- Reaction score
- 6,331
- Points
- 1,360
QUOTE FROM BRIHARD
The Emergencies Act did not inherently supersede rights. It explicitly remained subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That’s right in the Act; it has no Charter override.
The comparison being made is to Doug Ford’s intended use of legislation to trample collective bargaining rights, and his use of the Notwithstanding Clause to do so. Any invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause is explicitly, and by definition, superseding rights- it means the government acknowledges that what they want to do would NOT constitute “reasonable limitations” under s. 1, that can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Doug Ford has in effect said “we will specifically suppress your protected Charter right to protectively bargain, and we know the only way we can do so is by using a mechanism that lets us set that right aside without having to defend our actions legally”.
I was a Union steward/executive for 32 years so I'm certainly not anti-union but folks have forgotten how a strike is supposed to work.
Both sides are supposed to have something to lose, the employer could lose his business and/or the employees could lose their jobs. A happy medium is the best for both sides.
When Govt unions go on strike they do so knowing their jobs will still be waiting for them. I've been on two strikes and knew that my job was never in jeopardy. Compare that to the CAA folk here in Southern Ontario who went on strike and then lost their jobs when CAA closed a bunch of stores who didn't settle.
Both sides lost...
That's a strike, and the kind the Govt shouldn't meddle in. A teachers 'strike' with no possible consequences of job loss, really isn't a strike but more a hostage taking, and I have no issue with the Govt closing it down.
Keep talking....
The Emergencies Act did not inherently supersede rights. It explicitly remained subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That’s right in the Act; it has no Charter override.
The comparison being made is to Doug Ford’s intended use of legislation to trample collective bargaining rights, and his use of the Notwithstanding Clause to do so. Any invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause is explicitly, and by definition, superseding rights- it means the government acknowledges that what they want to do would NOT constitute “reasonable limitations” under s. 1, that can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Doug Ford has in effect said “we will specifically suppress your protected Charter right to protectively bargain, and we know the only way we can do so is by using a mechanism that lets us set that right aside without having to defend our actions legally”.
I was a Union steward/executive for 32 years so I'm certainly not anti-union but folks have forgotten how a strike is supposed to work.
Both sides are supposed to have something to lose, the employer could lose his business and/or the employees could lose their jobs. A happy medium is the best for both sides.
When Govt unions go on strike they do so knowing their jobs will still be waiting for them. I've been on two strikes and knew that my job was never in jeopardy. Compare that to the CAA folk here in Southern Ontario who went on strike and then lost their jobs when CAA closed a bunch of stores who didn't settle.
Both sides lost...
That's a strike, and the kind the Govt shouldn't meddle in. A teachers 'strike' with no possible consequences of job loss, really isn't a strike but more a hostage taking, and I have no issue with the Govt closing it down.
Keep talking....
Last edited: