Alliance in Almedalen: Sweden needs a broad and open to future discussions. Government therefore appointed in the autumn a Futures Commission under the State Minister. Each government has a responsibility to rehabilitate their country - not just for today or the next few years ahead - but for what awaits in the long run. When other countries are forced to deal with economic crises, we can look ahead to 2020 and 2050. The Government will therefore in the autumn to set up a future Commission with the Alliance party leader and independent experts. The work will be led by the prime minister and ending no later than 1 March 2013. Demographics, integration, democracy, equality, social exclusion, climate and environment are key areas for work, writes Fredrik Reinfeldt, Jan Björklund, Maud Olofsson, and Göran Hägglund.
.Sweden is a country that is constantly evolving. Every day we face new challenges to meet and new opportunities to seize. Some challenges require a national response, other global. Some can we influence, other challenges arise in the encounter with the world around us.
Each government has a responsibility towards its citizens to arm his country, not just for today or the next few years ahead, but also for those waiting in the long run. When visiting other parts of our world, not least here in Europe, have to deal with both economic and political crises, we can instead look forward. Then not only the coming years but also to the future, for 2020 and 2050. It is a strength of evidence for Sweden.
The future is shaped by our ideas and the decisions we make now. For that those decisions will be the best for Sweden, the citizens of today and future generations requires a broad and open to future discussions. Even today there is a continuous policy of development with important discussions about the future of our four games. Is needed while a future discussion also in the context of the Alliance and our work as government.
Now we take another step to lift Sweden's future issues. The government will in the autumn to set up a Futures Commission. The Commission shall consist of the Alliance's four party leaders and independent representatives and experts with the knowledge that represents the future of various dimensions.
Futures Commission will be chaired by the Prime Minister and given the task of describing the key societal challenges that Sweden needs to focus on the 2020th By 1 March 2013, the final report will be presented. The results will form a basis for addressing the challenges and map out the path we want Sweden to take in the long run.
Even today we are conducting an intensive reform effort to strengthen the value of work and employment. The Swedish tax burden has dropped significantly, especially for low and middle income earners. Labour market policies have been switched to focus on the activity and conversion. It is easier and cheaper to start and run businesses. Reforms in health insurance, with better support and more ways to return, means that Sweden in the short time left bottom position as the West's most sick country. More people have the opportunity to work to support himself.
The Globalisation Council during the last Parliament opened a debate about Sweden's ability to compete in a global world with international competition. It helped to raise several important issues and highlight areas where Sweden needed reforms for the future.
Education, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship were some important parts in which several proposals now on the verge of becoming reality. Among other things, the government has begun work on a national innovation strategy. We will continue to provide the best possible foundation for work and business so that jobs can become more and more come to the part. We want a cohesive Sweden, where more people have become part of the work community and fewer people are mired in alienation. To create the development potential Sweden needs for the future.
The government's reform efforts and responsible economic policy makes a good opportunity now exists for a comprehensive future discussions. In Sweden we have a great trust between people that creates both security and opportunity for development. Sweden has a well-developed welfare equalize life chances and enable individuals to develop, but also a social climate that creates room for growth and dynamics. While no shortage of challenges. We therefore already highlight a number of areas central to the future Commission's work.
• It is about our demographics, we are living longer and the demands it places on Sweden. Already in 2021 our population is expected to pass 10-million mark. It is mainly the elderly who are more. We have before us a Sweden where one in five Swedish will be over 65 years. It will place enormous demands on our welfare system and our society, how we look at work in different stages of life and what we mean by aging. How we meet this challenge?
• Although integration, democracy and participation are important issues for the future. Sweden is a country where democracy is deeply rooted. While there are many issues related to democracy and participation, where the picture is not so rosy. It's about the young Sweden, where the feeling is of standing on the side. If those in society who feel they have no opportunity to influence their own lives and who may live in an exclusion that has emerged due to social problems or segregation. We have in Sweden has long been also a problem for newcomers to fit in the labor market. To give one more opportunity to be involved in the Swedish social structure is therefore an important future challenge.
• Sweden has a great strength in being an equal society. A good child care and preschool has enabled men and women to participate in the labor market on more equal terms. It not only creates greater personal freedom, but also higher growth and development. Despite the fact that we as a country well advanced in terms of gender equality is also well visible as invisible discrimination, low representation and changing conditions for women and men to participate fully in society. What does it take further steps towards a more gender-equal Sweden?
• The issue of cohesion is about fairness and values of identity and people's opportunities to communities. Despite his wealth, Sweden has citizens who live in very poor conditions. We have long seen a social exclusion emerge where those who are born in a home with small margins and weak roots in society, in turn, could have a child under the same conditions. Among children and young people are those who struggle with mental illness and rootlessness. Addition, we have regional differences that affect people's ability to live and work in Sweden. How we meet this?
• Last but not least, caught many future challenges in matters of our environment, our climate and our quality of life. How can we ensure the sustainability of Sweden, we want to see? Even today, we as a country, a pioneer in this field, while there is more work to do. This is not least on our ability to deal with issues like climate change and resource use. We also need to better develop how we evaluate the work of sustainable development.
In all of this and much more fit the challenges of the future that Sweden has to face. Now that we are filling a future commission is with the goal of deeper open to discussions about future challenges. Our starting point is that a good country to be better. The favorable market now being developed will allow us to grasp the issues of longer-term nature. We want Sweden to face the future with a broad and open public discussion.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
G8 summit venue 'ideal' for snipers` RCMP review reveals security hole at last summer's leaders' event
An internal RCMP review says the Conservative government's choice of Ontario cottage country as the 2010 G8 Summit venue offered would-be snipers "ideal conditions" to assassinate a world leader.
It says the hilly, wooded terrain around Huntsville, Ont., featured not only excellent vantage points for gunmen, but covered approaches for intruders, and problematic land and water routes leading in and out of the area.
The 353-page review was released to The Canadian Press in response to an Access to Information request.
It also says the decision to host the G20 Summit in Toronto immediately afterwards "added a significant planning challenge" that prompted a "complete re-examination of the G8 Summit security."
Security for the G8 and G20 events in late June 2010 involved over 20,000 personnel from across the country and a budget of $930 million — the biggest domestic security operation in Canadian history.
Disclosure of the RCMP's security concerns about the Muskoka G8 venue follows an auditor general's report that said the federal government "did not clearly or transparently" explain how $50 million was going to be spent in the region, home to senior cabinet minister Tony Clement.
It says the hilly, wooded terrain around Huntsville, Ont., featured not only excellent vantage points for gunmen, but covered approaches for intruders, and problematic land and water routes leading in and out of the area.
The 353-page review was released to The Canadian Press in response to an Access to Information request.
It also says the decision to host the G20 Summit in Toronto immediately afterwards "added a significant planning challenge" that prompted a "complete re-examination of the G8 Summit security."
Security for the G8 and G20 events in late June 2010 involved over 20,000 personnel from across the country and a budget of $930 million — the biggest domestic security operation in Canadian history.
Disclosure of the RCMP's security concerns about the Muskoka G8 venue follows an auditor general's report that said the federal government "did not clearly or transparently" explain how $50 million was going to be spent in the region, home to senior cabinet minister Tony Clement.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a human-rights case that could change the way public schools respond to their specialneeds students.
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a human-rights case that could change the way public schools respond to their specialneeds students.
North Vancouver, B.C., father Rick Moore, who has been fighting a legal battle on behalf of his dyslexic son and other severely learning disabled children for 17 years, said he was thrilled with the news.
"It's fantastic," he said in an interview Thursday, after hearing the news from his lawyer Frances Kelly. "It's a big day for me."
Moore filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 1997 when his son Jeff was in Grade 3 at his neighbourhood school and still unable to read. The school referred him to the district's diagnostic centre for help, but the centre was closed for budgetary reasons before Jeff could attend.
Desperate for help, Moore pulled his son from Braemar Elementary and enrolled him in an independent school, despite hefty tuition fees. Jeff, now 24, learned to read, graduated from high school, attended postsecondary school and is employed as a plumber.
In what was described at the time as a groundbreaking decision, the human-rights tribunal agreed that the education system had discriminated against Jeff by failing to accommodate his learning disability, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the B.C Supreme Court.
Later, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling in a 2-1 decision, saying Jeff received as good or better service as other special-needs students in the North Vancouver school district.
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Anne Rowles said equality of services was not the issue.
"Reading is part of the core curriculum and is essential to learning. The accommodation sought by Jeffrey and other SLD (severely learning disabled) students is not an extra, ancillary service; instead it is the way by which meaningful access to the service can be achieved," she wrote.
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/court+hear+dyslexic+case/5039635/story.html#ixzz1R1PytzKw
North Vancouver, B.C., father Rick Moore, who has been fighting a legal battle on behalf of his dyslexic son and other severely learning disabled children for 17 years, said he was thrilled with the news.
"It's fantastic," he said in an interview Thursday, after hearing the news from his lawyer Frances Kelly. "It's a big day for me."
Moore filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 1997 when his son Jeff was in Grade 3 at his neighbourhood school and still unable to read. The school referred him to the district's diagnostic centre for help, but the centre was closed for budgetary reasons before Jeff could attend.
Desperate for help, Moore pulled his son from Braemar Elementary and enrolled him in an independent school, despite hefty tuition fees. Jeff, now 24, learned to read, graduated from high school, attended postsecondary school and is employed as a plumber.
In what was described at the time as a groundbreaking decision, the human-rights tribunal agreed that the education system had discriminated against Jeff by failing to accommodate his learning disability, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the B.C Supreme Court.
Later, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling in a 2-1 decision, saying Jeff received as good or better service as other special-needs students in the North Vancouver school district.
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Anne Rowles said equality of services was not the issue.
"Reading is part of the core curriculum and is essential to learning. The accommodation sought by Jeffrey and other SLD (severely learning disabled) students is not an extra, ancillary service; instead it is the way by which meaningful access to the service can be achieved," she wrote.
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/court+hear+dyslexic+case/5039635/story.html#ixzz1R1PytzKw
Saturday, July 2, 2011
A plurality of Canadians think the NATO mission in Libya is going badly, and Canadians are split on whether NATO should be there at all, a new survey has found.
OTTAWA - A plurality of Canadians think the NATO mission in Libya is going badly, and Canadians are split on whether NATO should be there at all, a new survey has found.
The Abacus Data national poll, conducted last week, found 41% of Canadians think NATO is right to conduct military operations in Libya, while 33% think it's the wrong thing to do. Thirty-eight percent of those polled believe the mission is going badly, compared to 31% who feel it's going well.
What surprised pollster David Coletto the most, though, is how many Canadians are unsure of whether the mission is right (25%), or how it's going (29%).
"A large portion of the public is not paying attention to what is happening in Libya "¦ And it's not just disengaged young people who aren't paying attention, it's a large number of Canadians of all ages from across the country," said Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data. "If something bad were to happen to Canadian Forces over there, there is a potential for this mild approval to turn sour."
Coletto said he mirrored his poll to an identical one recently in Britain, which found respondents there are far more cynical about the mission.
Older men (51%), Conservative voters (58%), and Atlantic and western Canadians (51% and 43%, respectively) are more likely to support the mission, while Quebecers (37%) are the least likely.
Liberal voters are the least supportive along political lines, with 43% opposed to the NATO mission compared to 25% of Conservatives and 34% of New Democrats. NDP voters, in fact, are split on the issue, with 38% of them in favour of the mission.
"The traditional view of NDP supporters being pacifists and opposed to all military action all the time is no longer the case. This is not the same NDP support base that it once was," Coletto said. "The division along party lines was surprising."
Liberals are most likely to think the mission is going badly (52%), compared to Conservatives (28%) and the NDP (44%).
Since March, NATO allies -- including Canada -- have been enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and arms embargo, following a United Nations resolution to protect Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi and forces loyal to him.
Gadhafi began brutally suppressing uprisings in Libya after similar demonstrations toppled governments in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia.
Canada has committed six CF-18s to the NATO mission, as well as two air-to-air refuelling aircraft and more than 500 Canadian Forces personnel, and a Canadian general is in charge of the allied force.
In addition to the planes, the Canadian multi-role patrol frigate HMCS Charlottetown and two CP-140 Aurora aircraft -- former Cold War sub-hunters -- are enforcing the arms embargo against Libya on the Mediterranean.
Earlier this month, Parliament voted almost unanimously -- only Green Party Leader Elizabeth May dissented -- to extend the mission until September, and boost financial aid and recognize the Libyan rebels as the legitimate representatives of the people.
Gadhafi has ruled over Libya for more than 40 years. He seized power in a military coup.
The online survey of 1,005 Canadians was conducted between June 23 and 24 and is accurate to within 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The Abacus Data national poll, conducted last week, found 41% of Canadians think NATO is right to conduct military operations in Libya, while 33% think it's the wrong thing to do. Thirty-eight percent of those polled believe the mission is going badly, compared to 31% who feel it's going well.
What surprised pollster David Coletto the most, though, is how many Canadians are unsure of whether the mission is right (25%), or how it's going (29%).
"A large portion of the public is not paying attention to what is happening in Libya "¦ And it's not just disengaged young people who aren't paying attention, it's a large number of Canadians of all ages from across the country," said Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data. "If something bad were to happen to Canadian Forces over there, there is a potential for this mild approval to turn sour."
Coletto said he mirrored his poll to an identical one recently in Britain, which found respondents there are far more cynical about the mission.
Older men (51%), Conservative voters (58%), and Atlantic and western Canadians (51% and 43%, respectively) are more likely to support the mission, while Quebecers (37%) are the least likely.
