turningrite

I largely agree with you but given the nature of their jobs they really have no choice but to take victim complaints seriously. I come at this issue from a different angle as I too once had to deal with paramedics who didn't take me seriously when I was experiencing medical difficulties. They challenged the seriousness of my situation and didn't provide adequate details of my circumstances to hospital staff when I arrived at the hospital. After a nurse, who was startled that I'd been relegated to a non-priority area, realized the seriousness of my symptoms, I was quickly shifted to critical care and immediately treated. My assumption is that listening to patients and taking them seriously is a vital part of a paramedic's job. If this expectation has been weakened or abandoned, officials need to take a serious and clear look at what's going on.

It's my understanding that the FBI vets all SCOTUS nominees and as this allegation has arisen since his nomination the agency has jurisdiction over any ensuing investigation. Otherwise, this would likely be delegated to local authorities. I actually think the more recent allegation concerning the nominee exposing his - well, you know - might be the more serious matter as he was in college at the time rather than in high school. A lot of this stuff sounds like frat boy behavior. It's scary how it can come back to haunt people years later, making one wonder how many could stand up to the scrutiny to which high profile appointees for such positions are now subjected? Maybe Kavanaugh should give Patrick Brown a quick call. Patrick certainly found out how quickly one's supposed friends can abandon a colleague in the #metoo era, where one is presumed guilty before one is permitted to prove one's innocence.

Spending bills? Or cuts? Let's hope it's the latter.

For all those who believe Bernier's party will automatically lead to a Trudeau majority next year, this week's election in New Brunswick suggests that strong third-party support could well ensure a minority government. I don't believe Scheer's CPC can get a majority, so a minority government, whether led by the Libs or CPC, is probably the best outcome we can hope for. Current polling without Bernier's party in the mix suggests a Lib majority. The NB math suggests that as long as third parties can scoop about 30 percent of the vote a majority is unlikely. I believe that because Bernier's proposed party has registered roughly 13 to 17 percent in straw polling and the NDP can likely muster at least 15 percent of the vote, our best hope to avoid another Trudeau majority is a strong showing by Bernier's group.

A lot of people are shaking their heads at the logic of this situation. Apparently, the Trudeau government announced yesterday that going forward this kind of thing won't be permitted but it was silent (due due confidentiality?) on whether the change would impact Garnier's case. It's another black eye for the federal government (both under Harper's and Trudeau's leadership) where the matter of veterans benefits is concerned.

I agree with you on this. This string has devolved into a lengthy debate on the merits of Islamic thought, ideology and practices, which, while perhaps worthy of debate under a separate heading, seems secondary to the issue of the efficacy of our current refugee program.

But this is the root of the growing problem in this country. Many of those who rely on taxpayer funded programs have never paid into the system or have done so only minimally. The Fraser Institute calculates that this problem now costs Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year. The assumed "social contract" is breaking down and people, including me, are losing faith in the current system. My preferred solution would be to see the entire social benefits system redesigned to focus eligibility determination on residency requirements and contributions, similar to the American Social Security framework. The respected British economist and Oxford professor Sir Paul Collier has noted that one of the major problems with large-scale migration in developed economies is a decline in social cohesion. This is in significant measure related to the increasing reliance by newcomers on taxpayer funded benefits. Ultimately, if this problem isn't solved, borders will close. It's not a racist analysis. Rather, it's a practical and realistic one. Personally, I think we need people like Bernier raising these issues for the purpose of public debate as our traditional mainstream parties seem content to avoid such debate and castigate as xenophobes, or worse, those who raise objective concerns.

Not sure who your comment is referencing but it seems that by use of the word "bigot" you aren't particularly objective yourself.

Well, I've got some swampland to sell you in.... Other mechanisms for input and action are unlikely to resolve much, if anything. There are already community councils in Toronto that have no apparent real power to resolve constituent concerns in real time. DoFo's move won't generate more efficient government and likely was never intended to do so. The number one issue in the area in which I live is massive condo development. One of my friends calls the situation "condopalooza" and wonders if DoFo's real intent was/is to limit the ability of councillors to run interference with condo developers? There are at least half a dozen of these massively oversized projects within a 3 block radius of my apartment and probably an equal or greater number in the planning and approval stages. The problems generated by the massive pace of development in relation to issues like noise, traffic and environmental degradation are enormous. As a disabled person who requires mobility assistance, I can assure you that from a safety perspective my neighbourhood is at times unwalkable. Our only access to redress is through city hall, where the current councillor, at least in my ward, responds pretty quickly. When that access is undermined, one wonders if parts of the city will become effectively uninhabitable? By the way, how many councillors do you have in N.O.T.L. to serve a population that's likely less than twenty thousand? If Ford were really honest and consistent in his supposed quest to reduce he size of government he'd eliminate small municipalities like yours and entirely transfer municipal governance in such communities to more "efficient" (meaning larger, in DoFo speak) regional municipalities. How many councillors, then, would be permitted to serve the residents of the Niagara Region? Hmmm... with a population of less than half a million, with all the constituent municipalities amalgamated you guys would deserve no more than four or five councillors, and even that might be overstretching it if DoFo's solution for Toronto is the appropriate baseline. Think about it for a few minutes, at least, before commenting further.

