This is what unions have done to the membership in many industries for decades. Drive up the labour cost to the point where an alternative is more viable, and the membership loses their livelihood. Happens in the 80s with textiles, in the 90s with manufacturing (automotive) and now it’s happening with retail liquor sales. Unions have lost their focus, and can’t see beyond the current day.
Duncan Macdonald - there are people who have self-declared themselves as the one true experts in all things education. They would love nothing more than to return a Liberal government that will give in to teachers union demands so that further enriches themselves and their friends. It's not really bitterness, as much as greediness.
Unions once again negotiating their membership out of a job.They did it to textiles in the 80s, to the auto sector in the 90s, consumables in the 00s, now delivery. Sometimes you have to understand where your industry is going, not where it's been.
Perhaps if Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGinty (also elected with less than 50%) hadn’t given the teachers union double-digit raises repeatedly, there would be a little money left for healthcare.
It’s interesting that the article never mentions what the business actually does, or what activities of the business were threatening public health. As we all know, some businesses were allowed to stay open in a modified way, so without knowing what her business really does, it’s hard to draw any conclusions from this article.
That's why I always hate articles like this titled with 'province, feds support...'. That's all taxpayer money, the politicians didn't nothing but decide where to spend the taxpayers money.
Blows my mind how any level of government can spend like this, as if taxpayers aren't stretched and that services that are actually needed go underfunded.
The question that I ask myself is 'what is the role of government in this situation?'My neighbour likes to go fishing with his friends. Should he expect government to buy him a rod, ATV, bait? Government does not (or should not) exist to do everything for everyone.
Here's an idea. How about we have the people who break the law pay for their own accommodation?It alleviates the burden from the law-abiding taxpayer and may act as a bit of a deterrent.
Maybe the condescending tone of your message is the reason that elected officials don't want to meet with you? You aren't in a classroom full of kids that have to listen to you, this is the adult world where people can think for themselves and act accordingly.
The answer is rather simple; have REAL consequences for the actions of those who perpetrate domestic violence (or any other crime, for that matter)! You can have all the ‘panels’ and ‘task forces’ and ‘commissions’ and ‘other-wastes-of-money’ you want, but unless there is meaningful change to the current system that allows men to commit these crimes and complete wrist-slap diversion programs, sometimes repeatedly, then we are putting these women and children at further risk.
Here’s a weird idea! How about we lay the cost of these proposals at the feet of those who make them necessary? The rule-breakers, speeders, drunk-drivers, etc should pay for these with truly punitive measures, instead of spreading the cost across to those people who follow the rules.
Despite your feeling that you are entitled to an audience with Jill Dunlop, she has no obligation to do so, in the same way Justin Trudeau does not have to meet with Tamara Lich or Joe Biden has to break bread with Alex Jones.That you belittle Dunlop, Ford, or those who vote for them as 'simple', 'ignorant', or 'stupid', and that you routinely have comments here censored and removed, says to me that Dunlop is making right choice.You get to have your voice heard when you vote in each election, and we all live under the decisions and results of that democratic process. There were plenty of people (read: me) that were not happy with the results of the Wynne and McGinty governments, but were adult enough to live with the outcome and not harass the representatives who were elected.
I’m not a fan of any more government intervention than is absolutely necessary, but this is just a case of enforcing speed limits that already exist. And using technology instead of costly labour, which is something that governments need to do A LOT more of.