If we do have an election, I wonder if the good people of Ottawa will be consistent about voting out MPs who 'haven't been there to represent the riding', given Mark Carney still doesn't have a constituency office open 6 months after the election (you can look up his profile on the Commons website, and see he doesn't have an office open. PP, on the other hand, has two offices open, even though he was only elected in two months ago).
I would give the Liberals credit for one specific reason for wanting to call an election to get a majority, even though they would never be intellectually honest to admit it if it was a reason: to get ahead of Quebec's election next year, when the Parti Quebecois are expected to come in with a majority government and immediately start putting the screws to a lot of things and causing headaches.
re:the notwithstanding clause. I feel like history is moving far too fast to stay apace with a lot of things, because just today the Supreme Court ruled a one-year minimum sentence for possession of child pornography unconstitutional. Chretien said one of the use cases discussed in 1982 with section 33 was overriding the judges if they ever went soft on child pornography, so there we go. So the Conservatives at least could have a replay of Pierre saying he would use the notwithstanding clause in the last election, but this time to actually enforce minimum sentences for child porn (I admit I don't know if that's within the part of the Constitution that can be overridden by s33). That is a very tough rhetorical argument to be against.
-the NDP will aggressively oppose an alleged austerity budget but enough of its MPs will live up to their union roots and call in sick such that it narrowly passes
-if the right to strike were such an obvious interpretation of the right to association, why did the Supreme Court take more than 30 years to conjure it? What profound social or technological change occurred in the lead up to 2015 that precipitated the right to strike as reasonable?
The Alberta Teachers' Strike - yes, I support the government.
As you correctly point out, the Supremes for decades allowed governments to step in to stop strikes until they (the Supremes) decided that they (the Supremes) were wrong. Well, I think the Supremes were wrong in the last decision and correct previously but no matter, they ruled.
You (again!) very correctly further point out that the NWC was inserted in the Charter for PRECISELY this particular reason and similar reasons; but, particularly, particularly for this reason. Therefore, it is entirely rational and acceptable that the NWC was used.
As to legislating a deal. The government had previously offered arbitration if the teachers would go back to school but the teachers said, "Fuck you!" to the government and refused to go back to school. The government had said that hard caps were simply too restrictive and, further, the teachers were wanting so much more that the cost would be (as memory serves) in the range of $3 billion-ish and the government had already said that it simply couldn't afford more.
It is my memory of pretty well every deal that has been referred to arbitration that the arbitrator comes down somewhere in between the parties. In other words, if the government had offered the maximum that it could afford, they could reasonably expect an arbitrator to ignore what they could afford and require more.
So the government returned the "Fuck you" and imposed the last deal offered. With any luck (but not likely!) the teachers will learn that bargaining from a position of "Fuck you" with an employer who will not necessarily use the NWC but will use the NWC if necessary (thank you Willie King!) is not a good negotiating strategy.
My take is that the government here in Alberta did what it had to do. Further, my position is that the teachers were pissed off because they were having to work too hard - they were having to work hard but so is everyone else nowadays. Unlike some people here, but like many, many others, I think that the government did well.
I'm wondering what Jen thinks can be done about the state of public sector labour relations. I agree that public and private sector unions are different in important ways, but, and Jen acknowledged this, without collective bargaining, there is no method for employees to assert themselves in seeking good working conditions. Teachers were the particular subject of this part of the podcast and I want to ask specifically what she thinks should be done differently in public education labour relations. Teachers deprived themselves of paycheques to demonstrate how strongly they object to the working conditions their employer has forced on them. Jen seemed to be saying that the union shouldn't have the power to demand to be a party to an agreement about these working conditions, or did I misunderstand? What was clear to me was that the Alberta government did not want to be contractually obliged to address these issues. They wanted wiggle room and the ability to kick the can down the road. Surely that's their bad, especially since, as the ATA pointed out, teacher working conditions in this scenario affect children negatively.
China just got a deal today -- maybe not a great deal, but something anyway, e.g. access to advanced U.S. semiconductors, which for them is crucial. But not to worry, Canada isn't alone. Brazil also doesn.t have a deal, but it does face 50% tariffs on all its exports to the U.S.
It seems to me that the nature of the Trump administration's views on foreign relations were obvious well before the U.S. ambassador's ill-tempered outburst. Trump wants submission, the bended knee. It seems to me that the details of any trade agreement are secondary to the symbolism of the other party to Trump. This is in line with what Alex Muir wrote on The Line yesterday, an excellent piece.
So how should Canada respond? There are difficult tradeoffs between patriotism and jobs/standard of living. But one thing seems clear to me: Canada should speak with one voice, or at least in a coordinated fashion. We should not have the federal government and various provincial governments working at cross purposes. In the best of times, our lack of unity would be foolish. Now, it could be catastrophic. Could someone please tell our leaders?
The Hoekstra story resulted in the second best quote of the week, "the cheese slipped off the cracker". Which is such a folkish thing to say, but its hard to not find it funny, notwithstanding the serious nature of the incident that provoked this line.
The best quote of the week is "call 1-800-DOUG -FORD". Which is not only hilarious, but also a reminder to the Provinces that skilled individuals are desirable to other jurisdictions. Legislate carefully.
If we do have an election, I wonder if the good people of Ottawa will be consistent about voting out MPs who 'haven't been there to represent the riding', given Mark Carney still doesn't have a constituency office open 6 months after the election (you can look up his profile on the Commons website, and see he doesn't have an office open. PP, on the other hand, has two offices open, even though he was only elected in two months ago).
I would give the Liberals credit for one specific reason for wanting to call an election to get a majority, even though they would never be intellectually honest to admit it if it was a reason: to get ahead of Quebec's election next year, when the Parti Quebecois are expected to come in with a majority government and immediately start putting the screws to a lot of things and causing headaches.
re:the notwithstanding clause. I feel like history is moving far too fast to stay apace with a lot of things, because just today the Supreme Court ruled a one-year minimum sentence for possession of child pornography unconstitutional. Chretien said one of the use cases discussed in 1982 with section 33 was overriding the judges if they ever went soft on child pornography, so there we go. So the Conservatives at least could have a replay of Pierre saying he would use the notwithstanding clause in the last election, but this time to actually enforce minimum sentences for child porn (I admit I don't know if that's within the part of the Constitution that can be overridden by s33). That is a very tough rhetorical argument to be against.
Two points:
-the NDP will aggressively oppose an alleged austerity budget but enough of its MPs will live up to their union roots and call in sick such that it narrowly passes
-if the right to strike were such an obvious interpretation of the right to association, why did the Supreme Court take more than 30 years to conjure it? What profound social or technological change occurred in the lead up to 2015 that precipitated the right to strike as reasonable?
The Alberta Teachers' Strike - yes, I support the government.
As you correctly point out, the Supremes for decades allowed governments to step in to stop strikes until they (the Supremes) decided that they (the Supremes) were wrong. Well, I think the Supremes were wrong in the last decision and correct previously but no matter, they ruled.
You (again!) very correctly further point out that the NWC was inserted in the Charter for PRECISELY this particular reason and similar reasons; but, particularly, particularly for this reason. Therefore, it is entirely rational and acceptable that the NWC was used.
As to legislating a deal. The government had previously offered arbitration if the teachers would go back to school but the teachers said, "Fuck you!" to the government and refused to go back to school. The government had said that hard caps were simply too restrictive and, further, the teachers were wanting so much more that the cost would be (as memory serves) in the range of $3 billion-ish and the government had already said that it simply couldn't afford more.
It is my memory of pretty well every deal that has been referred to arbitration that the arbitrator comes down somewhere in between the parties. In other words, if the government had offered the maximum that it could afford, they could reasonably expect an arbitrator to ignore what they could afford and require more.
So the government returned the "Fuck you" and imposed the last deal offered. With any luck (but not likely!) the teachers will learn that bargaining from a position of "Fuck you" with an employer who will not necessarily use the NWC but will use the NWC if necessary (thank you Willie King!) is not a good negotiating strategy.
My take is that the government here in Alberta did what it had to do. Further, my position is that the teachers were pissed off because they were having to work too hard - they were having to work hard but so is everyone else nowadays. Unlike some people here, but like many, many others, I think that the government did well.
I'm wondering what Jen thinks can be done about the state of public sector labour relations. I agree that public and private sector unions are different in important ways, but, and Jen acknowledged this, without collective bargaining, there is no method for employees to assert themselves in seeking good working conditions. Teachers were the particular subject of this part of the podcast and I want to ask specifically what she thinks should be done differently in public education labour relations. Teachers deprived themselves of paycheques to demonstrate how strongly they object to the working conditions their employer has forced on them. Jen seemed to be saying that the union shouldn't have the power to demand to be a party to an agreement about these working conditions, or did I misunderstand? What was clear to me was that the Alberta government did not want to be contractually obliged to address these issues. They wanted wiggle room and the ability to kick the can down the road. Surely that's their bad, especially since, as the ATA pointed out, teacher working conditions in this scenario affect children negatively.
China and Canada are the only countries without some kind of deal sooooooo why can’t we? We’re special?
China just got a deal today -- maybe not a great deal, but something anyway, e.g. access to advanced U.S. semiconductors, which for them is crucial. But not to worry, Canada isn't alone. Brazil also doesn.t have a deal, but it does face 50% tariffs on all its exports to the U.S.
It seems to me that the nature of the Trump administration's views on foreign relations were obvious well before the U.S. ambassador's ill-tempered outburst. Trump wants submission, the bended knee. It seems to me that the details of any trade agreement are secondary to the symbolism of the other party to Trump. This is in line with what Alex Muir wrote on The Line yesterday, an excellent piece.
So how should Canada respond? There are difficult tradeoffs between patriotism and jobs/standard of living. But one thing seems clear to me: Canada should speak with one voice, or at least in a coordinated fashion. We should not have the federal government and various provincial governments working at cross purposes. In the best of times, our lack of unity would be foolish. Now, it could be catastrophic. Could someone please tell our leaders?
FAN FUCKING TASTIC. GREAT EPISODE.
The Hoekstra story resulted in the second best quote of the week, "the cheese slipped off the cracker". Which is such a folkish thing to say, but its hard to not find it funny, notwithstanding the serious nature of the incident that provoked this line.
The best quote of the week is "call 1-800-DOUG -FORD". Which is not only hilarious, but also a reminder to the Provinces that skilled individuals are desirable to other jurisdictions. Legislate carefully.