17
[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

The music makes the whole thing more palatable. Should be included for all Conservative videos.

8
[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago

Just want to say Rachel Gilmore one of my favourite modern social media journalist. Certainly worth a follow if you're into that format of Canadian political content.

31
16
15
Reform Act (Canada) (lemmy.world)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_(Canada)

Usage

The caucus member ejection provisions were first used when the Conservative caucus voted to eject Derek Sloan on January 20, 2021.[9][10][11]

In February 2022, the leadership removal provisions were invoked for the first time by the Conservative caucus following the 2021 election, which used it to trigger a leadership review against, and remove, Erin O'Toole. During the review, 45 MPs voted to retain him against 73 who voted for his removal.[12] Deputy Leader Candice Bergen was selected as interim leader.[13][14] O'Toole's removal marked the first time since the Reform Act was passed into law seven years prior, that a party caucus formally challenged and dismissed its leader.[15]

32
190
28
26
4
18
38
[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

Pierre also said that CBC was proganda and he regularly reposts article from them. He also likes to reminds how how the Liberals brought a nazi into parliament but forgets to say he was part of the crowd clapping for the guy.

Then there's hanging with actual Nazi's. This dude has almost no resume inside the Parliament after 2 decades of being a MP but he'd built quite a reputation outside of it.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago

A 2012 report from David Campanella, then the public policy research manager for the Parkland Institute, and Greg Flanagan, a public finance economist, concluded that privatization has led to Albertans paying more compared to public stores.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 38 points 7 months ago

Out of the many repost of this story since Friday this is most wild claim I've seen. It's on r/Canada level of ignorance.

The authors of the study by the non-partisan Fraser Institute

I've also never seen something with that many citation on Wikipedia.

The Fraser Institute is a libertarian-conservative Canadian public policy think tank and registered charity.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago

Credit bureaus are testing the inclusion of rent payments in credit scores, saying it’s a positive move launched by Ottawa.

Translation: The 2 private companies that monopolize peoples credit ratings says they're very happy that the federal government pushed even more business and influence their way.

For anyone wondering. If you wish to make a complaint, contact your provincial or territorial consumer affairs office. The federal government doesn’t regulate credit bureaus.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago

The article heavily leans on Ontario and what doesn't work.

If anyone wondering how things are going for a province the adopted a payment system less focused on volume.

700 more family physicians in B.C. since payment revamp: doctors

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago

It's amazing that a 7 billion dollar company goes to court to fight someone for $800. Aside from obviously being in the wrong.

...awarding $650.88 in damages for negligent misrepresentation.

$36.14 in pre-judgment interest and $125 in fees

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

B.C.’s Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, told Global News Monday that this couple’s landlord should “give himself a head shake” but he is in a legal position to do this.

“I mean, this is the challenge that we have with sometimes landlords and tenants. Most landlords are good people and they operate in a good, transparent way. But this is a situation in which reminds us that we need to continue to find ways to strengthen the rules to ensure that the tenants are protected when they move into new places,” Kahlon said.

I really don't understand why people keep perpetuating the belief that vast majority of landlord are anything but for profit investors and society should treat them as such.

This loophole has existed and been used unfairly for a long time now I really don't understand why they haven't amended the RTA to at least cap the extra occupancy increase and exempt a reasonable amount of children.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

For those that don't know she was mayor of a town of 1,500 people. Generally places of this size aren't paying someone enough for it to be a full time job.

This article has a good chart for BC with population and mayor's salaries.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-mayors-councillors-salaries-2021-1.6518877

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

"Hodgins says he was offered a C$2,000 flight voucher by the airline, but said compensation would not “fix the problem” of how the airline failed its disabled passengers."

Given how much this seems to be happening I'd be for fining any airline that does this 100k. Half for the victims and half for disability advocacy groups.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Microsoft's pay guidelines for job offers:

Level 70:

Base pay: $231,700 to $361,500

On-hire stock awards: $310,000 default to $1.2 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $945,000

Level 69:

Base pay: $202,400 to $316,000

On-hire stock awards: $235,000 default to $1.1 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $750,000

Level 68:

Base pay: $186,200 to $291,000

On-hire stock awards: $177,000 default to $1 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $490,600

Level 67:

Base pay: $171,600 to $258,200

On-hire stock awards: $168,000 default to $700,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $336,000

Level 66:

Base pay: $157,300 to $236,300

On-hire stock awards: $75,000 default to $600,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $160,000

Level 65:

Base pay: $144,600 to $216,600

On-hire stock awards: $36,000 default to $300,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $90,000

Level 64:

Base pay: $125,000 to $187,700

On-hire stock awards: $24,000 default to $250,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $60,000

Level 63:

Base pay: $113,900 to $171,500

On-hire stock awards: $17,000 default to $200,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $44,000

Level 62:

Base pay: $103,700 to $156,400

On-hire stock awards: $11,000 default to $125,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $32,000

Level 61:

Base pay: $92,600 to $138,100

On-hire stock awards: $6,500 default to $75,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $24,000

Level 60:

Base pay: $83,500 to $125,000

On-hire stock awards: $4,500 default to $50,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $16,000

Level 59:

Base pay: $74,400 to $110,800

On-hire stock awards: $3,000 default to $30,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $12,000

Level 58:

Base pay: $70,300 to $92,600

On-hire stock awards: $2,500 default to $20,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 57:

Base pay: $63,800 to $83,000

On-hire stock awards: $1,500 default to $10,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 56:

Base pay: $60,700 to $77,900

On-hire stock awards: $1,500 default to $10,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 55:

Base pay: $55,200 to $71,300

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 54:

Base pay: $51,600 to $67,000

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 53:

Base pay: $46,600 to $59,700

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 52:

Base pay: $42,500 to $54,600

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

view more: next ›

SamuelRJankis

joined 2 years ago