Just so I can understand your position better, are you against any kind of carbon taxation (ie Cap and trade, etc.), or this one specifically?

My problem with Ford has never been that he doesn’t like Canada, or is a sellout. I honestly just feel like he’s a very average small/mid business owner here, who got himself elected and is treating it like he’d run his own business, which is decidedly NOT how a government should be run. He seems to think he can get away with stuff like the Greenbelt development, or push his own viewpoints like the wind turbine cancellations, which are exactly the kind of short sighted/backroom deal I’d expect from a small business person.

That being said, I’d take him over Trump-esque any day.

I work in road construction. I could maybe see this being feasible in highly localized critical areas, but this kind of road method can’t become commonplace. Canada just has too many roads.

Maybe a bridge along the DVP in Toronto that always has bad ice accidents, or a major bike arterial path, but the numbers don’t make sense for anywhere else. If a road/bridge is truly that bad for accidents, the Municipality is likely cheaper to redesign the approach/descent angles or change the speed limit rather than try this.

I note they don’t talk about how much road a 50 or 60 ton system would be able to serve, compared to the Vancouver budget, or what maintenance costs are on a system that size. The article they link to discussing the system costs is specifically looking at the costs of a BTES system for buildings/complexs.

Out of curiosity, what kinds of things would a federal government have done to make you feel this sense of pride you’re looking for? Are there any governments anywhere that have accomplished that task?

Did you read the article? They talk about this one guy who says they should be privatized, then go on to talk about why that isn’t feasible or the problems those examples are already having with their privatized systems, including the drastically different population density. Its pretty clearly a “this doesnt make sense to do” article, even ending with “who would even want to buy it”

I always feel a little confused by people using “populism” as a bad thing. The literal definition is “appealing to the masses who feel their concerns are being ignored by those in power.” That is a good thing, provided they aren’t lying about their goals. Cost of living is going up and corporations are raking in record profits, homelessness is on the rise, etc. These are all problems that I feel could be addressed better by non neoliberal policies that actually don’t further entrench those in power.

Populism by itself isn’t bad.

Ha, nope! That’d involve some introspection and realization that they’re partially responsible for the change in Christmas.

All of it basically boils down to “Christmas used to be fun and have seasonal stuff and now it doesn’t”. Most of the genuinely decent sounding points they make about things they miss seem to be more attributed to a lack of social network in the area (ie no caroling, no groups of neighbours out around a fire, etc) or to a lack of time/money in the school system OR desired by the parents (ie less christmas concerts, etc).

They come VERY close, for NatPo, to commenting on the commercialization of christmas, but manage to swing it back around to being our fault (not the corps), so its still a blah, uninspiring article.

Good for them! That’s one of the big moves to try and break up unions - a two tier system that pits the union against its own members

Every letter still requires paid postage. The problem is, if you set the cost to be actual cost incurred, then anywhere remote or rural will be ridiculously expensive, and no one will send stuff, making the packages/letters that do need to be sent even more expensive, and creating a death spiral. It’s no different than a million other public services that we pay for despite not using (public rec centers are sponsored in part by taxes despite charging admission/membership fees, daycare facilities get partially paid by the government, universities get some tax money despite the crazy fees we pay, etc).

But regarding the pension, I disagree - I believe that every job should be sufficient for someone to live comfortably on - why do we have jobs if someone can’t live on them? And the reason they pay well and have pensions is because they’re unionized, aznd have fought for the pay and pension they have.

Side note, but I always hate how it’s described as “losses”. No shit providing mail delivery is a service. It’s nice to aim to reduce the cost as much as possible, but when you’re looking at something like Canada where there are countless remote and difficult to reach communities, regular communication and parcel delivery is going to cost money

I don’t know if I’m naive and this happens all the time, but it feels like an import of our neighbours base partisanship against ANYTHING the liberals propose based on it coming from them and not from the cons.

Disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised.

This shouldn’t be a surprise, but I’m glad we have the data to prove it.

Home prices have skyrocketed recently. Home owners whos earner is boomer-aged obviously bought long ago, and the housing prices have beaten investments in that time period (Assuming houses bough 30-40yrs ago). Anyone who rented and invested the difference is obviously not going to compete.

Additionally, given the insanity of the rental market, anyone under 35 who has enough income to afford the monthly payments on a house has purchased in the last few years, so those who are still renting are likely those at the bottom, unable to purchase a house, and their income is likely the lowest, exacerbating this issue.

I have yet to see anyone who can give me a good reason we don’t have laws preventing:

• Corporate ownership of land zoned residential
• Increasing property tax rates for each additional residential property (ie any property not classified as primary residence). It still leaves loopholes (my wife lives at house A full time, I live at house B full time), but seems like an easier way to try and shore up the speculators.

Overall, the survey found the median net worth of Canadian households was $519,700, up 57 per cent from 2019 when it was last conducted.

How big can a bubble get if its being artificially inflated and supported by government and businesses?-

My understanding was always that Canadian media is dominated by American creations in the art world. The regulations were put in place to subsidize the Canadian artists to help create a national identity separate from the US.

Good. I feel like pointing out ties to the top execs of O&G industries miiiight help take the shine off this guy’s “man of the people” schtick he’s trying to pull? Hopefully?

I mean, moving beyond the loan part, (not a grant, meaning that we will get the money back), is this not what the Canadian population wants? The govt investing money to provide alternative options to the big 3 for internet?

Call me jaded, but I imagine they’ll get bought up in 5-10 by Robellus, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Beyond that, do we really want our critical infrastructure tied to a company with such a shoddy and unpredictable “face man”?

Are you trying to argue that alcoholism shouldn’t be a factor AT ALL for liver donations, or that living donations shouldn’t also need to meet the standard full liver donation standards?

Lol I quoted something from not just this article, but a second article they link to from the one above, but sure.

They blocked her, at least in part, because she was an active alcoholic who had not shown any signs of changing her behaviour outside of time inside the hospital. Something that would have weighed on their decision included medical information such as previous attempts to stop drinking. Mental health care, including healthcare for addictions, is lacking in Canada. You can’t force someone to go into rehab, but offering better care and options might have helped her in the past.

As said in the main article as well as the one I read, in order to qualify for a living donation you need to qualify for a full donation, because if something goes wrong you’ll need a full liver ASAP and get bumped to the top of the list.

Medical notes suggest she started drinking in her late teens and had tried – unsuccessfully – to quit. After periods of sobriety, she returned to alcohol, which could increase the risk of continued use after the transplant.

Allen says Huska registered for an addiction program early on in her hospital stay to stop drinking after she’s discharged. Hospital records also say she suffers from anxiety.

From the first article CTV made about this, linked in in the first sentence they posted. Seems like we need to actually fund mental health care in this country or something, because she’s obviously been struggling for a while. You can see how the board would weigh previous failed attempts to quit against her.

So some rough numbers I found from places online for rough estimates. Also, the link the article has for bed costs is actually to a study on liver transplant costs.

On average, 25 days in hospital between pre/post transplant. Of that, seems like a few days (varies by person) is in ICU. So thats 50 days of beds for the two of them, with say a week of combined ICU time.

Plus two surgeries - the article only takes an average cost of liver transplants, which is not indicative of a second surgery needed for a living donor transplant.

That puts the cost up to ~240,000-300,000. That cost is close enough that I can see it not being a factor for the decision.