Slightly Toasted posted:

Winnipeg just finished building a new stadium a couple years ago. And did such a lovely job that it's been literally falling apart and cracking at the foundation since.

Now provincial NDP is getting ready to throw another $35 million at it.

Slightly Toasted posted:

And he's probably going to be premier in about a year.

linoleum floors posted:

Gonna take a wild shot in the dark and say Trudeau appointing a 30 year old rookie MP with no political experience as minister of democratic institutions means electoral reform is not going to be taken seriously

THC posted:

jm20 posted:

What I am getting at is the best way to murder someone in Canada is with a car, conviction is likely but you will always face the lesser charges regardless of intent. Very rarely is there enough evidence to warrant an actual conviction of murder or homicide. I mean we are better than China where you run people over thrice to ensure they are dead for financial incentives, but be serious about our legal system.

PT6A posted:

Punishment doesn't work because people aren't in their right state of mind when they choose to drive drunk. What will deter drunk driving is the expansion of other options for getting home, including transit (with good hours and/or a special night bus system), taxis, ride-share services, services like Keys Please that drive you home in your own car, and finally building more drinking establishments and restaurants within walking distance of where people live.

Greater enforcement, including checkstops, would also decrease drunk driving because most people consider the chance of getting caught far more than the possible punishment when choosing to commit a crime.

Increasing punishment doesn't work, and has never worked, as a means of preventing crime. It doesn't matter if it's robbery, drug use, drunk driving, assault, etc. It doesn't work. There's no point to it, and it's more expensive than the alternative.

Freeze posted:

Was this posted yet? Sure to give CI an aneurysm

Lots of good breweries here on the Island. Hoyne and VI Brewing probably my favorites. I'm also lucky enough to live near a Spinnaker's liquor store that sells Gueuze, which has to be one of the most delicious beverages ever conceived.

Jordan7hm posted:

Uhhhh

It's in an "opinions" section called "Globe Debates - Canada’s leading forum for world-class opinion and debate".

colonel_korn posted:

University of Winnipeg's degree program already stipulates that all majors need 12 credit hours of humanities, so probably this just says that at least four of those must be from a course related to indigenous studies.

Aces High posted:

but isn't Alberta known for having lovely OHS in general? I seem to recall an assembly in high school talking about worker's rights and somewhere in there I think I remember hearing that our safety standards are pretty poo poo in comparison to the rest of Canada.

Incidentally I brought up the whole "it is making farmers pay their workers living wages and WCB" and my dad said "did the applicants for the TFW program have WCB back home?" to which I was very close to saying "dad there is actually a alight difference between 'playing Devil's advocate' and sounding loving retarded and you just demonstrated that". Speaking of "things we can't do on the family farm anymore because of Bill 6" I heard on CBC this afternoon that this will affect 4H, so as someone born and raised in the city what the gently caress do kids DO in 4H?

PT6A posted:

I just had to deal with the CRA for some small questions about my tax return, and I don't understand why they get such a bad rap. They were exceedingly helpful and pleasant -- far more than the average "businessperson" I have to deal with -- and my issue was resolved quickly with minimal waiting on hold.

Maybe the government actually should run more things...

THC posted:

Canada on Friday said any carbon reduction targets agreed to at the negotiations should not be legally binding.

Now that's #RealChange!

Ikantski posted:

a) Mincome would be impractical to roll out all at once because of the sheer amount of money needed ($700b or 3 full years of federal tax revenue to pay every canadian $20k). Why not take the first step by mincoming parents? You get the additional economic relief of helping them get back to work and you can prove that writing cheques to millionaires is more efficient than setting up a bureaucracy to means test every parent (twice because they're already tested by income tax).

b) It does take care of the tax problem. UCCB mails you a cheque every month whether you have a job or not. It does count as income. If you don't have a job, you're in the minimum tax bracket and don't pay any tax on it. If you make 100k a year from your job, you pay the 100k tax rate on that extra UCCB income. Or looking at it another way, it helps offset the other tax you pay. It's better to pay it to people monthly than annually though because uh canadians and money.

c) You improve it from there. Make tax progression sharper, add seniors to the recipients, cut welfare, add everybody, cut pensions, increase the amount.

