We can however ban them from public property, and also ban parties from producing and distributing signs.

If you want to make your own sign, you’re correct that we cannot (and should not) ban that.

You might be unexpectedly sick, hospitalized, dead, in jail, or otherwise unable to vote on election day. Early voting lets you avoid unexpected issues.

For some added context, this has been going on for years from all parties. Maybe this year was not the most amicable environment to do this in, and maybe these particular slogans were in bad taste, but I don’t think this is as egregious as everyone is saying.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/political-party-convention-gimmicks-1.2530848

It doesn’t really though. The only problem it outlines is that it doesn’t pay a living wage. It says nothing about why it’s a problem that people with high incomes also get this (other than it’s unfair). It then suggests making it more complicated (increasing overhead) so that poor people can get more.

But it’s much simpler than that. Just pay everyone more. Make it an actual basic income at living wage, and adjust the tax brackets appropriately.

Then expand it to include everyone instead of just seniors.

Why is that a problem? OAS is taxable income. It’s essentially what a basic income program should look like. If the problem is that rich people exist, tax reform is the issue you should be looking at.

Small group of extremists? One third of Americans voted for this, and another third didn’t hate the idea of this enough to vote against it.

I can’t wait for the companion articles:

The global network that ties Mark Carney to the Bank of Canada

and

The global network that ties Justin Trudeau to Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Is it produced in Canada? If so, that’s not fraud.

A lot of things are produced in Canada with non Canadian ingredients. Pointing out the former while still having the latter information isn’t fraud. It’s barely even being misleading.

Thanks for the links.

The IISD report is talking about a specific period (February 2021 to June 2022) where 33% of inflation can be attributed to oil prices. Outside of that 16 month period though (which was during the absolute peak of oil prices), oil would contribute much less to inflation.

I disagree with the methodology of the False Profits report. A big part of their 43% cost of living increase is attributed to interest rate hikes by BoC and associated job losses. They are also benchmarking to 2019 oil prices (to avoid the effects of the pandemic), but are ignoring the fact that oil prices had been artificially depressed by OPEC overproduction since 2014. If you look at historic oil prices, we’re still significantly below the 2004-2014 inflation-adjusted average.

Overall though, I think both of these reports are looking at specific moments in time, and oil prices aren’t nearly as impactful on our cost of living as they want us to believe.

Do you have a source for this? I struggle to see how most Canadians use enough oil products to account for anywhere near 45% of the cost of living.

Obviously there are secondary uses (shipping fuel), oil by-products (plastic), and people who still heat their homes with oil, but it really doesn’t seem like it could be approaching 45% Canada wide.

Since I wasn’t clear at all in my first comment: I’m referring to the fact that people can also get away with murder, as long as they’re driving a car at the time. Very rarely is it much more than a slap on the wrist, but it’s always significantly less than any other form of negligent homicide.

“Corporations are people driving cars”

This seems a bit extreme, especially given that nothing illegal has happened.

But now it’s easy. If something that looks like news is posted on Facebook, it’s misinformation.

These contributions are so small. I wouldn’t mind if my own country increased their contributions to WHO by 20% to make up for this shortfall.

The biggest problem is that the WHO is a worldwide health organization. Without cooperation from the States, there could be huge health impacts elsewhere that could have been otherwise averted. Will other countries also pull out?

Probably nothing of consequence. I would be very surprised if the relevant agencies haven’t already done 99% of the background check already, and the only thing left to do is for him to agree.

Are there any non-founding-member countries that kept their own currency?

I believe it’s mandatory for all new members.

There were exceptions when the EU was formed for things like currency, but I don’t think they’re allowing that anymore. If the UK wanted to rejoin, they’d have to switch to the Euro - they had a lot of favourable exceptions made for them to be in the EU in the first place, and they just gave them up.

While it’s great to support all these Canadian chains, chances are there’s a locally owned restaurant near you that is much better than any of these. Support Canada of course, but supporting local independent businesses is even better.

This article doesn’t talk about small brewers though. It’s talking about the two largest beer companies in Canada. Yes, interprovincial trade will kill Labatt and Molson production in Newfoundland, as they move production inland to gain benefits from economies of scale. But small brewers will be fine. They might even see a growth as they gain access to bigger markets.

It’s just two different markets. Craft/local beer is one market, and really doesn’t compete at all with the likes of Molson and Labatt.