Seems like a non-issue then? I know nothing about this guy, but if his office investigated and found nothing wrong with the gift (ie by him saying Trudeau hasn't listed it publicly, that means it came from a friend or relative), then there's nothing wrong? If someone wants to try and dig more into that and why they didn't approve it, go for it MPs, but this one doesn't seem like an actual issue.
healthetank
joined 1 year ago
Its a mess, for sure. This is a good first step, but in general children are wildly expensive, and the current model of raising children has increased the expectations for what is required of parents, while not actually changing (and in many cases reducing or removing) the resources they have at their disposal to do that.
The only thing you can really do is wait out the first few years until the kids are in school, and hope one or both of you haven't fallen too far behind in experience to make up for it. It's one of the reasons multi-generational houses have, historically, been a thing. In the last 50-100 years we've entered an age where it's become normalized to live alone, but I think as pressures increase and little is done to improve them, these kinds of concessions will be ones people will have to be making more often. I'm not suggesting you do that - I know nothing about your situation. I'm agreeing that the life that many people had when they were children is not likely to be the life that many of their children will get to experience.
Interesting article. We have a daughter in central Ontario, and have been signing her up for daycare. The article is focused mostly on Alberta complaints, but here prices are still ~20-40$/day, which is allegedly half from their original costs (which terrifies me).
Another way to look at it - $5k to $10k per year.
I can't speak to the daycare side of things, but from our side, my spouse and I each make good money, and can make it work relatively easily. Anyone making less than us would likely not have a partner return to the workforce, especially if you have multiple children. At the old prices, even just back 5 years ago, a family of two or three would be looking at 40-50k a year in daycare costs, which very easily justifies a partner not working, especially if you can fold into that reduced car wear and tear, not rushing back to pick them up/drop them off, etc.
Did you read the article? They're just making it easier to vote (3 day voting window, expanding mail in votes, etc.) they're not doing any serious changes
Fun fact, most countries still allow asbestos in a lot of products, including the States. Canada has an outright ban since 2018, which includes in concrete materials.
It's a pain in the ass to deal with when we come across old asbestos concrete sewer pipes and have to dispose of them properly. It's weird that a lot of other countries are still producing it.
Huge pet peeve of mine when articles discuss a study but don't link it. Link
When you look at what else we do in the modern world to avoid/mitigate a similar level of mortality, these seem like no brainers, especially the masking. A 0.19 per 100,000 reduction seems small, but the mortality rate was ~50 per 100,000 in Canada. This is basically a 4% reduction in deaths by masking. For a minor cost measure with no long term economic outcomes, this should have been an easy one for people to get on board with.
School reduction in spread (~10%) shouldn't surprise anyone who knows school aged kids. They're germ balls, and multiple kids per household means there's effectively no "bubbles", so of course stopping that spread would have a huge impact, but then kids are stuck at home, so it has a huge cost too.
SIPOs (Shelter in Place Order) had a 5% reduction in hospitalizations, which is honestly smaller than I was expecting.
See below for the mortality summarization.
Specific NPIs. Of the 6 NPIs studied in per capita mortality, bar/restaurant closures experienced the largest effects 4 weeks after implementation, corresponding to 1.08 fewer deaths per 100,000. Although we did not find any more evidence of fewer deaths per capita, limited gatherings (–6.41%), business (–5.32%) and school closures (–3.98%) were associated with decreased mortality growth rates after 2 weeks, whereas SIPOs (–1.66%), masks (–1.9%), and school closures (–8.29%) corresponded to reductions after 3 weeks. SIPOs were the only NPI studied at the ≥4-week lag for growth rates and were associated with a 1.95% drop in the mortality rates. Although the authors observed mitigative effects of travel restrictions on case growth rates, this was not the case for mortality.
I imagine its a tricky thing to study in any detail, and its interesting to look back now to see the effectiveness of the measures put in place.
There's a reason we have all the checks and red tape that housing developments go through. Because once the developers leave, it's the Municipality that has to maintain their infrastructure.
I can't count the number of times I've worked on a subdivision project built in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, only to find a half dozen other problwms that we need to fix, at the cost of the City/Town, because it wasnt done right the first time.
Beyond that, those developments had no proper storm water treatment method, and now that we've successfully paved over half the swamps, we're realizing that untreated storm water wreaks havoc on streams and rivers and lakes. Now we've got to build to deal with that, another big cost.
Like no shit stuff was easier to do back in the "good ol days". They just didn't bother figuring out the problems that we're having to deal with now.
EVs make a difference for anyone in an area with low density. I live in the country relatively close to population centres, but it's impossible for me to ever imagine transit being even near me.
We will literally always have a need for small, individual vehicles of some kind for most the population. If we could reduce that to one car, then supplement with transit, where available, or carpooling? Then also make that car an EV instead of ICE? That's a huge emissions reduction
Interesting article, and though long, well worth the read.
It's unfortunate to see someone fall down into negativity like that. I imagine decades of warnings he was outlining as clearly as possible falling onto dead ears would jade someone, and perhaps he's got the view that it isn't his life that will be impacted? It would be easy to distance yourself that way from it, and might explain his recalcitrance
You're looking at the original article. This whole series of comments has been spawned off a discussion about a different case, in which the person did join the organization, then let his license lapse.
In the original, I agree. He never required a license because of their own regs( though it appears that also means he couldn't call himself a professional engineer, so the title itself is protected, he was just exempt from needing the license to do the industrial work he was doing). He is then totally within his rights to use that knowledge and pass himself off as a subject matter expert in the same field he worked for X years, and the board just got pissy. Glad it was overturned for him.
Blah, I hate it when they don't link to the report or study they discuss.
I've looked it up on the ATI portal, but it doesn't look like the portal has previously requested data up for 2024 yet, which is frustrating. I did stumble across one that looks like its a review of the PRC interference in the 2019 election, so once that comes through I'll be interested to read it.
I'll eventually come back and see if I can find the original report.