago that every graduate I knew from either french board was bilingual, and no graduate I knew from either english board was even close, but I have no idea what the language grant actually consists of). The difference between the funding per student at the english catholic and english public boards is significant: 11% more funding for students at english catholic schools then their english public counterparts. As the english catholic board also covers a smaller geographic region, and a less rural region this makes even less sense. I find it sad that not only am I as a tax payer funding religious schools (which I disagree with), but funding them in a discriminatory manner (as only a single denomination of a single religion is funded), funding them to support their discrimination (both against homosexual students, and blatent discrimination in hiring practices which has resulted in 45% of the new teacher positions in the province being open exclusively to a group of 30% of the population, along with that 30% being on equal footing for the other 55% of the jobs), funding them at a significantly higher rate, and all because a group of people 150 years ago made a decision based on the completely different circumstances that existed at that time as compared to now, and 150 years later we are far too damn stupid to correct the decision.

Managing to achieve both an "inflated salary" and it still being "well short of achieving parity with the private sector." is an impressive feat.

So....you are saying that there are other employers...but not real employers....So there are non-unionized jobs but apparently they suck. The only job good enough to be a "real" one is the unionized one. Wonder why? Then take one of those non "real" jobs and work to improve the conditions there. Or you could....move to Michigan. You are not forced to join the union. You are forced to pay union dues (which you can have donated elsewhere) and you receive the benefits that the union acheives. If I don't wish to pay the municipal taxes where I live I am free to go elsewhere. If you don't wish to receive the benefits or pay (donate) the fees you are free to find employment elsewhere. I worked in a location where a union was voted in 4 years after I began employment (I voted against it). I quickly felt the union (not unions in general, this specific one) was unethical. I never joined, or signed a card, and I had my dues donated. I worked for change, but did not succeed. After a couple years I left. But no one forced me work there, or stay there, nor is not working there a violation of my rights.

To work as a medical doctor in Ontario... you must go to medical school.... Or no work... Forcing people to be medical school grads or "no work"... Not being able to work in the job/career and location of your choice is not a denial of someone's rights.

I have no doubt that there are better ways then what we currently have. I also have no doubt that the best system today is unlikely to still be the best system 25 years from now (or 25 years ago). I like to quote Thomas Sowell for such questions: "Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs." There will likely never be a best solution. Even a "better" solution is hard to determine because it must be made with incomplete information as to the pros and cons. Therefore any step forward requires both transparency (something that is sorely lacking from both my provincial government in Ontario, and the federal government); long-term vigilance from both government and taxpayers; and an acceptance that the complex problems are almost never solved with simple solutions. Too many people hold a very simplistic worldview (I am not referring to you, JM).

While I agree with only having one system, I don't agree with any refund going to people who choose not to use it. I have no children, nor do I plan to. However, I pay taxes towards public education just as I pay taxes towards the military etc. I do not receive a refund because I have no children receiving the benefits of the tax dollars I pay towards education, nor do I feel that I should. Like everyone else I benefit from living in a society with an educated population. If someone chooses not to use publicly available programs and resources then they have chosen not to use them.

There were many factors that led to the situation in Greece so your claim is beyond an over simplification. Public sector wages were (and are) not negotiated by unions in Greece by the way, and are set by law using cost of living and budget considerations to determine them. The government and the voting public have the means to keep public sector worker wages in line, if they choose not to do so then they are shirking their responsibility. At the same time blaming public sector workers for economic woes, as many people on this forum do, instead of assessing where the responsibility lies and apportioning the proper amount of blame to the correct reasons, is harmful. There were many things going back several decades that the citizens of Greece could have demanded their government do. Things like battling corruption, cracking down on tax evasion (which was estimated at 49% in 2005), eliminating deficits and reducing debt when the economy was strong, and yes, reducing, or at minimum clamping down on, the size the public sector. Instead Greece chose to not accept reality which has consequences.

1) The bill is actually called "An Act to implement restraint measures in the education sector." 2) This bill was not about putting taxpayers first. It was an attempt by the McGuinty government to win a majority. They cared about nothing else. The fact is the bill was not needed at the time it was implemented, and deals would have most likely been struck between most of the unions by now, as teachers unions had already agreed to most of what the government wanted to impose on them before the bill was drafted. 3) The fact that the government tried to convince the public that the bill was necessary to freeze wages when unions had already agreed to do so, shows just how little the government thinks of the public. If I asked a group of conservatives if they would be comfortable with the power of the government being so large that it would be able to deny groups of citizens charter rights, and deny that same group recourse in the legal system, they would say no. But if I said the same thing while blowing the dog whistle by including the key words unions and teachers then the brainless authoritarians among them would say hell yes. If I asked a group of conservatives if they thought it was a good idea to centralize more decision making power not just into the hands of the legislature, but into the hands of cabinet allowing them to overturn contracts made by autonomous parties, the would say no. But if I said the same thing while blowing the dog whistle by including the key words unions and teachers then the brainless authoritarians among them would say hell yes. This has nothing to do about what teachers should have, or shouldn't have in their contracts. It is about the power that our governments have to ignore our constitution, charter rights and established law. There are proper ways that such things could be changed if enough of the population desires it. The government also has the ability to bargain hard in good faith against public sector unions. Passing bills like bill 115 ignores its responsibility. You have a problem if you need the bill you passed to say the following: Restrictions on jurisdiction Limit on jurisdiction of Ontario Labour Relations Board 14. (1) The Ontario Labour Relations Board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code. Limit on jurisdiction of arbitrators (2) An arbitrator or arbitration board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code. Restrictions on review No review by court 15. (1) No term or condition included in an employment contract or collective agreement under or by virtue of this Act, process for consultation prescribed under this Act, or decision, approval, act, advice, direction, regulation or order made by the Minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council under this Act shall be questioned or reviewed in any court. Same (2) No steps shall be taken to have a court question, review, prohibit or restrain any consultation, review or approval process prescribed or initiated under this Act at the Minister’s or Lieutenant Governor in Council’s discretion.