Eej posted:

Mincome works by giving you a minimum income that should be enough so that you aren't at the risk of starving if you are jobless. When you get a job, your Mincome is reduced by 50 cents for every 1 dollar you earn. If monthly Mincome is pegged at $2000, then you'd need to be making $4000 (a roughly entry level job! who knew) before you would be seeing 0 Mincome. That's not counting benefits, of course, which you wouldn't have if you were living off Mincome or part time.

So what this does is incentivize a number of behaviours. First, the number of people working minimum wage just to get by would be drastically reduced. Minimum wage jobs would be taken mostly by part timers, which in my opinion is the best possible outcome. So poorer families can focus on raising children/going to school/training/whatever instead of spending all of their time just trying to get by which theoretically would improve upward mobility for these people. Second it allows people to take more risks (~entrepreneurism~) as they don't run the possibility of not paying rent or not having food to eat.

Of course there are going to be layabouts but that's hardly the majority of people and perfect is the enemy of good and all that.

Cocoham posted:

As someone that barely knows anything about mincome, can someone explain why anyone would work a borderline minimum wage job over taking advantage of mincome? If the choices are work are 0 hours for $800, or work 80 hours for $1000, I can't imagine much working those hours for such little gain. Wouldn't that than raise the price of living, which would force whatever the mincome level is to raise?

senae posted:

As someone who has spent a period of time unemployed but with enough money that I didn't need to find a job right away, I can field this: unemployment is a miserable existence and brings on crippling depression. I mean, I hope that changes to some degree in a post mincome world because we can automate a ton of low education jobs right now.


Isn't the assumption that we'd scrap the minimum wage and fund mincome using taxes on companies? If you're layering mincome on top of existing wages all you'd be doing is driving up the cost of living.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Canadians bitching about their internet is so loving lol. Wait until you have to deal with UK or US isps.

Cultural Imperial posted:

No I'm saying you're all tripping on your parochial world views brah

Baronjutter posted:

When I was getting my internet hooked up the Shaw worker was asking me why I wasn't getting TV as well. I told him with the insane rates Shaw charges due to their monopoly I can't afford both internet and TV, and if I'm paying so much for internet I might as well use it to save money on TV. I got a whole speech about how Shaw isn't a monopoly because there's also Telus and actually profits have been down because more and more people like me aren't getting TV. Shaw is going to have to keep upping internet rates to compensate for their losses on TV, it's a real problem and anyone who doesn't get TV + internet is basically a free-loader being subsidized by TV subscribers.

I told him that even if their profits are down, they are still turning a huge profit and don't "need" to raise rates. If people don't buy as much TV they just downsize the TV side of things. Also who gives a gently caress if their profits go way down, so long as they can pay their staff and keep the company running they should be happy. He just muttered about how young people these days not paying for TV is going to "bring the whole system down" and "if Shaw can't turn a good enough profit a lot of people will be out of jobs". I told him I hope shaw goes out of business because I didn't subscribe to TV and the government buys the whole thing on the cheap. He said "you really think government will be able to run the internet? You'll be paying for union staff and you'll be stuck with a real monopoly, besides a lot of people will lose their jobs"

I guess Shaw's got their staff pretty well brainwashed.

\/ Just don't pay for cable and the whole system will collapse into socialism.

bunnyofdoom posted:

In cs you need to feel warm and fuzzy today


(Just don't read the comments)

PT6A posted:

I also recommend: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tuscany-lrt-graffiti-scrubbed-replaced-messages-love-1.3350559

And definitely don't read the comments....

PT6A posted:

They should allow them to continue to operate because it makes the city a better place to live, and it should be the mandate of any municipal government to make that municipality a better place to live.

Sure, it may be against by-laws, but it's unquestionably a boon to the residents of the cities where it operates. What happened to all the "gently caress monopolies!" talk from a few pages ago? Taxis are the worst and they deserve to be hosed, even by pricks like Uber.

infernal machines posted:

Uber doesn't operate nicely now.