healthetank

Yet another example of a government more interested in the profits of a company than in the welfare of its citizens or their future.

Yes, this decision could add costs to development of houses. Guess what - it could also drastically reduce them, if new development forgoes ANY enbridge, saving time on utility install, plus the installation of the natural gas lines into the house.

Another great journalistic article from the Narwhal.

EDIT: I wasn't going to add this, but the OEB actually examined enbridge's cost and found that the cost to developers is minimal.

This is the same government that is sending hundreds and thousands of completely censored pages to committees. This isn’t better than Harper, this is right out of the same playbook.

Really? The exact same playbook?

Dug up a few articles from some of the bigger transparency issues I remember from the Harper days. Harper set up a Supreme Court Nominee public committee, then bypassed it entirely. The process Harper used to appoint them remains, to the best of my knowledge, hidden and about as opaque as can be.

Trudeau recognized this, and created a new advisory board which provides waaaay more information. . Scroll down this link and see the info they provide on the process. They include educational history, groups and organizations they belong to, teaching activities, pro bono efforts, etc. They also define the qualifications and assessment criteria so everyone can see how they're being graded, as can the public.

Harper was pretty against reporters and media in general. Here are two more links discussing the terrible relationship with the press and reporters that Harper had.

Or the FIPA push through at the last minute despite significant protest about the terms, with his rationale or internal discussions never being released?

One big one I remember from the time was the daily itinerary of the PM, which Trudeau pledged (and followed through on) posting. The quality is sadly lacking, but its still waay better than nothing, which was what Harper provided.

Trudeau is not open and transparent, but compared to Harper? Miles more.

BONUS: Came across this Star article discussing the various scandals Harper was involved in during his tenure, in case anyone needs a refresher.

Beyond his backtracking on election reform when early results indicated it'd be a long, tough battle to actually change and re-educate people?

He ran on transparency, and while he has been faaaar more transparent than Harper, thats a low bar, and I expect better.

Hes had his share of scandals, which isn't good (SNC, ArriveCan, off the top of my head)

He supported the transpacific pipeline, which I personally am against.

The Liberal party drastically increased immigration rates beyond what the systems to help get them started (think transferring education credits, language barriers, community programs, etc) could handle. The current housing crisis is at least in part due to that.

All in all, not a terrible PM by my judge, but I tend to lean further left than him, so it's not like I'd vote for PP no matter what Trudeau did.

For those who aren't aware, Financial Post is owned by Postmark Media, a media conglomerate owned by (66% share) Chatham Asset Management LLC, an American Hedge Fund. They also own controlling stake in AMI media (now a360 media) which was responsible for killing a story about an affair Trump had with Karen McDougall (playboy) in advance of the 2016 election. Read the link for a few other stories they killed related to Trump and the 2016 election. (For what it's worth after the scandal broke, Chatham Asset MGMT took action and sold off some of the newspapers.)

Additionally, Postmark Media has a strong history of endorsing the conservatives, for what thats worth.

Can't say I'm surprised, but there's some irony in banning renewables to maintain 'pristine viewscapes' while still allowing open pit coal mines.

Yeah, it must be the spending, not the enormous cuts to large business taxes that have been continuously occuring over the last 40ish years.

When it moved to the natural resources committee in November for study, the debate descended into a chaotic mess and lengthy filibuster that at one point had MPs screaming at each other to shut up.

The noise was so loud during the final meeting in early December that two MPs voted the wrong way on a motion because they couldn't hear what was being proposed.

Man every time I read stuff like this or watch some of the videos from the house, it makes me realize how sad and pathetic this all is. Seriously? I can't imagine how my work would react if I began screaming and berating a coworker.

As long as you don't have to renew your mortgage. Might be in trouble then

It's wild when you see the actual cost per person, and the compare that to the US systems cost per person ( $12,000), and still somehow see people here arguing for a for profit system.

If we doubled our healthcare payments per person, something tells me we would have much better service and outcomes than we currently do, and still be below the US system on a per capita basis. Wild.

People who go hunting don't go by "off the top of their head".

Now I can't speak to the laws in California for hunting, but in Canada they have pretty crazy strict laws regarding illegal hunting, including seizure of anything used in the act (trucks, atvs, guns, boats, etc), removal of gun license, and huge fines.

A quick google search shows the method they've used, and have been using for the last decade as an attempt to stop the spread: Barred owls are much more aggressive, and playing their calls can lure them in to fight, in a way the spotted owls don't, so you don't need to just go based on visual differences. Here's one article about the removal process up to now with an interview of a biologist who's pro-hunting.

Relocation of the barred owls isn't feasible, because no matter where you send them, there's probably already owls there, and relocation often results in the animal dying off anyway.

What's the alternative? Watch as the spotted owls are out-competed and go extinct due to human development and habitat destruction? To me, that seems worse. We already hunt to maintain populations of animals in other species - deer spring to mind. Since we've eliminated many of the deer's predators, we need to maintain that role, which includes setting hunting targets each year. Why are these owls different?

I don't argue with your basic premise (companies pay the cheapest contractor, etc), but it is worth noting that because of those pressures, many experienced people leave the industry, thus creating the lack of workers they are talking about. Reversing that change is slow, even if wages rise, and there is no instant fix. Getting people who have left for another industry to return can be difficult, especially in the case of people selling off tools, etc. where the cost to re-enter is often too high to justify.

Add on to that, developers have no incentive to construct everything at once, thus stalling future growth for their company and over saturating the market, driving down housing prices and their enormous margins.

Do you have a source for this? From my discussions and research, most of the contractors we work with on a large scale basis complain about a lack of labour (though that's always a complaint from businesses).