Liberal voters are the least supportive along political lines, with 43% opposed to the NATO mission compared to 25% of Conservatives and 34% of New Democrats. NDP voters, in fact, are split on the issue, with 38% of them in favour of the mission.
"The traditional view of NDP supporters being pacifists and opposed to all military action all the time is no longer the case. This is not the same NDP support base that it once was," Coletto said. "The division along party lines was surprising."
Liberals are most likely to think the mission is going badly (52%), compared to Conservatives (28%) and the NDP (44%).
Since March, NATO allies -- including Canada -- have been enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and arms embargo, following a United Nations resolution to protect Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi and forces loyal to him.
Gadhafi began brutally suppressing uprisings in Libya after similar demonstrations toppled governments in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia.
Canada has committed six CF-18s to the NATO mission, as well as two air-to-air refuelling aircraft and more than 500 Canadian Forces personnel, and a Canadian general is in charge of the allied force.
In addition to the planes, the Canadian multi-role patrol frigate HMCS Charlottetown and two CP-140 Aurora aircraft -- former Cold War sub-hunters -- are enforcing the arms embargo against Libya on the Mediterranean.
Earlier this month, Parliament voted almost unanimously -- only Green Party Leader Elizabeth May dissented -- to extend the mission until September, and boost financial aid and recognize the Libyan rebels as the legitimate representatives of the people.
Gadhafi has ruled over Libya for more than 40 years. He seized power in a military coup.
The online survey of 1,005 Canadians was conducted between June 23 and 24 and is accurate to within 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Why Krista Erickson probably won't get far with her attack.
I really didn't want to give Krista Erickson any more publicity for her childish attack on dancer Margie Gillis.
But in the absence of any analysis of the bigger picture, I thought it was worth wading into this once again.
Don't kid yourself. Erickson isn't doing this on her own. If she didn't have the support of the big boss at Sun News, Kory Teneycke, she wouldn't be attacking public funding of the arts.
Teneycke is a former press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Perhaps one day, Teneycke will be seen as Canada's equivalent to Roger Ailes—a former Republican propagandist who turned Rupert Murdoch's Fox News into a right-wing political force south of the border.
It's easy to see why Teneycke would go on a crusade against public funding of the arts, rather than raise hell about Harper wanting to blow $30 billion on fighter jets, and then lie about the cost to Canadian taxpayers. Attacking the arts will make the prime minister happy by shifting attention away from more important issues.
But Teneycke has a problem. He's not acting in isolation.
Sun News is part of Quebecor, which is a sprawling media giant that owns printing plants, newspapers (including 24 hours in Vancouver), and a large cablevision company in Quebec.
This gives artists and their supporters numerous targets should they choose to focus their attention on Quebecor rather than on one unimportant broadcaster who's probably just following her boss's instructions.
Look no further than Rogers Communications. It learned a lesson when its stable of right-wing polemicists at Maclean's magazine decided to slap a headline called "Too Asian" on an article about Canadian universities.
Asian Canadians noticed that Rogers Communications not only owned Maclean's, but was also in the cellphone business and operated multicultural television channels. And Rogers didn't want its cellphone business going down the tubes because of a few loudmouths at a relatively insignificant magazine.
Erickson and Teneycke may want to bring the hammer down on arts funding. But if the artists in this country use their imagination, they'll get under the skin of Quebecor boss Pierre-Karl Peladeau, who will tell the hired help to back off.
Peladeau's biggest concern is going to be the share price of his company. That was the same worry that Rogers had after the "Too Asian" article caused such a flap.
Many artists are exceptionally intelligent and creative. If they're in a mood for a fight, they can cause a lot of trouble—even if they're not always flush with cash.
The moment Quebecor starts losing lucrative printing contracts or its newspaper circulation goes into a freefall or there are massive cancellations of its cablevision service, you can be sure that Erickson will move onto a different target.
But in the absence of any analysis of the bigger picture, I thought it was worth wading into this once again.
Don't kid yourself. Erickson isn't doing this on her own. If she didn't have the support of the big boss at Sun News, Kory Teneycke, she wouldn't be attacking public funding of the arts.
Teneycke is a former press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Perhaps one day, Teneycke will be seen as Canada's equivalent to Roger Ailes—a former Republican propagandist who turned Rupert Murdoch's Fox News into a right-wing political force south of the border.
It's easy to see why Teneycke would go on a crusade against public funding of the arts, rather than raise hell about Harper wanting to blow $30 billion on fighter jets, and then lie about the cost to Canadian taxpayers. Attacking the arts will make the prime minister happy by shifting attention away from more important issues.
But Teneycke has a problem. He's not acting in isolation.
Sun News is part of Quebecor, which is a sprawling media giant that owns printing plants, newspapers (including 24 hours in Vancouver), and a large cablevision company in Quebec.
This gives artists and their supporters numerous targets should they choose to focus their attention on Quebecor rather than on one unimportant broadcaster who's probably just following her boss's instructions.
Look no further than Rogers Communications. It learned a lesson when its stable of right-wing polemicists at Maclean's magazine decided to slap a headline called "Too Asian" on an article about Canadian universities.
Asian Canadians noticed that Rogers Communications not only owned Maclean's, but was also in the cellphone business and operated multicultural television channels. And Rogers didn't want its cellphone business going down the tubes because of a few loudmouths at a relatively insignificant magazine.
Erickson and Teneycke may want to bring the hammer down on arts funding. But if the artists in this country use their imagination, they'll get under the skin of Quebecor boss Pierre-Karl Peladeau, who will tell the hired help to back off.
Peladeau's biggest concern is going to be the share price of his company. That was the same worry that Rogers had after the "Too Asian" article caused such a flap.
Many artists are exceptionally intelligent and creative. If they're in a mood for a fight, they can cause a lot of trouble—even if they're not always flush with cash.
The moment Quebecor starts losing lucrative printing contracts or its newspaper circulation goes into a freefall or there are massive cancellations of its cablevision service, you can be sure that Erickson will move onto a different target.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
CUPW and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains the right to belong to a union and Canada's labour code protects the right to collective bargaining. It's on those grounds, the union wants to file a legal challenge
Letters and bills may be returning to your mailbox, but the union representing Canada's postal workers says this fight is far from over.
The 15-member national executive board of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has decided to take the federal government to court over last week's back-to-work legislation.
Nearly 50,000 locked-out Canada Post workers were forced back to their jobs this week under settlement terms arranged by government.
Gerry Deveau, national director for the Ontario region of the CUPW, said Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains the right to belong to a union and Canada's labour code protects the right to collective bargaining. It's on those grounds, the union wants to file a legal challenge, he said.
"The government intervention here is stripping us of those rights," Deveau said.
Kevin Banks, a Law professor at Queen's University, said, "this is a new area of the law and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out."
He said the claim will likely be based on a 2007 Supreme Court decision about "B.C. Health Services."
In that decision, the court found the charter right to freedom of association protects collective bargaining. It also says the government must not "substantially interfere" with the ability of the parties to consult and engage with each other in order to settle their differences.
Banks, who specializes in labour law, said the 2007 ruling "creates a bit of space for collective bargaining" because the Supreme Court struck down legislation forcing health workers back to the job, saying it was unconstitutional. Parties were then given time to work out their own bargain.
The issue for the courts will be to determine if the government substantially interfered or not.
CUPW said the court challenge will target one of the main sticking points over the bill — the wage settlements. The government legislated a wage increase of 1.57 per cent, which is lower than the 1.9 per cent that Canada Post had put on the table earlier this month in negotiations with its workers.
"Clearly the government had its own ideas about what should be happening and has given effect to them through legislation — so that doesn't leave a lot of room for bargaining," said Banks.
Banks imagined the government will argue that CUPW had ample opportunity to bargain and the government was within its rights to step in to resolve the dispute that had reached an impasse.
The court will need to decide how much room the parties should have to resolve disputes themselves, even if it means a strike or a lockout.
"The law is not clear on that point. They would be charting new territory," said Banks.
Deveau said the union would consult with legal counsel Wednesday and for the rest of this week. He anticipated launching the challenge by next week but told Postmedia News the union has no plans to defy the back-to-work legislation by striking.
Canada Post spokesman Jon Hamilton said Wednesday afternoon he hadn't heard anything about the possible court case.
"We're focused on delivering the mail and serving Canadians," he said.
Deveau said Canadians have welcomed posties back with open arms.
"One customer had balloons on his front lawn with a sign saying 'Welcome back Postie! We've missed you.' Another carrier went to a school where a whole class was outside applauding and cheering him on. It brought him to tears," said Deveau.
Canada Post locked out its employees on June 14, after the CUPW conducted 12 days of rotating strikes.
Labour Minister Lisa Raitt then introduced the back-to-work legislation.
Opposition MPs condemned the bill as a whole, saying it undermined workers' rights to collective bargaining.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/Union+claim+could+chart+territory+Canadian+Labour+Expert/5025277/story.html#ixzz1Qjs2skYG
The 15-member national executive board of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has decided to take the federal government to court over last week's back-to-work legislation.
Nearly 50,000 locked-out Canada Post workers were forced back to their jobs this week under settlement terms arranged by government.
Gerry Deveau, national director for the Ontario region of the CUPW, said Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains the right to belong to a union and Canada's labour code protects the right to collective bargaining. It's on those grounds, the union wants to file a legal challenge, he said.
"The government intervention here is stripping us of those rights," Deveau said.
Kevin Banks, a Law professor at Queen's University, said, "this is a new area of the law and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out."
He said the claim will likely be based on a 2007 Supreme Court decision about "B.C. Health Services."
In that decision, the court found the charter right to freedom of association protects collective bargaining. It also says the government must not "substantially interfere" with the ability of the parties to consult and engage with each other in order to settle their differences.
Banks, who specializes in labour law, said the 2007 ruling "creates a bit of space for collective bargaining" because the Supreme Court struck down legislation forcing health workers back to the job, saying it was unconstitutional. Parties were then given time to work out their own bargain.
The issue for the courts will be to determine if the government substantially interfered or not.
CUPW said the court challenge will target one of the main sticking points over the bill — the wage settlements. The government legislated a wage increase of 1.57 per cent, which is lower than the 1.9 per cent that Canada Post had put on the table earlier this month in negotiations with its workers.
"Clearly the government had its own ideas about what should be happening and has given effect to them through legislation — so that doesn't leave a lot of room for bargaining," said Banks.
Banks imagined the government will argue that CUPW had ample opportunity to bargain and the government was within its rights to step in to resolve the dispute that had reached an impasse.
The court will need to decide how much room the parties should have to resolve disputes themselves, even if it means a strike or a lockout.
"The law is not clear on that point. They would be charting new territory," said Banks.
Deveau said the union would consult with legal counsel Wednesday and for the rest of this week. He anticipated launching the challenge by next week but told Postmedia News the union has no plans to defy the back-to-work legislation by striking.
Canada Post spokesman Jon Hamilton said Wednesday afternoon he hadn't heard anything about the possible court case.
"We're focused on delivering the mail and serving Canadians," he said.
Deveau said Canadians have welcomed posties back with open arms.
"One customer had balloons on his front lawn with a sign saying 'Welcome back Postie! We've missed you.' Another carrier went to a school where a whole class was outside applauding and cheering him on. It brought him to tears," said Deveau.
Canada Post locked out its employees on June 14, after the CUPW conducted 12 days of rotating strikes.
Labour Minister Lisa Raitt then introduced the back-to-work legislation.
Opposition MPs condemned the bill as a whole, saying it undermined workers' rights to collective bargaining.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/Union+claim+could+chart+territory+Canadian+Labour+Expert/5025277/story.html#ixzz1Qjs2skYG
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Lisa Raitt Minister of Labour Mismanagement at Work!
Prior to the election campaign, Raitt was the president and chief executive officer of the Toronto Port Authority (TPA), a Canadian federal corporation that manages commerce, transportation (including the Toronto City Centre Airport) and recreation in the Toronto Harbour. She has also served as the TPA’s Corporate Secretary and General Counsel,[3] and harbourmaster (she was the first female harbourmaster of a Canadian port).[4]
Mismanagement allegationsThe TPA has been criticized for close connections to the Conservative party for both its paid lobbyists and directors.[5] Federal Transport Minister John Baird is facing allegations of ``political interference and ``coverup as part of a bid to bury complaints of mismanagement against his Conservative cabinet colleague, Lisa Raitt, in connection with her former job as head of the Toronto Port Authority.
New Democrat MP Olivia Chow laid out the charges at a news conference in Toronto, where she also called on Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, to conduct an audit of the port authority to investigate why Baird increased the membership of the board of directors from seven to nine - and why Raitt, while CEO of the authority, was allowed to run up almost $80,000 in travel and other expenses over two years when the organization was running a deficit.[6]
New details emerged in November 2009. A report by the Toronto Star detailed that Raitt signed off on her own expenses, including a trip to London, England against the wishes of then TPA chair Michele McCarthy, who refused to approve the expense. Expenses were reported as $30,000, when the actual money spent was $80,000.[7] This followed the finding that a staffer in Raitt's office at the TPA used TPA resources on Raitt's election campaign.[8]
On September 14, 2010, the Toronto Port Authority issued the results of their independent forensic review conducted by the Investigations & Forensic Services division of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in a news release. [9] The review was undertaken at the TPA’s request to investigate, among other things, specific allegations made by certain former members of the TPA Board of Directors in March and November 2009 and repeated by Chow which turned out to be false.
