Canada Politics Thread

[Mazmaz]

So I figured it's better to just make this thread and put news/discussion in it instead of a new thread everytime I feel like bantering with Aurik and others. Also, anyone know a better way to copypasta news articles than just selecting everything? Kuya always has such nice formats.

So here's the first one.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...ttendants.html

Air Canada will face back-to-work law in case of strike

The federal government has served notice it will introduce back-to-work legislation should there be a strike by Air Canada’s 6,800 flight attendants on Wednesday, Federal Minister of Labour Lisa Raitt said Monday.

Raitt said the legislation won't be passed fast enough to prevent a strike, if it begins when the flight attendants are first legally able to walk out, at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

"We're doing this because it is the best thing for the economy, it's the best thing to do for the Canadian public and it's the best thing to do for the airline," Raitt said Monday night.

Raitt, who met with both sides, said both the union and the airline assured her a deal was possible, but could not guarantee that there would not be a strike.
AIR CANADA The airline by the numbers The airline by the numbers

Contract talks between the airline and its flight attendants are continuing. The two sides have been in discussions since Sunday on new proposals they exchanged over the weekend.

NDP Labour critic Yvon Godin urged the government not to force the flight attendants back to work.

"People have the right to have a union. They have the right to negotiate. They have a right to have a strike," he said.

However, Godin stopped short of promising a filibuster to delay any back-to-work legislation proposed by the government. "It's premature at this time," he said.

Flight attendants planned rallies in seven cities across the country on Tuesday, beginning 10 a.m. local time. The cities will include Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver.
Strike would cripple airline

When the airline's customer service agents walked out in June, Raitt introduced back-to-work legislation. As it happened, the two sides reached a deal within three days, before Ottawa could pass the measure into law.

Although that strike slowed operations for the airline, a strike by the flight attendants would cripple Air Canada.

The airline has yet to disclose its contingency plans in the event of a strike, but has said it would operate a partial schedule with the help of international airlines with which it shares passengers.

Jazz will continue to operate regional connector service for Air Canada since its flight attendants operate under a separate contract.

Air Canada is allowing travellers who are booked to fly over the next six days to change their flights free of charge to a later date, subject to availability.

In August, the Air Canada flight attendants resoundingly rejected a tentative deal CUPE negotiated with the airline, forcing the two sides back to the drawing board.

The key areas of dispute are wages, pensions and crew rest, working conditions and work rules.

[Mazmaz]

Just like last time with Canada Post, but this time with a private corporation. Must feel great to be a powerful company in this day and age, since you don't have to negotiate with unions anymore since the Conservatives got your back with back-to-work legislature.
The conservatives of course cite economy fears as reasons for doing these things, the same thing they ran their entire election campaign on, expecting Canadians to give up their liberties for a so called assurance of economic stability.
I'd love to hear the defense this time around, since the last time the argument hinged on the fact that it was a public corporation at play, and not a private one.

[aduidarnenye]

I can understand why they'd want to get Canada Post back to work but I don't see why Air Canada is being pushed back since there are other options for air travel in Canada. Maybe they're worried about losing their free trips.

[Abandon]

Canada politics? loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[friedfunk]

fuck Air Canada. If the govt wasn't propping up this shitbag of a company it would have died off years ago.

[aurik]

Which is precisely why the gov't tends to get involved when there's a strike.

[Melena]

fuck Air Canada. If the govt wasn't propping up this shitbag of a company it would have died off years ago.

Agreed. I flew them once several years ago and when leaving, they claimed my flight was delayed due to weather. There wasn't a cloud in the sky at the destination or in toronto. They just didn't want to say it was due to the pope flying in....

[Kaylia]

Just like last time with Canada Post, but this time with a private corporation. Must feel great to be a powerful company in this day and age, since you don't have to negotiate with unions anymore since the Conservatives got your back with back-to-work legislature.
The conservatives of course cite economy fears as reasons for doing these things, the same thing they ran their entire election campaign on, expecting Canadians to give up their liberties for a so called assurance of economic stability.
I'd love to hear the defense this time around, since the last time the argument hinged on the fact that it was a public corporation at play, and not a private one.

fuck Air Canada. If the govt wasn't propping up this shitbag of a company it would have died off years ago.

This.


And Mazmaz, are you able to tell us if Air Canada's flight attendant condition are better or worse than the average flight attendant in Canada?

[aurik]

Always have the option to quit. Maybe exercise it once in a while.

[Mazmaz]

This.


And Mazmaz, are you able to tell us if Air Canada's flight attendant condition are better or worse than the average flight attendant in Canada?

That doesn't matter and is not the question at hand at all. Unions have a legal right to strike. It's not about whether you or someone else feels as though they don't deserve to be able to strike.

[Skjie]

Except that with a double dip recession looming, bitching that you aren't being paid enough and essentially holding part of the economy hostage isn't going to work with a Government who already feels that Unions have too much power.

[Kaylia]

That doesn't matter and is not the question at hand at all. Unions have a legal right to strike. It's not about whether you or someone else feels as though they don't deserve to be able to strike.

All I have to say is that people like you are the reason why the economy is going for the worse. Unions are a plague in this country, and not because they hurt big corporations, it's because they harm everyone.


They aren't protecting your right anymore, it's just a bunch of people with their on agenda trying to mooch as much money as they can from the system. You think I'm exaggerating? Just look at the recent development in Québec where they found out unions were infested by crime-related organization. We don't go one week lately without a new scandals erupting. It's getting ridiculous. And while the situation is pretty bad over here, don't think the rest of the canada is free from this bullshit. The longer they have this kind of power, the worse it will get.

But even when there is no direct corruption, they are constantly doing petty stuff like threatening people, burn through their budget for retarded shit, paid travel and pointless conference. In the end, a huge chunk of your salary is going to land in their pocket and for what? Job permanence? Sound good until you realized that you can't fire the rotten apple. A better pay? Not really if you remove all the money you give them. In the end, you're basically paying an organization that cost a lot to maintain, but produce literally nothing. Locally, they can make the work conditions of a few peoples better, but globally, somebody is going to pay the bill for it, and it's not corporation. It might be you, your kid, or someone else, but one thing is clear, the bill is going to be passed down to someone, and the productivity is going to decrease.


And to answer your comment, yes, it's relevant to the topic to make you understand that unions are fucking ridiculous. Air Canada received a ton of money from our government (your money, the one you pay with your taxes), and is going to waste it on people with high school degree who probably earn more than you and I, as well as people with similar jobs.

[aurik]

IDK, I think they have the right to strike, I don't really like the gov't threats of back-to-work legislation for non-critical areas. But seeing how much money the gov't subsidizes the industry I totally understand their justification for why they want to poke their nose in.

[Kaylia]

They have the right to strike, the issue is that people use this right irresponsibly to demand thing that goes beyond what they should receive. Everyone believe they are entitled to a bigger part of the cake, but it's not always the case. Sometime, there is just no cake available.

While forcing people back to work isn't really a solution, there shouldnt be a strike in the first place

[Mazmaz]

Sorry was busy all week

But even when there is no direct corruption, they are constantly doing petty stuff like threatening people, burn through their budget for retarded shit, paid travel and pointless conference.

Source? Or are you just making shit up?

In the end, a huge chunk of your salary is going to land in their pocket and for what? Job permanence? Sound good until you realized that you can't fire the rotten apple. A better pay? Not really if you remove all the money you give them.

How does unions fighting for their rights against corporations affect my salary? Unions raise their own funding from fees from members. Source?

In the end, you're basically paying an organization that cost a lot to maintain, but produce literally nothing. Locally, they can make the work conditions of a few peoples better, but globally, somebody is going to pay the bill for it, and it's not corporation. It might be you, your kid, or someone else, but one thing is clear, the bill is going to be passed down to someone, and the productivity is going to decrease.

Again source? I'm not just gonna take your word on this stuff. Just cause you believe these things doesn't make them true.

And to answer your comment, yes, it's relevant to the topic to make you understand that unions are fucking ridiculous. Air Canada received a ton of money from our government (your money, the one you pay with your taxes), and is going to waste it on people with high school degree who probably earn more than you and I, as well as people with similar jobs.

Once again you reply with your obnoxious conservative views of how you're better than everyone else.
http://www.wowjobs.ca/salary-flight+attendant
Average flight attendant salary is $38k per year. Sounds like a great career choice right?

But guess what? We wouldn't have a country if no one decided to become farmers, electricians, teachers, flight attendants, construction workers, postal workers, etc.
But fuck those people right? Why should anyone stand up for their rights? They should obviously be paid much less than Hipster McDouche IT guy in your shitty office building.

