Don’t other jurisdictions like EU and USA already have passenger rights rules? Are the ones being pushed for in Canada any more stringent than theirs?
I doubt it. I think the passenger rights rules we are asking for in Canada are more or less in line with other parts of the world. So it begs the question - how are those pilots able to ensure safety without this supposed financial pressure?
Yes this is true. But what do you think is the reason? Like is it because there’s heavy metals in the dye, so the plate is kinda toxic? Or maybe because it’s just too fragile, chips easily, etc?
As the consumer I don’t know what regulatory loopholes they are exploiting when they state “decorative use”. I doubt the average consumer has the time to do this research. Because a plate is a plate and people will use it to put food on when it’s sold in that way, the intended usage is obvious regardless of the tiny disclaimer.
Laughing at “God’s Pocket Provincial Park”. Never heard of this place before, what a name. I’m sure it’s beautiful - gotta respect that BC license plate telling it like it is.
Not an industry, not fraudulent. It’s socialized health care. They must be responsible stewards of public funds to ensure that everyone has access to reasonable standard of care - this includes what care is covered and how much service providers are allowed to charge. Sadly things will fall through the cracks, like rare cancers for which highly specialized care is required. But if it covered everyone to go outside of the province for medical care the system would fall apart. Thankfully a solution was found for this person.
I mean it shouldn’t be that hard to understand. Housing prices skyrocketed when interest rates dropped during the pandemic. Add the effects of inflation, increases municipal evaluations leading to higher taxes, and you get more costs passed on to renters. This started before all the news of “HuGe SuRgE ImMiGrAnTs”.
That being said there is still plenty of truth to the argument that if we do indeed want to welcome more people here, we better make sure there are affordable places to live. So the article addresses that better regulations are needed to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing. BUT, if people already in Canada are really struggling to get affordable housing, and the number of people who need affordable housing is increasing, you can see why this might be a problem.
A healthy city needs socioeconomic diversity. Not that long ago Montreal was known for cheap CoL allowing people of all walks of life to thrive. Putting aside the artists, students, and general eccentrics that contribute to the vibrant life of the city, we have to consider where the hell are our minimum wage workers going to live. I seriously don’t understand how places like Vancouver do it. Does every coffee shop, fast food, retail etc worker commute 3hrs each way? What about the teachers, nurses, garbage collectors? Or do they all get paid way more and everything just costs a lot more?
There’s a compromise possible and despite being a major city without lots of undeveloped land, there is still plenty of space reasonably close to the city where high density affordable housing could be. Doesn’t have to be prime real estate right downtown. There just needs to be social will and courage to stand by the conviction that this is something good for the city. The truth is that like someone else said, the fine is too low and developers just see it as the cost of doing business.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet had both rejected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s offer to see the documents, arguing it was an attempt to trap them into agreeing not to speak about allegations in public.
Am I right to feel like absolutely nothing of consequence will come of this? The two biggest critics of the ruling party won’t know the true extent or evidence. The two sidekicks can see the whole story but will be gagged. So we ultimately won’t know the truth and it’ll all just devolve to posturing.
Surprised to hear someone so confidently asserting that more prohibition is necessary. None of what you suggested really aligns with harm reduction and I would argue that more restrictions on vaping and on alcohol would backfire in terms of black market availability and less regulatory oversight.
I’m unaware of the proof that vaping is as bad or worse than tobacco. My understanding is that the consensus is vaping, while harmful, is significantly less harmful than smoking tobacco. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/vaping-substantially-less-harmful-than-smoking-largest-review-of-its-kind-finds
And for the record, typically how it works when you want to make a claim about proof and evidence is that you cite your sources. You can’t simply use hyperbolic language, wave your hands and say the magic word “science” and expect people to just believe you.
Meanwhile cannabis beverages are required to have:
-Nutrition facts including calories, sugar, etc.
-Gigantic yellow warning with random health warning (e.g., don’t use if pregnant)
-Huge red stop sign cannabis leaf logo
-KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
-Big pain in the ass plastic childproof thing
None of these required on a can of beer.
From a harm reduction perspective, it’s a massive failure. Many cannabis beverages have very low nearly zero calories, sugar-free. For your physical health they are almost certainly less harmful than alcohol and I know many people would enjoy them as an alternative to alcohol.
We have faced a similar failure in harm reduction strategy regarding vaping versus tobacco. I think in both cases it’s a result of vested interests (tax revenue, lobbying, don’t know) trumping what is best for people.
There is a logic to this. Private developers will not make multi-year, large capital investments in something if they think that its value is guaranteed to decrease. That should be obvious.
And we desperately need to increase supply. For better or worse, we do still live in a capitalist society so its going to be up to the private sector to increase supply, with the govt providing an incentivizing role. The govt ever saying anything like “we need to bring house prices down” would paralyze private sector investment into building houses.
FWIW, in my esteemed position as an armchair big-social-problems-fixer, the solution is obvious: Govt investment/subsidies to convert downtown commercial real estate towers into condos. Instead of forcing people back to the office to salvage what’s left of the real estate value for those empty towers. The owners get their handout, people can continue to work from home, it’s good for the environment too! I dunno, I think it makes sense.
The drinks are not bad, “bon jak” for example. They have lots of flavors in 5 or 2.5 THC . For someone who doesn’t consume much, I think one or maybe two 5mg THC drinks will be more than enough for a nice time.
deleted by creator
To the great surprise of no one.
Remember this is the man who, during the Covid pandemic, was handed a softball question from a reporter “What do you say to Americans who are scared… millions who are scared right now?” Basically set him up to provide a reassuring, caring response, to sound presidential for once in his life.
Except his response was: “I say that you’re a terrible reporter,” Trump snapped aggressively. “That’s what I say. I think that’s a very nasty question. You’re doing sensationalism.”
He’s a hateful, divisive, incompetent person who consistently reminds us how terrible humans being can be.