So what? Just because a tactic has been used in the past does not mean that it is being used at the moment. To make the claim that it is you would need to actually provide some evidence and not just your opinion. And yes, it is your responsibility to provide evidence as you are the one making the positive claim. The reality is that the teacher's unions themselves 1) have not stuck together and 2) have no consensus idea within each individual union as to how to react to the bill. It was not the public sector unions that decided to put the teacher's out there first. It was the McGuinty government. The latter takes about 3 seconds to figure out. The fact that couldn't be bothered to do so, and instead decided to construct a conspiracy that matches your preconceived opinions speaks volumes.

To be honest BG, when someone sets up a whole thread spreading nonsense that the current labor issues with teachers is a plot by other public sector unions pulling the strings of teachers...it is a pretty strong indication of how far people who hate unions will go to delude themselves. I have had more then my share of issues with one major union. I would like to see unions fundamentally reformed. However, my past issues with that union, and my desire to never belong to another one, doesn't cloud my judgement to the point where I have no problem with a government removing rights from a targetted group of people as a political maneuver to attempt to gain majority power. You should also note that I did not say that all sane people would knowingly oppose such arbitrary actions and abuse of power by their government, just most.

The question in this thread was why do people hate Harper. I don't hate Harper, but I listed reasons why I don't like the man. Among those reasons is that he made it clear at the time when issues such as bank deregulation and the Iraq war were being discussed that he would have chosen the options that were clearly stupid and would have had grave consequences. That matters, especially when he became PM at a time when the job of running the country was much easier because the previous governments had decided not to choose the clearly stupid options when they had the chance. The fact that he would made those two wrongheaded decisions because of ideology and a belief that you must support the US no matter how stupid the decision they are making is also speaks volumes. And the fact that Harper has said that he would have pursued two completely directions then the one chosen on those two issues shows that your statement that it doesn't matter who is charge is wrong and ridiculous. It does matter. Countless examples from history have shown this. The fact that you are trying to state that because different parties in charge would lead to different grievances and therefore it doesn't matter who is charge is equally wrong and ridiculous. Nobody claimed that a different government would result in everyone being happy. But that is entirely different then saying that it doesn't matter who is charge. It would have been no different if Al Gore won in 2000 right? It would have made no difference if Breckinridge defeated Lincoln in 1860 right?

I am not partisan. And you appear to making false equivalences throughout this thread. Would there be complaints no matter who would be in charge? Of course, but there are differences. Few people would have led Canada into the Iraq war, or deregulated the banking system. Harper would have if he was 1) PM and 2) Had a majority. I don't feel that any political party is really strong when it comes to science or ethical behavior. But in the case of the former Harper's conservatives are the worst and in the case of the latter they are almost as bad as McGuinty's Liberals. You can sit there and say that it wouldn't matter who was in charge all day long, but that doesn't change reality.

I have managed to dislike governments consisting of every major party. My first reason for dislike has to do with stances and actions that are taken which are anti-science. The second reason has to do with unethical behavior. Both reasons are amplified when party supporters defend their party for purely ideological reasons. The current federal government has displayed more then its share of anti-science and unethical behavior. Beyond the political party in question, I dislike Harper as a leader for additional reasons: had he been in power he would have engaged us in Iraq and deregulated the banks both of which would have left us in a far worse position come the financial collapse. He receives a lot credit for Canada not suffering us much as most countries did with the collapse even though a) that credit belongs elsewhere and his stance on things like the Iraq war and bank regulation would have sank us.

Some people don't like having their rights trampled. Others don't like that the Government demonized them and lied to the public using pure dog-whistle politics in their attempt to win a single by-election seat (and therefore a majority). I would think that most sane people would recognize that the government is wrong in both cases, however, people who hate unions appear to ok with any actions taken against groups of people they dislike.

My previous post was posted accidently before it was finished. It has been edited, to finish what I was writing about Cameron.

My post was not really clear on what I was saying. I talked about the kind of money Cameron could demand at the time to show that he was at one point in time a huge star. When I said that he went to crap, I did not mean that he became religious and gave up money and worldly things as you seem to think that he did. Like Angus T Jones, Cameron didn't even give up the big pay check and leave the show that felt was immoral after his conversion. That would have been the ethical/moral thing to do and it is not unheard of. I have given up a job for ethical reasons myself. Ali was willing to lose his title and risk going to jail for his ethics. However, giving things up due to one's ethics/morals/values are only admirable if those reasons are worthy. Cameron's fundamentalist conversion ranks along same lines of Bobby Fischer and David Icke as far as I am concerned. It is not admirable to give up things because you have accepted nonsense as true. It is not admirable to give up a job to spend your time trying to teach people (including children) to believe things that are not true. It is unethical. But this was not even the case with Cameron. He is worse. Cameron had so little ethics that he didn't give up his show and instead used his influence to harass the writers, and got a co-worker fired because he didn't approve of something she had done in her personal life outside the show. Minding his own business about things that had nothing to do with either himself or the show was not something that Cameron could do. His did, of course, eventually lose high paying offers. But that is not because of his religious views. That is because he was extremely difficult to deal with, and he drove writers crazy.

Yeah, so 88% are performed in the first 12 weeks. 97% - 98% in the first 16 weeks. Most of those after 16 weeks are from wanted pregnancies where something has gone wrong. Therefore, I see Sleipnir's proposal of a ban after 17 weeks as pretty pointless, especially as access to abortion in Canada is incredibly unequal across regions and therefore such legislation would only further disadvantage rural and isolated women in terms of access to health care.

Few abortions are performed past 12 weeks. Very few past 16 weeks. For those that are they are generally performed due to health of the mother, significant problems with the fetus, or due to women facing significant barriers to access to abortion. There are areas of this country where for women to get an abortion they have to travel significant distances (The northern territories, northern parts of provinces like Ontario and don't expect it to be easy in provinces like PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia either). Overcoming those barriers is hardest on women who are young or poor.

That is true. Never. A place like ABC would never give him a platform for 28 years....

I am under 35 years of age, and my friends say that I know fewer movie/television stars then anyone else they know. I recognize the name. I remember him from Growing Pains. ExtraTV ranks him on their list of 50 Greatest Teen Stars (that is not just television/movie stars, but include music and all other teen stars) at #16. In the late 80s he was making more then $2 million a year for Growing Pains which (adjusted for inflation) has to be in the running with what the current highest paid teen star (the 2 1/2 Men teen star) is making now, and was absurd money at the time. He was popular enough that in 1988 Pepsi made him the first person to ever get paid a million dollars for appearing in a single commercial. Then he went to complete crap (Christian fundamentalism).

I would imagine that the percentage of Canadians and Americans 35+ years of age who know who Kirk Cameron is would be pretty high.

Did you read the Drummond report? You do realize that the budget was balanced until the financial crash right? KInd of exactly like the Federal government's deficit which also remains sky high? You do realize that the Drummond report outlines how we got here, and it is not a "spending craze" but a financial crash and, according to the Drummond report, the rise of the Canadian dollar? You do realize that even with significant fiscal restraint throughout the 2000s we still would have fallen heavily into deficit because of the financial crash the rise of dollar? You do realize that the Drummond report states that government spending in Ontario has been lower then any other province except Alberta? And that Ontario has a tax burden lower then any province other then Alberta? You do realize that government spending in Ontario has increased a rate that is below the average for the provinces? I think that Dalton McGuinty's government has been absolutely terrible. I think that his government has been possibly the most corrupt we have seen in the province. I would like the party to disintegrate into oblivion. But at the same time if Conservative supporters are going to create a fantasy land in which they refuse to accept reality or look at the problems Ontario faces in an objective, rational, evidence-based way then I don't even want to imagine how much further havoc they will subject this province too.

NOSM has 64 spots each year for 1st year medical students. They also have probably 50 or 60 new residency spots each year. Most of those are GP spots (and GP+1, where the +1 is ER, anesthesia etc), but there are also residencies in specialties such Internal medicine, anesthesia, peds, OBGYN, general surgery. They don't have some of the more specialized residencies - which makes sense as places that are more rural would be better off having a general internal medicine specialist then say someone who further specializes into cardiology or oncology. However, the students graduating from NOSM have no obligation to apply to NOSM residencies, nor does NOSM have any obligation to take students who went to NOSM over applicants who went to other medical schools. Two of the three people I know who have graduated from NOSM went to a NOSM residency in family medicine and I anticipate they will work in Northern Ontario. The other took a speciality residency spot in another province and will be specialized enough that he will most likely have to remain in a very large city. As for the debt relief plan for working in underserviced areas, I am all for such plans. I believe that some communities that are underserviced have offered debt relief etc, but I believe that in those cases the funding for such falls on those communities. If the government was more serious they could get something going themself to help solve the problem.