Can't say I'm surprised. It's the CPC's inability to avoid promoting social conservatism that sunk their ship at the last election. Media continuing to ask questions about what they will support or not support, or bills they may advance is very important to ensure everyone is aware of what a good chunk of the CPC party is pushing for.
healthetank
joined 1 year ago
14,000,000,000 / 365)/24 = 1.6 million per hour divided over 1,350,000 million employees give or take.
You're paying employees 24hrs a day, 365 days a year. They should be paid, assuming standard full time (which most of them are not), 40hrs per week, 52 weeks per year or 2,080 hours.
14,000,000,000/2080 = 6,730,769 per hour over 1.35 million staff = a raise of $5 per hour, putting the new hourly rate at $20/hr. Not way higher, but worth noting.
Additionally, as I mentioned above, the assumption of 40hrs per week for all staff is highly unlikely to be accurate. I looked, but wasn't able to find any hard data, just anecdotal stuff. Most staff I know in fast food places work ~30hrs per week, if they're 'full time', so the number is likely higher than I've shown.
Therefor it is entirely possible, even without touching the CEO pay, to pay $20 per hour to all staff.
The saddest part of this is that it feels like Ford is banking on the 1-2 year lifespan of his premiership to cram in as many temporarily benefitting policies, rules, and other decisions as he can.
IMO, I can't see any more greenbelt changes getting approved. As it is, the lack of discussion with the Indigenous communities should be a project killer off the bat. The 2% wage cap for public servants is in the same boat, and is already being overturned. It feels like he's banking on the fact that he won't be the one to be in office when these messes come time to be cleaned up, and someone else will have to deal with it and handle the associated bad press.
Its too bad.
Taking action involves acknowledging Climate Change is real, and involves investing in something not directly tied to a business buddy.
I can't say I'm surprised. Given the greenbelt issues, as well as Highways 413 and the Bradford Bypass through low-lying areas, the risk for flooding is increasing significantly. It's not in the PC's best interest to let this be public knowledge.
Wetlands provide enormous flooding buffers for the rest of society. Paving them over to add new highways or residential areas drastically reduces the infiltration those areas get, and increase the water impact downstream.
I work with drainage and reconstruction/repairs. The design standards for most cities are to match the 5-year rainstorm flow volumes from pre-development to post-development. So if you take the rainfall on a farmers field, for example, and figure out how much water leaves the site into the creeks and ditches nearby during a once-in-5-years rainstorm, you then have to match volume. That means that if you add a bunch of roads, curbs, gutters, roofs, and driveways, none of that area is letting water into the ground, and is actually providing a faster than existing path for the water to get to the creeks, but the total volume needs to be reduce to match. Matching the 5-year rainfall event is great, but flooding concerns at the 50 and 100-year events (or beyond) mean that at those rain volumes, the site is sending waaaaay more water downstream than it would've sent off before it was developed, or the system isn't sized appropriately and will cause flooding there.
For what it's worth ( not sure how much it is) I believe the Canadian Pension Plan now owns a large chunk of it
Way more. I'm working on a road project now. Asphalt for a road (100mm thick) is being bid at approximately $35/sq.m. Granular are about an extra $30/sq.m.
For a standard residential size road (8.5m curb to curb) that puts you at $552/m of road length, or 33mil. The big costs on top of that number always come when you've got to remove the old asphalt and gravel ($75/cu.m), as well as all the fiddly little stuff like line painting, tying in grades to make sure you have drainage, sod restoration, tree plantings, etc.
Most of these exisiting systems are meant more to service commercial/industrial/agricultural customers, it is unfeaseable to deliver grey water to every home or business
I'm not sure what you mean here. Even if you limit the great water system to large scale operations that would use the grey water, you're still looking at billions of dollars to run the pipes plus all the pumps, sampling points, water valves, new water towers/resevoirs etc.
It would be incredibly dangerous to have the wastewater system directly hooked up to a potable water system. A variety of issues could disrupt the flow/treatment/monitoring of wastewater which could contaminate the drinking water system and its reservoirs/water towers and pose a serious threat to public health.
So can any surface treatment system that is currently used. Any city that uses rivers or lakes as their treatment centre already need to purify to a high standard and closely monitor quality of in and outflows. Additionally, most of those areas have their treated sewage outflow to the same body of water as they draw from. The whole point of designing a system is to build in backups and fail-safes to ensure those issues are identified and accounted for. It's significantly cheaper than creating a whole secondary great water utility system, not to mention the additional costs for all those businesses that need to add another internal plumbing system
Realistically, it's better and more cost effective to add additional treatment to that water, and bring it up to potable standards.
Hundreds of kilometers of extra water main pipes, plus pumping stations and home services would cost trillions of dollars.
If you're living in Ontario, email or call your MPP and ask why Ford is only imementing 14 of the 15 recommendations. It's very telling that the 15th is the ones that actually directly would impact his developer friends. And honestly, screw them. Screw them even more if they've started the development process already and would have to stop. Maybe then they'll learn to do things the right way, not push it through these back channels like we're some country without laws.
I can speak to this as I'm just going through it now.
I'm a young male in good health. I started having weird heart palpitations randomly starting last year. Had them four times, but they normally go away after 20ish mins. GP reviewed me, said it seemed fine, but to go in to ER if anything about them changed (ie more frequent, more intense, lasted longer).
Last friday they went on for an hour, so I went in. Entered at 11am.
Was triaged within 15mins, including an ECG. Once they confirmed it wasn't an active heart attack, I sat in the waiting room for two hours. I then saw a doctor, got a chest X-Ray, and bloodwork taken within 45mins. I proceeded to sit in the room hooked up to the vitals monitor for four hours while they ran my bloodwork, and the ER doc came back. He sent me a requisition for a cardiologist and told me to take aspirin until I saw the specialist.
I saw the Cardiologist on Wednesday, and he's explained he's not concerned given my lack of other risk factors. He's now sent me over for an ultrasound and 36hr halter monitor next Monday. He said unless something weird comes back or he wants another test, he won't see me again, and I should follow up with my GP 2 weeks after I finish the halter monitor.
So within 3 or 4 weeks I had a full range of tests done, and my biggest expense was $7.50 parking for the 30min cardiologist appointment, which I was actually unironically complaining about to my wife last night.