I'm sure to your delight you've noticed the steady global shift towards conservatism over the past few decades. Getting rid of unions is just another stepping stone in the process of enslaving those of us that aren't rich, and making the wealthy better and better off.

[Takedown3]

i like how you group flight attendants with the rest of those jobs. we certainly would have a country without flight attendants.

[Mazmaz]

Really? Cause according to this

essentially holding part of the economy hostage

they are apparently an integral part of the economy and shouldn't be allowed to strike. So which is it?

edit: that quote is also the view of the conservatives and the reason they list as the reason for introducing back-to-work legislation.

[Kaylia]

Sorry was busy all week
Source? Or are you just making shit up?

I wish I was, but a few unions are corrupted to the core in québec, and with most politicians coming straight from union, it says a lot about the current state of our government. This isnt to say that everyone is corrupted or have ill intents, but it doesn't take that much to make thing go wrong.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ftq-hells.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2167403/

Shit like this has been popping weekly in the media for the last 2 years, and it's pretty easy to see that there is a big problem.

About Vandalism and intimidation, we get a new story every few months. It happened to the Journal de Montreal (québecor) and Videotron (cable provider) over the last few years, it also happened a lot in the construction industry (which is the most corrupted one). You can go read about it yourself if you don't believe me.


As for people wasting money , it's thing I see with my own eyes all the time. When they pay a comedians to host a conference, they are not defending my interest. When the president has dinner with politicians, they aren't defending my interest again. This kind of behavior is common occurrence, cost us a lot , and do very little. Instead of having one rich boss, we are basically stuck with two.

How does unions fighting for their rights against corporations affect my salary? Unions raise their own funding from fees from members. Source?

Take a look at the cut on your paycheck when you [are forced to] join an union, and compare it to what other would be getting. It's generally not worth it, and when it is, it's because someone else pay the bills.

When half the province works for the state, the contract they are signing aren't paid by the rich. It's -your- money that is wasted. Same deal when the government has to support private corporation like Air Canada...

Again source? I'm not just gonna take your word on this stuff. Just cause you believe these things doesn't make them true.

Source? If I could upload you some common sense with a link, I would... Do you seriously believe that job permanence increase productivity? In what magical world do you live?


I understand that you hate people with money, and I'm fine with that, I don't think it's fair in most case. However, the country (and province) as a whole need to maintain a certain level of productivity if we want to continue living the way we are, and unions are definitively not the answer to the problem, they are part of the problem.

Once again you reply with your obnoxious conservative views of how you're better than everyone else.

It has nothing to do with conservative views. Our country, hell, most countries right now don't have much money at their disposal, but people insist that we can continue to spend as much as we do.

[Kaylia]

they are apparently an integral part of the economy and shouldn't be allowed to strike. So which is it?

They can block an integral part of the economy the same way anyone could doing a strike, blocking road, or whatever, but a job that only ask for a high school degree like this is easily replaced and worth nothing.


http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Air-..._D_KO11,27.htm

Secondly, if this number is true, Air canada flight attendant would earn 14k more than the average (on the first year). Take this source however you want, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.



[edit]

If this number is true, it only make sense that they went bankrupt a few ago.

[Mazmaz]

Really good 13 min report in link.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...xas-crime.html

Texas conservatives reject Harper's crime plan
'Been there; done that; didn't work,' say Texas crime-fighters
By Terry Milewski, CBC News
Posted: Oct 17, 2011 6:11 PM ET
Last Updated: Oct 17, 2011 10:10 PM ET


Conservatives in the United States' toughest crime-fighting jurisdiction — Texas — say the Harper government's crime strategy won't work.

"You will spend billions and billions and billions on locking people up," says Judge John Creuzot of the Dallas County Court. "And there will come a point in time where the public says, 'Enough!' And you'll wind up letting them out."

Adds Rep. Jerry Madden, a conservative Republican who heads the Texas House Committee on Corrections, "It's a very expensive thing to build new prisons and, if you build 'em, I guarantee you they will come. They'll be filled, OK? Because people will send them there.
The Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice Central Unit seal is painted on the cell block wall in Sugar Land, Texas. The 102-year-old jail is slated for development as Texas reducing its prison population.The Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice Central Unit seal is painted on the cell block wall in Sugar Land, Texas. The 102-year-old jail is slated for development as Texas reducing its prison population. Pat Sullivan/Associated Press

"But, if you don't build 'em, they will come up with very creative things to do that keep the community safe and yet still do the incarceration necessary."

