Silver Spooner posted:

Yeah a lot of people like to forget that Rae basically had four guns to his head before he was even sworn in. Globe and Mail piece about it here.

Arcsquad12 posted:

Some protestors at Queen's Park rolled out a guillotine prop. Ford called the cops on them and the government says they feel threatened by acts of violence.
Craven cowards.

Arcsquad12 posted:

the government says they feel threatened by acts of violence.

Arabian Jesus posted:

Edmonton Journal posted:

Grimsrud noted many doctors were also in ignorance of the extent of the outbreak, and might therefore not recognize the symptoms.

“Most physicians and other health-care providers are either unaware of this outbreak or not familiar with the clinical picture of syphilis and are thus not testing,” she wrote.

Nonetheless, Liepert, on taking over as health minister, cancelled the provincewide advertising campaign to inform Albertans at large about the outbreak. At about the same time, Grimsrud and Singh, as well as two other senior public health doctors, left the employ of Alberta Health. None has spoken publicly about why they left.

quote:

Meanwhile, between 2005 and 2007, 14 babies in Alberta were born with congenital syphilis. Five of them died.

Square Peg posted:

Well it's not like they're coming out and saying that's what they're doing.

It's fun to contrast with how the ANDP didn't even clear out most of the previous government's appointees and thus had to deal with their constant partisan ratfucking throughout the past 4 years in the name of decorum I guess.

ARACHTION posted:

Rags in the style of Toronto Sun offend me most for their graphic design.

Toalpaz posted:

I was there! The organizers are also distancing themselves from the prop on facebook, and the collage students who brought it. They were sad that the media coverage from the Sun (Hah!) was negative and blamed that group.They was also on stage and the purse clutching organizers got also felt the need to clarify after that this wasn't a violent protest and they don't condone violence and 'that's not what we're here for'. It was really disappointing because nothing transpired, and they seemed so scared about their protest privilege being taken away as it was granted by a permit .

Postess with the Mostest posted:

He can be both at the same time. He's effectively implementing conservative policies while doing enough left wing stuff to make sure the bad conservatives don't get in power and literally destroy the country. He's the best left wing pm and the best right wing pm.

Toalpaz posted:

I was there! The organizers were also distancing themselves from the prop on facebook and the collage students who brought it. They were sad that the media coverage from the Sun (Hah!) was negative and blamed that group. The students were also on stage and the purse clutching organizers got also felt the need to clarify after their words that this wasn't a violent protest and the organizers don't condone violence because: 'that's not what we're here for'. It was really disappointing because nothing transpired and the organizors seemed so scared about their protest privilege being taken away as it was granted by a permit.

E: The permit = legal protest thing has such a strong chilling effect on moderates. I also edited my post more because my grammar is so bad that it makes for a difficult read.

THC posted:

https://twitter.com/mattjdh/status/1124013927292112897?s=21
https://twitter.com/tim_ell/status/1124027085293543431?s=21
https://twitter.com/lauriethroness/status/1124048358962868230?s=21

Libs: Not Even Once

RBC posted:

he's not even technically right either, like are there no orphans in BC?

quote:

Sure, the credit sounds like a nice idea. A tax credit to encourage Canadians to adopt greener transportation choices, relinquishing polluting private vehicles for eco-friendly public transit. The non-refundable tax credit worth 15 per cent of the amount spent on monthly transit passes was one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s few actions on climate change.

But Finance Minister Bill Morneau looked at the evidence, and it’s damning. A comprehensive study by University of Ottawa economist Nic Rivers revealed that the public transit tax credit is a policy boondoggle —environmentally, economically, and socially.

Three criteria are generally employed to evaluate public policies: effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Excellent public policies achieve their objectives at the lowest possible cost, while reducing, or at least not worsening, societal inequalities.

When the tax credit was introduced in 2006, Prime Minister Harper claimed that the policy could increase transit use by 25 to 50 per cent. This would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and traffic congestion.

Prof. Rivers revealed that the transit tax credit increased transit ridership by between 0.25 per cent and one per cent.

Many Canadians already commuting on transit took advantage of the tax break. These people are what economists call “free riders,” rewarded with subsidies for actions they were already taking. The annual cost to the government is more than $200 million, and rising every year.

Prof. Rivers calculated the cost of greenhouse gas emission reductions as exceeding $1,000 per tonne. Other climate change policies have costs ranging from negative (meaning it’s actually profitable to make changes) to $200/tonne. B.C.’s carbon tax is $30 per tonne. The cost of closing Ontario’s coal-fired power plants was roughly $100 per tonne. Rivers concluded that the transit tax credit “is an extremely expensive mechanism for government to achieve reductions in greenhouse gases.”

So far, the transit tax credit has failed two of the three tests used to evaluate public policies. It’s utterly ineffective in achieving its goals of increasing ridership and reducing pollution. It’s grossly inefficient in attempting to achieve those goals at the lowest possible cost.

The third public policy litmus test asks whether a given policy is fair. Does it alleviate existing inequality or exacerbate it?

Strike three. The non-refundable nature of the transit tax credit means that low-income Canadians receive no benefit.

Imagine two individuals. Maria is a wealthy stockbroker who buys monthly transit passes and takes the subway to work. Her annual salary exceeds $100,000. Joe could be a university student or a guy who works night shifts for minimum wage. He takes the bus to and from school or work but makes less than $18,000.

Maria will claim the full transit tax credit, saving several hundred dollars on her tax bill. Joe spends the same amount on public transit but doesn’t earn enough income to benefit from the non-refundable credit.

The latest data show that roughly 1.8 million Canadians claim the credit, but only about 1.3 million people make enough money for the credit to actually reduce their taxes. That’s half a million transit riding Canadians left out in the cold by this policy. Hundreds of thousands more Canadians can’t even try to claim the credit because they can’t afford to shell out for monthly passes, buying single tickets instead.

This tax credit is ineffective, inefficient and socially regressive. It’s also useless for rural Canadians.

All of the evidence indicated killing the public transit tax credit would be the right move. But the Liberal government obviously knew people would complain about losing their subsidy. The question was whether they would make their decision based on evidence or political popularity.

Minister Morneau deserves praise for doing the right thing. Eliminating the transit tax credit will save more than $2 billion over the next decade. The Liberal federal budget pledged to invest $20 billion to improve transit service over the next decade, from Victoria to Halifax. That’s good public policy, and will benefit everyone who takes transit, not just middle and upper class Canadians.

RBC posted:

he's not even technically right either, like are there no orphans in BC?

vyelkin posted:

Don't even need to go all the way to orphans, how are single parents supposed to stay at home with their kids and also afford food?

vyelkin posted:

Don't even need to go all the way to orphans, how are single parents supposed to stay at home with their kids and also afford food?

Baronjutter posted:

Divorce is a selfish choice and a luxury maybe the working poor shouldn't feel entitled to.

Albino Squirrel posted:

Yeah, I always wondered how conservatives squared that with opposition to birth control.

THC posted:

Oh also today, former BC Liberal cabinet minister and dirty cop Rich Coal Man compared a farmland protection bill to the Holocaust: