Counterpoint: a very large fraction of the population is one unexpected bill away from insolvency. It doesn't seem unreasonable to impose a similar fear on corporations for actual criminal activity.
Yes, that's me saying that a corporation breaking the law should have to legitimately consider closing it's doors. In some cases, forced closure should be part of the actual penalty.
Maybe? It just feels like that might be part of it...
In principle, I like the idea of having a check on Parliament. Not a block that can prevent things from happening, but something that can slow things down a bit when necessary and maybe cause Parliament to rethink what they're up to or moderate their actions. In general, I think the Senate is reasonably effective at that.
In principle, I like the idea of some kind of regional representation. Not so much that the province with small populations can stand in the way of sound national policy, but enough to limit the exploitation of those provinces in favour of the ones with larger populations. I'm not sure that the Senate has been as effective in that regard as it could have been.
I really like the idea that no Senator can be an active member of any political party. They should all sit as independents. In fact, I would argue that no Senator should ever have been sitting member of Parliament, and maybe not even held party membership for at least a decade.
Finally, I would like to experiment with sortition (random selection instead of political appointments or elections) and a properly constrained, yet not powerless Senate seems like the perfect place to try it out.
Holy shit! Not knowing whether you were joking or not, I did a basic wikipedia search. Unless someone has vandalized her page, you're right.
So who is she to talk? Why aren't interviewers pressing her on this?
Not at all! While I have some problems with the impaired driving law, I'm firmly on side with it being a criminal offense. But my experience is that employers mostly ignore those convictions, suggesting that the statistics may not mean what we think.
In anticipation of the next question, my concerns with impaired driving legislation, enforcement, and punishment are:
Abstinence is the only reliable way to determine whether you meet the legal definition of impairment outside of actually getting pulled over. If abstinence is the objective, then that should be the law. If abstinence is not the objective, then there should be ready access to reliable tests ahead of time.
In the absence of actual property damage or injury, it should not result in incarceration. This follows my general objection to incarcerating those who have caused no concrete harm.
There needs to be supplementary legislation surrounding ownership of road legal vehicles so that someone other than the driver can be held responsible when a suspended driver is driving.
There needs to be due consideration given to the fact that it's possible for an impaired driver to be involved in a crash without being any more responsible for that crash than an unimpaired driver would have been. That is, if I run a red light, hitting a vehicle operated by an impaired driver, that driver should not be assessed fault or denied access to my insurance.
In addition, there needs to be proper enforcement of all crimes. For example, many boating laws go unenforced because enforcement officers are reluctant to subject someone to criminal penalties for the infraction.
So the McCarthyism playbook?
The biggest difference I see is that this time it's running as a mostly decentralized and possibly grassroots initiative. But people are still losing their jobs and possibly their entire careers for opinions and activities that have literally nothing to do with their employment or education or even legitimate constraints on their freedom of expression.
Let's face it, Hamas wouldn't even exist if the Israeli government wasn't being a big dick about sharing or at least caring.
Been there, done that. Simply joining the political class is insufficient. I now work even earlier in the process: family, friends, acquaintances, and community groups.
You're right in that the solution is ultimately to change who belongs to the political class, but that requires a lot of organizing from outside the machine in order to develop the skills and programs and platforms.
I'm just disillusioned by the fact that too few people follow the science, understand the research, think logically, are willing to give new things an honest try, or show a modicum of decency.
They need a Go Fund Me page. CPP ain't much but I could probably kick in a few bucks.
It's not the uniqueness of the coverage, but the reach. Out here in rural Saskatchewan, our choice is between CBC radio and one other station that has extremely limited news.
CBC not only has better news, but lots of deep dives, analysis, documentaries, and cultural programming. In that sense, it is unique, at least on radio.
Yes, expensive satellite internet or TV is available, and we have it in our house, but many don't. Newspapers have never really worked that well out here because picking up a stack of papers once a week when going for mail and groceries doesn't really work. Any sensible reading schedule means always being a week behind whatever comes in via CBC radio.
On top of that, we can listen to the radio while working in the fields or shop or around the house. That makes it easy to stay on top of things without sitting in front of a screen or with a newspaper for a couple of hours a day, when we should be spending time with our families.
As I said, our household can afford satellite internet, but we still get most of our news via CBC radio, because that is the only source of extensive coverage we can get without sitting around. We'd much rather use that sitting time for a good book or education (we have satellite internet specifically for all the online courses that are available).
If CBC television disappeared, I would barely notice, but CBC radio is how we stay connected to the world. If there is to be serious discussion of killing CBC, it should be TV only that gets killed and the money saved should then be put towards getting something in addition to CBC radio out to the rural and remote regions. One great option would be for CBC radio to broadcast Canadaland and other externally produced programming. CBC already doesn't produce everything they broadcast, so syndicating additional alternative programming covering other viewpoints would be a spectacular use of the system.
And strategic voting has to be actually strategic. All of the parties play the long game, so we have to as well. If we never show them what we really want by voting for the people and policies we want, even when we think there is little chance of victory, none of them will ever see that we like those policies and people.
Given that we have no "none of the above" option that would force the election to be rerun with different candidates, the best strategy now is to vote for one of the fringe parties, ideally one that is satirical. At this point, there is no party that stands for what actually benefits the masses, so we might as vote for the jokers. Could it really be any worse than the mainstream parties that seem to be actively working against our interests?
It's been a long time, but IIRC, federal sets the minimum standards and provinces can improve upon them as they see fit.
For example, federal standards call for a minimum of 2 weeks paid vacation (technically, the actual pay is 1/26 annual earnings, including overtime pay). Some provinces, like Alberta, go with that. Others, like Saskatchewan, make that 3 weeks (3/52 annual pay, including OT).
If you are in a federally regulated industry, the employer is not required (but has the option?) to follow the provincial standards of the province you're employed in.
And, of course, employment agreements and union contracts can further improve upon either.
I thought pensions and RRSPs were supposed to pay for retirement.
Housing is for living in. Maybe some small- and medium-sized business in rental housing because not everyone wants to own.
But investment commodity or retirement vehicle? Sounds dangerous!