These comments are in line with a coalition of experts in Washington, DC, who attacked the Harper government's omnibus crime package, Bill C-10, in a statement Monday.

"Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs," said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute.

"If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180-degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs."
A state with a record

On a recent trip to Texas, an array of conservative voices told CBC News that Texas tried what Canada plans to do – and it failed.

As recently as 2004, Texas had the highest incarceration rate in the world, with fully one in 20 of its adult residents behind bars or on parole or probation. The Lone Star state still has the death penalty, with more than 300 prisoners on death row today. But for three decades, as crime rates fell all over the U.S., the rate in Texas fell at only half the national average.

That didn't change the policy — but its cost did.

Faced with a budget crisis in 2005, the Texas statehouse was handed an estimate of $2 billion to build new prisons for a predicted influx of new prisoners.

They told Rep. Madden to find a way out. He and his committee dug into the facts. Did all those new prisoners really need to go to jail? And did all of those already behind bars really need to be there?

'We can't ignore the fact that our "tough on crime" stance that puts a person in prison and assumes that their drug problem will somehow magically disappear while they're incarcerated and they'll never get out again and offend, is ridiculous!'—Dr. Teresa May-Williams, forensic psychologist

Madden's answer was, no. He found that Texas had diverted money from treatment and probation services to building prisons. But sending people to prison was costing 10 times as much as putting them on probation, on parole, or in treatment.

"It was kinda silly, what we were doing," says Madden. Then, he discovered that drug treatment wasn't just cheaper — it cut crime much more effectively than prison.

That was the moment, he says, when he knew: "My colleagues are gonna understand this. The public is gonna understand this…The public will be safer and we will spend less money!"

His colleagues agreed. Texas just said no to the new prisons.

Instead, over the next few years, it spent a fraction of the $2 billion those prisons would have cost — about $300 million — to beef up drug treatment programs, mental health centres, probation services and community supervision for prisoners out on parole.

It worked. Costs fell and crime fell, too. Now, word of the Canadian government's crime plan is filtering down to Texas and it's getting bad reviews.

Marc Levin, a lawyer with an anti-tax group called Right on Crime, argues that building more prisons is a waste of taxpayers' money.

"We've see a double-digit decline in the last few years in Texas, both in our prison incarceration rate and, most importantly in our crime rate," says Levin.

"And the way we've done it is by strengthening some of the alternatives to prison."

The statistics bear him out. According to the Texas Department of Corrections, the rate of incarceration fell 9 per cent between 2005 and 2010. In the same period, according to the FBI, the crime rate in Texas fell by 12.8 per cent.

By contrast, Levin says, the Canadian government has increased the prison budget sharply, even though crime in Canada is down to its lowest level since 1973.

In fact, federal spending on corrections in Canada has gone up from $1.6 billion in 2005-06, when Stephen Harper's Conservatives took power, to $2.98 billion in 2010-1011. That's an increase of 86 per cent. Soon, it will double.
Federal corrections budget: Canada

* 2005–06 $1.6 billion
* 2010–11 $2.98 billion
* 2012–13 $3.13 billion

The Harper government has already increased prison sentences by scrapping the two-for-one credit for time served waiting for trial. Bill C-10 would add new and longer sentences for drug offences, increase mandatory minimums and cut the use of conditional sentences such as house arrest.

In each case, Texas is doing the opposite.

So are several other states — egged on by a group of hardline conservatives who have joined the Right on Crime movement. These include Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the tax-fighter Grover Norquist and the former Attorney General for President Ronald Reagan, Ed Meese.

That's not a list of liberals. Marc Levin says Canada is out of step with the best conservative thinking south of the border.

"We've seen in the United States, states and conservative leaders moving in a much different direction than the Conservative Party is saying in Canada," he says.

"I think the conservative thing to do is to be cost-effective and to hold offenders accountable. And, frankly, for many of them, they go to prison, they don't pay child support, they don't have to work in the private sector, they don't pay restitution — I don't believe that's holding people accountable."
Hugging criminals? In Texas?

What Levin means by accountability is what happens at Judge John Creuzot's drug court in Dallas.

Thieves, drug addicts and drunk drivers must file into Creuzot's courtroom each week as a condition of their sentences. They're on probation with the threat of prison hanging over them. They must prove they are keeping up with their drug treatment.

Judge Creuzot cajoles, threatens and lectures them to stick with the program - but he also rewards them when they succeed. If they graduate from treatment, clean and sober, he holds an awards ceremony in his courtroom. Then, he gives them a big, back-slapping Texas hug.

"Congratulations, bro!" he says as he wraps his arms around a hulking ex-addict. "Proud of ya!" he says as he hugs another and places a medal around her neck.

Hugs? From a judge in the state that gave us chain gangs?

It's not your father's Texas. But Judge Creuzot isn't all hugs. He renders a blunt verdict when he is asked what's wrong with the Harper government's plan to get criminals off Canadian streets.

"Nothing, if you don't mind spending a lot of money locking people up and seeing your crime rate go up! Nothing wrong with it at all!"

Creuzot says prison just doesn't work as well as the less expensive methods he uses — because, one way or another, drugs and alcohol lie at the root of 80 per cent of crimes.

"What we've learned," he says, "is that if you deal with those underlying issues with the proper assessments up front, doing that before you make a sentencing decision … and you fund programs that will deal with that on a long-term basis, that you avoid sending thousands of people to prison."

Prison trustees work to dismantle cubicle walls in a dormitory at the Central Unit prison in Sugar Land, Texas in August, as the facility made famous in Leadbelly's blues classic 'Midnight Special' closed its doors. Prison trustees work to dismantle cubicle walls in a dormitory at the Central Unit prison in Sugar Land, Texas in August, as the facility made famous in Leadbelly's blues classic 'Midnight Special' closed its doors. Pat Sullivan/Associated Press But isn't all the treatment expensive?

"It's less expensive!" Creuzot snaps. "We had a university do a cost-benefit analysis. And every dollar we spend is worth $9 and 34 cents in avoided criminal justice costs."

Other studies in Texas agree that treatment and probation services cost about one tenth of what it costs to build and run prisons. Besides that, offenders emerge much less likely to commit fresh crimes than those with similar records who go to prison.
Getting results

At Phoenix House, a drug treatment centre in Wilmer, just south of Dallas, Dr. Teresa May-Williams is a forensic psychologist, paid to assess the risk of letting offenders out on parole or in treatment. She's found that prison is even riskier.

"We can't ignore the fact that our ‘tough on crime' stance that puts a person in prison and assumes that their drug problem will somehow magically disappear while they're incarcerated and they'll never get out again and offend, is ridiculous!" she says.

Dr. May-Williams says most offenders with drug or alcohol problems quickly resume their criminal lifestyle when they get out of prison.

"The data showed that 60 per cent of those individuals will be out and committing a new crime in, on average, about 11 months."

That's four times the rate of those who go through her six-month program instead.

"A big focus of it is getting their drug problem under control," she says, "and then beginning to work on education, job training, getting them employed, getting them focused on becoming a tax payer rather than a tax user. The recidivism rate for probation, the same kind of offender, is somewhere around 15-16 per cent."
A 'hopeless' case

Equally striking is that even the hardest cases can respond to court-ordered treatment.

Kathryn Griffin, by her own account, was a "hopeless" case.

Loquacious, loud and candid, Griffin had six felonies on her record — for drug possession and prostitution — so she was facing 35 years to life in jail when she came to court in Dallas, yet again.

"I'm a person who had a $30,000 a month cocaine habit for 22 years!" she says. But, "I am totally clean and sober today."

And she's stayed clean for eight years — because, she says, she was a "guinea pig" in what was, back then, a new experiment: drug court.

The judge gave her a choice: get clean in drug treatment or flunk out — and die in prison.

She made it. Now, she has a job counselling street prostitutes, pays taxes and tells anyone who will listen that Texas, too, has changed its ways.

"What I like about this state and our government is they are willing to listen, look, study, learn and see results."

Left, right and middle-of-the-road Texans are recommending that Canada do the same — and the Conservatives most of all.

Let's be honest, the crime bill is based purely on Harper conservatives' principles when it comes to crime, and no evidence or logic about what's best for the Canadian people. How do you talk someone out of legislation like this when they won't even listen to what was posted above?