S.L.A.P.P. controversyIn her capacity as CEO of Toronto Port Authority, in 2006, Raitt initiated a rare political libel action against a citizen group, Community Air, that had criticized her. The Globe and Mail described TPA's multi-million dollar strategic lawsuit against public participation, as designed to prevent "the volunteer activists from making any more allegedly defamatory statements about the federal agency -- a category of speech, according to the wide-open statement of claim the authority filed in court last week, that would seem to include every public statement any of the activists has ever made in this hotly contested, thoroughly aired, public debate".[10] The suit was eventually settled out of court when Community Air agreed to retract its statements and apologize.[11]
Federal politicsIn September 2008, Raitt was appointed to run as the Conservative candidate in Halton against Liberal incumbent Garth Turner.[12] Turner was formerly a Conservative member but was suspended from the Conservative caucus in 2006 for breaching confidentiality. He later joined the Liberals after briefly sitting as an independent member.[13] A bitter campaign between Turner and Raitt ensued. Turner made public accusations of dirty tricks by the local Conservative association and Raitt, calling Raitt a "master of deceit."[14] Raitt made controversial comments about the North and global warming. At an October 6 meeting of the Oakville, Ontario, Chamber of Commerce, Raitt was on record cheering about the possibilities of increased tourism and shipping opportunities in the North, thanks to the melting polar ice cap.[14][15]
On October 14, 2008, Raitt defeated Turner by over 7,000 votes. Raitt was named to the Cabinet of Canada on October 30, 2008 as Minister of Natural Resources, one of eleven women named to the Cabinet.[16]
Secret documents left at news bureauOn June 2, 2009, CTV News reported that a folder of confidential and secret ministerial briefing documents had been left by Raitt or her staff at the CTV News Ottawa office for a week. CTV News chose to reveal the contents which listed the funding for the Chalk River nuclear reactor which had recently shut down, causing a shortage of medical radioisotopes. On June 3, the opposition parties demanded that the government fire Raitt or accept her resignation. Raitt claimed to have offered her resignation and that the offer was rejected by the Prime Minister. A ministerial aide, Raitt's 26-year-old director of communications, Jasmine MacDonnell, offered her resignation which was accepted.[17]
Some critics attempted to draw parallels to a similar occurrence in 2008 involving Maxime Bernier, who ultimately was forced to resign his cabinet post as Minister of Foreign Affairs after leaving sensitive documents pertaining to a NATO conference at the home of an ex-girlfriend. Speaking to reporters, the Prime Minister said that "Minister Raitt was working at the time. She was undertaking employment activity, ministerial activity in the company of her staff who were responsible for these documents, certainly for accounting for these documents later."[18] Addressing the parallel he added, "[i]n the case of Minister Bernier, his actions were much more personal in nature and that was the difference in the responsibility."[19]
Taped comments about radio isotope shortage Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Lisa Raitt radio isotope shortage tape
On June 8, 2009, CBC news online reported that a Nova Scotia court heard an argument to block the Halifax Chronicle-Herald from publishing a story about an audio recording involving Raitt. The injunction was denied.[20] On the audio tape, made on January 30, 2009 by the same aide who resigned on June 2, was a discussion between Raitt and the aide over the radioisotopes shortage. The judge ruled that the public interest over-rode the issue of confidentiality.[21]
On the tape, Raitt made comments on the radio isotope issue, describing it as "sexy ... Radioactive leaks. Cancer." and hard to control because it is "confusing to a lot of people".[21] Raitt also made comments on the parliamentary skills of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq:
"Oh, God, she's such a capable woman, but it's hard for her to come out of a co-operative government into this rough-and-tumble. She had a question in the House yesterday, or two days ago, that planked. I really hope she never gets anything hot."[21]
Raitt also made comments about Manitoba MP Joy Smith, who introduced a private member's bill on human trafficking:
"Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that that MP, Joy Smith, brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking. She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now. You just can’t touch those two things."[22]
Mismanagement allegationsThe TPA has been criticized for close connections to the Conservative party for both its paid lobbyists and directors.[5] Federal Transport Minister John Baird is facing allegations of ``political interference and ``coverup as part of a bid to bury complaints of mismanagement against his Conservative cabinet colleague, Lisa Raitt, in connection with her former job as head of the Toronto Port Authority.
New Democrat MP Olivia Chow laid out the charges at a news conference in Toronto, where she also called on Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, to conduct an audit of the port authority to investigate why Baird increased the membership of the board of directors from seven to nine - and why Raitt, while CEO of the authority, was allowed to run up almost $80,000 in travel and other expenses over two years when the organization was running a deficit.[6]
New details emerged in November 2009. A report by the Toronto Star detailed that Raitt signed off on her own expenses, including a trip to London, England against the wishes of then TPA chair Michele McCarthy, who refused to approve the expense. Expenses were reported as $30,000, when the actual money spent was $80,000.[7] This followed the finding that a staffer in Raitt's office at the TPA used TPA resources on Raitt's election campaign.[8]
On September 14, 2010, the Toronto Port Authority issued the results of their independent forensic review conducted by the Investigations & Forensic Services division of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in a news release. [9] The review was undertaken at the TPA’s request to investigate, among other things, specific allegations made by certain former members of the TPA Board of Directors in March and November 2009 and repeated by Chow which turned out to be false.
S.L.A.P.P. controversyIn her capacity as CEO of Toronto Port Authority, in 2006, Raitt initiated a rare political libel action against a citizen group, Community Air, that had criticized her. The Globe and Mail described TPA's multi-million dollar strategic lawsuit against public participation, as designed to prevent "the volunteer activists from making any more allegedly defamatory statements about the federal agency -- a category of speech, according to the wide-open statement of claim the authority filed in court last week, that would seem to include every public statement any of the activists has ever made in this hotly contested, thoroughly aired, public debate".[10] The suit was eventually settled out of court when Community Air agreed to retract its statements and apologize.[11]
Federal politicsIn September 2008, Raitt was appointed to run as the Conservative candidate in Halton against Liberal incumbent Garth Turner.[12] Turner was formerly a Conservative member but was suspended from the Conservative caucus in 2006 for breaching confidentiality. He later joined the Liberals after briefly sitting as an independent member.[13] A bitter campaign between Turner and Raitt ensued. Turner made public accusations of dirty tricks by the local Conservative association and Raitt, calling Raitt a "master of deceit."[14] Raitt made controversial comments about the North and global warming. At an October 6 meeting of the Oakville, Ontario, Chamber of Commerce, Raitt was on record cheering about the possibilities of increased tourism and shipping opportunities in the North, thanks to the melting polar ice cap.[14][15]
On October 14, 2008, Raitt defeated Turner by over 7,000 votes. Raitt was named to the Cabinet of Canada on October 30, 2008 as Minister of Natural Resources, one of eleven women named to the Cabinet.[16]
Secret documents left at news bureauOn June 2, 2009, CTV News reported that a folder of confidential and secret ministerial briefing documents had been left by Raitt or her staff at the CTV News Ottawa office for a week. CTV News chose to reveal the contents which listed the funding for the Chalk River nuclear reactor which had recently shut down, causing a shortage of medical radioisotopes. On June 3, the opposition parties demanded that the government fire Raitt or accept her resignation. Raitt claimed to have offered her resignation and that the offer was rejected by the Prime Minister. A ministerial aide, Raitt's 26-year-old director of communications, Jasmine MacDonnell, offered her resignation which was accepted.[17]
Some critics attempted to draw parallels to a similar occurrence in 2008 involving Maxime Bernier, who ultimately was forced to resign his cabinet post as Minister of Foreign Affairs after leaving sensitive documents pertaining to a NATO conference at the home of an ex-girlfriend. Speaking to reporters, the Prime Minister said that "Minister Raitt was working at the time. She was undertaking employment activity, ministerial activity in the company of her staff who were responsible for these documents, certainly for accounting for these documents later."[18] Addressing the parallel he added, "[i]n the case of Minister Bernier, his actions were much more personal in nature and that was the difference in the responsibility."[19]
Taped comments about radio isotope shortage Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Lisa Raitt radio isotope shortage tape
On June 8, 2009, CBC news online reported that a Nova Scotia court heard an argument to block the Halifax Chronicle-Herald from publishing a story about an audio recording involving Raitt. The injunction was denied.[20] On the audio tape, made on January 30, 2009 by the same aide who resigned on June 2, was a discussion between Raitt and the aide over the radioisotopes shortage. The judge ruled that the public interest over-rode the issue of confidentiality.[21]
On the tape, Raitt made comments on the radio isotope issue, describing it as "sexy ... Radioactive leaks. Cancer." and hard to control because it is "confusing to a lot of people".[21] Raitt also made comments on the parliamentary skills of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq:
"Oh, God, she's such a capable woman, but it's hard for her to come out of a co-operative government into this rough-and-tumble. She had a question in the House yesterday, or two days ago, that planked. I really hope she never gets anything hot."[21]
Raitt also made comments about Manitoba MP Joy Smith, who introduced a private member's bill on human trafficking:
"Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that that MP, Joy Smith, brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking. She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now. You just can’t touch those two things."[22]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)