[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Yeah, those are legitimate concerns for sure. I imagine it'd be challenging to get those kinds of resources through the political process though.

Why?

On the one hand I don't think you need legislation - just spending priorities.

On the other hand, even if they need legislation, they have a solid majority.


One example he gave - there are two psychologists in Edmonton who speak Arabic - and they are completely swamped now with Syrian refugees.

[Jacob]

If we continue down this path that every single individual jurisdiction somehow gets a veto on trans-national projects we'll never build another pipeline ever again.

Well, it does appear that part of the problem is the pipelines are primarily an Alberta concern.

[Barrister]

If we continue down this path that every single individual jurisdiction somehow gets a veto on trans-national projects we'll never build another pipeline ever again.

Well, it does appear that part of the problem is the pipelines are primarily an Alberta concern.

Not true.  This pipeline is also a New Brunswick concern (where the pipeline ends).  And to a lesser extent, Ontario, since a lot of the equipment is manufactured there.

It's true there aren't a lot of benefits to Montreal.  A few million spent during construction is it.

But surely that's not how a nation is supposed to work?  Each jurisdiction only going "well, what's in it for me"?  As mentioned then, why do we bother with equalization payments then?

[Admiral Yi]

I believe Somalis are the one Muslim immigrant group in the US that have seen significant numbers go a-jihading.  Might not be wise to generalize from their experience.

[The Brain]

How Mali are they?

[Malthus]

Btw, any comments on that twitter harassment case?

It would help if I knew about it ... 

In your own backyard and you know nothing!!!


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-man-found-not-guilty-in-twitter-harassment-trial-widely-viewed-as-a-canadian-first

I ain't reading an 85-page ruling to comment on it. 

From a very brief review: looks like the judge thought this was basically a flame war, without a reasonable fear of anyone's actual safety: so no criminal harassment. You don't get to call something harassment and make it so. They have to actually threaten you.

Well not quite.    If you actually threaten someone you can be charged with Utter Threats, s. 264.1.  Criminal Harassment, s. 264, is to "engage in conduct... that causes that other person... to fear for their safety".

Other than adding the actual language of the code, how is that any different from what I said?  I'm not using "threaten" in the technical sense of "Uttering a Threat", but in the sense, as I mentioned, of creating a "reasonable fear of [anyone's] actual safety".

[Barrister]

Btw, any comments on that twitter harassment case?

It would help if I knew about it ... 

In your own backyard and you know nothing!!!


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-man-found-not-guilty-in-twitter-harassment-trial-widely-viewed-as-a-canadian-first

I ain't reading an 85-page ruling to comment on it. 

From a very brief review: looks like the judge thought this was basically a flame war, without a reasonable fear of anyone's actual safety: so no criminal harassment. You don't get to call something harassment and make it so. They have to actually threaten you.

Well not quite.    If you actually threaten someone you can be charged with Utter Threats, s. 264.1.  Criminal Harassment, s. 264, is to "engage in conduct... that causes that other person... to fear for their safety".

Other than adding the actual language of the code, how is that any different from what I said?  I'm not using "threaten" in the technical sense of "Uttering a Threat", but in the sense, as I mentioned, of creating a "reasonable fear of [anyone's] actual safety".

Dude, I'm a criminal lawyer.  Seeing something said that is sorta-right, but not completely, gives me the heebie-jeebies.

It's like when I see someone in Canada refer to a "DUI".  THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR LAW SAYS!

[Malthus]

Dude, I'm a criminal lawyer.  Seeing something said that is sorta-right, but not completely, gives me the heebie-jeebies.

It's like when I see someone in Canada refer to a "DUI".  THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR LAW SAYS!

So what you are saying is that these "inaccuracies" make you feel ... threatened? 

[Jacob]

Not true.  This pipeline is also a New Brunswick concern (where the pipeline ends).  And to a lesser extent, Ontario, since a lot of the equipment is manufactured there.

It's true there aren't a lot of benefits to Montreal.  A few million spent during construction is it.

But surely that's not how a nation is supposed to work?  Each jurisdiction only going "well, what's in it for me"?  As mentioned then, why do we bother with equalization payments then?

I agree that's how a nation is supposed to work, and I expect most people do in principle. The issue of course is exactly how that is sorted out. Certainly the NEP was an unpopular way to do it. You could argue that equalization payments are enough to balance it out, but that would certainly counter any arguments for building through provinces that do not receive them (like the Kinder-Morgan pipeline through BC).

I will say, however, that a few million dollars spent at one time in the local economy is not that big a deal to a large city, especially compared to the potential health and environmental impact of a leak near a major population centre. This is especially true if there's uncertainty about the speed and quality of a response to a potential leak, and about who's going to bear the cost.

Personally, my take on a pipeline near Vancouver is that it's okay as long as a) there are very solid plans in place for disaster response (and clear assignment of costs - it is hard to buy the "national benefit" argument if the profit goes to private investors and the Albertan government, but the costs of disaster relief is borne by BC and Vancouver tax payers and private individuals); and b) there's a non-trivial continuing benefit to BC or Vancouver. I could even be argued down on or out of b) with some good appeals to emotion.

[viper37]

[celedhring]

Wonder how many votes he's going to get...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/vote-none-of-the-above-byelection-1.3426783

Voters can pick 'none of the above' thanks to this Whitby-Oshawa byelection candidate
Man legally changes his name to Above Znoneofthe so it can appear at bottom of ballot

Ever wish you could choose "None of the Above" in an election?

Voters in the provincial riding of Whitby-Oshawa will soon see that option at the bottom of their ballot in the upcoming byelection​.

Whitby-Oshawa byelection set for Feb. 11

A 46-year-old man from Thornhill, Ont., formerly known as Sheldon Bergson, spent $137 to legally change his name to Above Znoneofthe, got 25 voters to sign his nomination papers and registered with Elections Ontario to run in the Feb. 11 byelection.

Since the candidate names appear on the ballot in alphabetical order, surname first, his will be 10th of the 10 candidates, and appear as "Znoneofthe Above".

In a phone interview, Znoneofthe said he's trying to give an option to people who are fed up with voting over and over for the main parties and seeing nothing really change.

"I'm aiming for all of the people who don't normally vote," said Znoneofthe, who has run in previous federal elections for the National Party and as an independent candidate under his former name.

"I thought, one of these days we should get 'none of the above' on a ballot," he said.

Friends still call him Sheldon

Ontario's Elections Act requires that candidates put their legal surname on the ballot, but nicknames can appear in place of a legal given name. Znoneofthe's official name change was listed in the Ontario Gazette in December.

Znoneofthe is a married father of two who works in customer service for a bank. ‎He said his family and colleagues still call him Sheldon. He said he started the process to change his name last fall in hopes of running in the federal election, but it didn't happen in time.

Znoneofthe vowed to keep his new name if he wins the byelection.

Just above Znoneofthe on the ballot will be Greg Vezina, leader of the None of The Above Party. Others running in the byelection include Progressive Conservative candidate Lorne Coe, the NDP's Niki Lundquist and Liberal Elizabeth Roy.

The byelection was called after Christine Elliott announced she was resigning as MPP for Whitby-Oshawa shortly after she lost the PC leadership race to Patrick Brown.

[Josephus]

I may vote for him.

[Barrister]

So fair is fair.  After ragging on Premier Notley for months, she finally did something that was not stupid.  Her oil and gas royalty review decided not to raise oil royalty rates.

[viper37]

seemed like a no brainer for now.

[viper37]

I have to admit, the Liberals had a positive effect on Canadians.  More and more Canadians use public transportation every day now, thanks to their plan.  Even Toronto's most famous residents use the public transit now: