fellowtraveller

I have absolutely no problem with any adults getting married in any combination of genders or numbers, as long as all parties are willing and under no duress. But governments in North America and in Europe flounder on the semantics of the term marriage. By defining it, they create inequity and often have the horrible optics of having different words for the same union, depending on the gender of the particpants. I'd prefer it if govts everyhwere withdrew completely from the marriage business - there is no need at all for them to be involved in the ceremonies or determing what the result is called. Govts should definitely be involved in creating a legislative framework where the tax laws, inheritance, family law and above all the protection of children are addressed, with any registered domestic arrangement getting the same treatment undser the law. They should also ensure that anybody who registers their domestic arrangement contract has that deal respected by all employers.

It is utterly stupid and outright deceptive for Manitoba to pretend they enjoy economic prosperity and superb fiscal management while they continue to enjoy a few billion in equalization payments each and every every year. Balanced budget. No deficit. Yeah, sure.

Then perhaps you could explain what Rae- as a Liberal- has as guiding principles? The last few leaders have failed miserably to outline anything coherent, maybe you or Bob could help.I think Bob moved to the Liberals and the House of Commons because he was a bit short on pension from his abrupt end in provincial politics. It was either back to the Commons or (shudder) get a job.

The only studies that show it making any economic sense at all have been done by SNC-Lavalin, Bombardier Corporation and The Three Stooges Institute of Economics. The only way I would support this ludicrous concept is if the taxpayers of Quebec/Ontario paid for all capital costs and operating losses- like we do for them now and forever. The route cannot even support standard passenger rail, it makes absolutely zero sense to spend billions on fast rail.

Via Rail is another Classic Canadian Clusterf**k. It exists to serve the Windsor-Quebec corridor with 30 trains per day while the rest of Canada gets 3 per week. The only purpose of Via outside The Corridor is to maintain the pretence that it a national service. By maintaining this fiction, successive govts can pour billions in subsidies into vote rich areas of Canada while the rest of us pay. Bad business, good politics.

Affiliated, but they don't seem to share the same principles. Case in point, a few years ago I checked every provincial NDP website available to research their position on proportional representation. Every provincial NDP group had proprep as a policy itme except two: Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Upon further enquiry it turns out those were the only two NDP govts in Canada at the the time, and a little analysis revealed that neither would form a govt if they had used their mandate as majority govts to implement proprep before the previous election in each province. One possible conclusion from this interesting policy decision is that the NDP are the same grasping opportunists as the rest of the parties. hth.

No, I did not miss that, I noted that it would be so utterly idiotic that no sane person would even consider it.You want Canada- one of thiry-something Western nations in Afdghanistan- to set up an independent penal system in a foreign country that has an elected, functioning government? Should we set up a school and day care system within the barbwired for future generations of the detainees too? Perhaps some branch of CPP as they age? You cannot be serious. Worse, maybe you are.

That is not an answer, it is an evasion you have repeated several times.It was your suggestion that Canadian forces in Afghanistan should oblige the sovereign government of that country to be oblioged to follow your rules on detainess. It is a stuupid and naive assertion and one that cannot possibly be implemented even if we were foolish enough to try. So let us dispense with the impossibilty that Canada could control the penal and justice systems of Afghanistan and get to the question: what would you have the Canadian ground forces do with prisoners? Here are the options as I see them: kill them on the spot, don't detain them just give them a stern lecture and set them free, send them back to Canada where they would be immediately released into our society or turn them over to Afghan authorities. Have I missed any?

The answer is very simple, splashed all over this thread and only three words long: National Capital Commission. They effectively have no budget limit and generally no clue as to fiscal reality.

Never. Often, now. Syncrude is an example of a major corp that has been operating union free for 30+ years and treats its staff so well that countless union organizing drives have failed miserably. There are many other examples.

No, it is not. You cannot be forced to join a union. Under the Rand formula, you are obliged to pay union dues to the union whether you are a member or not. Under check off, the employer is either obliged by law or collective agreement to deduct same from an employees pay and send it to the union as if you were a member.

Markup for current benefitsis going to run the employer at Canada Post around 55%, so a $50k salary costs around $77k. 25 or 30 years of pension after retirement would run that number up considerably.

Nonsense. Personal safety on worksites is regulated by law in every province in Canada, not by collective agreements. And the notion that unions ensure a good wage for everybody is purest fantasy. What ensures a good wage is having marketable skills. Many private sector, non union firms offer benefits equal to or better than union shops. You can pretend that unions act as some sort of watchkeeper for the downtrodden working man but we both know that is a load of crap. Unions exist to gain benefit for their members. Money. Benefits. Pensions. Same thing. You see the evil corporation, which is trying to do the exact same thing for their side, as being the evil oppressor instead of what they are: competitors for a slice of the same profit. i don't condemn either, but let us at least respect reality. Or if you wish, enjoy the fantasy of unions and the labour industry being some sort of benevolent, puppy loving society of evolved beings. It ain't. Get over it.

I don't think so. Police have always had incidents of brutality, but today it is so much easier for them to be caught doing both the act and getting caught in denying the act. l

Yes, and the first couple paras of your answer support my contention that it is fiction that wages and terms are negotaible ina unionized environemnt. You're utterly wrong about conditions in the private sector. I once employed about 40 people in a branch operation of a medium size corp and every one of them negotiated their pay, vacation time and sometimes other perks. The result was that nearly everybody had different salaries, depending on experience, skillset and ability to negotiate. In fact, hiring of subordinate managers was in part based on their ability to negotiate their own deal. If they could not manage that with some comeptence, they were unlikely to be an effective manager when they'd be negoatiating with clients and staff daily. Of course, I am denied any of that anywhere where checkoff and Rand formula are present. Worker unions were formed to a)prevent the financial exploitation of workers and b)improve deplorable safety and working conditions. Those idelaistic days are long, long gone in Canada today though. The purpose of unions today is to gain maximum advantage to their members. There is nothing wrong with that since employers do the same, but let;s not pretend otherwise. There is nothing noble or socially progressive about the union industry. Money comes first, money for members.

I won't be able to assess whether the answer is personal or not, since you have yet to respond.

False. If I work for the federal govt in a term or permanent job as a worker bee or manager I can negotiate nothing, though they will be different unions. Same at GM, Syncrude, teachers, fireman, warehouse work, fireman,cop etc etc etc. Unions have absolutely no interest whatsoever in having any wild cards working beside the brothers and sisters, none. The company has no interest whatsoever in having any wild cards either, it rocks a boat they cannot have rocked. Try again.

Sir Bandelot, what you said is this "If we wanted to do the right thing, we should have handed them over and made sure they would be protected from abuse." How specifically do you propose that Canada interfere with the penal and justice systems of a sovereign nation like Afghanistan and impose our will, values and laws to MAKE SURE that the prisoners are treated in accordance with the laws of Canada? For that matter, how would you make that assertion applied to ordinary Canadian criminals in the Canadian penal system?

Untrue. In 2007-2007 in Alberta Walmart paid about 35-40% over minimum wage, because they had to. All employers did or close their doors. Walmart chose to stay open. Within a year or so wages there and elsewhere dropped back to minimum wage. Right now there are increasing signs that low budget employers like Walmart will have to again compete for labour, and again they will have to raise wages significantly. They very most definitely do follow 'supply and demand', the options are limited to follow suit or lose all staff and close the doors. i can think of a few businesses that did the latter.

Not. If I enter a unionized workplace I cannot broker my own deal, and I'm obliged to both accept what others have brokered and pay them for it. They do allow the farce of pretending I am not part of the union.

That coneviently overlooks the reality that 'individual baragining ' is not allowed to co-exist with collective bargaining. Memebership in the union is purportedly optional but every worker on the site is obliged to pay dues and accept the collective agreement, no exceptions. There is no substantive difference between the actions of free market capitalists and unions. Unions exist to promote the interestes of their members, full stop. All the usual fluff about 'social conscience and special activism ' is pure fluff, a circlejerk that has been perpetuated by Union communications professionals for decades now. It's about the money, of course. Same for the employers their responsibility is to make money for shareholders, no different objective than the union just different shareholders..

So you are suggesting that Canada should have forcibly taken over the Afghan penal and justice systems to ensure that some but not all prisoners were treated under laws not in effect in a sovereign country?

The ICC has nothing to do with NATO.

Those are two massive assumptions for which you have provided no support at all.The Libs have managed to cede the center to the Tories without much of a fight. Big mistake, they'll have trouble getting it back. Good news for the Tories is that Jacques Layton/NDP have no apparent interest in the center.

wake up Jack it is 2011. Very few private sector corporations have or wish to have any involvement whatsover in their employees pensions other than to toss in the odd buck. My point was that if pension considerations are an issue in a reformed Senate, make them go away. It is that simple. The majority of Senators are already pensioneres before they start anyway.