Apparently, you don't read my posts. I'm non-ideological. I simply can't tolerate hypocrisy like that expressed by those who say they supposedly want to protect taxpayers when their own taxes, services and access to representation aren't in play. Ford had/has no mandate to chop Toronto's city council. I think it's mainly an ego-driven (i.e. 'I'm now in charge!') personal agenda on DoFo's part. As a Torontonian, I'm unconvinced of the issue of the alleged financial benefits of this. I don't think it will save much if any money. Big money isn't in play at the municipal level in comparison to the other levels of government. But from a practical perspective, though, having a single city councillor represent every 100 thousand+ residents is ridiculous. At all levels of government in this country, I believe only the federal parliament and the Ontario legislature feature such remote representation. But this is particularly problematic at the municipal level. Imagine trying to talk to your councillor if your street doesn't get cleared after a snowstorm, your garbage isn't getting picked up or condo construction routinely disrupts your sleep by starting work an hour or more prior to stipulated bylaw provisions. These are the kinds of mundane matters municipal councillors regularly have to deal with. And taxpayers have a right to talk to the people who represent them where these things are concerned. I've contacted my MP's office once over the past decade and my MPP's office perhaps once or twice. I've had reason, however, to contact my councillor's office at least half a dozen times over the past couple years. This isn't about ideology or elitism at all. Plainly and simply, it's about access and fairness. I suspect those like Betsy who seem keen to limit access by others to their political representatives would no doubt demand quick access to their own councillors were they unable to access necessary municipal services. However, they seem unconcerned and even in some cases ecstatic that others might lose such access. It's abominable and, yes, hypocritical.

Actually, the salaries are the problem as the pensions are based on them. I believe that most provincial and municipal pensions in this province are fairly soundly funded so are not therefore a drain on tax dollars. Other provincial post-retirement benefits, however, are a tax drain as I believe retirees don't come anywhere close to paying premiums to sustain these benefits.

Actually, the Liberals effectively reversed the Harris tax cuts soon after taking power by implementing the health tax, which I believe was the biggest single income tax increase on ordinary Ontario workers in the province's post-WW2 history. And they still couldn't balance the books. They just kept on finding new ways to give other people's money away.

I don't think this incident reflects a broad cultural problem, as some have apparently tried to argue to be the case, so much as it points to a problem with the training of paramedics as all emergency calls should be treated with equal urgency. Unfortunately, not all first responders seem to act on this basis. Perhaps many first responders have become desensitized to what they see on a daily basis and therefore lose compassion for those they are supposed to be helping. If this is the case, we need to examine the roots of this particular issue. In the area in which I live, in which the problems of homeless and open drug use are both prevalent and quite visible, I suspect it's easy for some emergency personnel to become jaded.

Why buy American planes at all? Given the attacks on its allies by the Americans, perhaps we'd be best to consider only the most up-to-date European technology. And we only require land-based aircraft in any case so the multi-purpose craft being developed by the U.S. may not suit our needs anyway.

I wonder if this is because the federal government is allowing big companies to game Canadian labour markets to give preferential access to foreign workers? One of my friends who works in IT says this very thing is going on. Canadians, he says, are often interviewed on a 'pro forma' basis so the companies can argue they can't find suitable Canadian applicants.

That might be relevant were Bernier's nascent party actually included in recent polling. So, don't pop your champagne cork yet. The most recent info I can find on Grenier's tracking site doesn't include a single poll that actually gauges support for Bernier's party, likely because it doesn't officially exist at this point. As specific polling on the issue of support for Bernier's prospective party indicates that its firm and likely support is in the range of 13 to 17 percent, mainstream polling on party preference will no doubt cover Bernier's party once it's officially registered. Grenier's methodology is to cover polls completed and reported by the major polling firms. Once these polls start including Bernier's party we'll see where thing sit https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-federal-poll-averages-and-seat-projections-1.4171977

Maybe it's fake news. But for sure the situation is so unusual that even if it did occur it doesn't alter of impact the reality that overwhelmingly nuns do not and have not for a very long time (i.e. generations or even centuries) covered their faces.

1.) Of all the items addressed, natural disasters are probably among the least relevant in impacting where people move. Look at the success of Silicon Valley in attracting immigrant talent (including a lot of Canadians) and wealth. It's in one of the most seismically risky regions on the globe. Vancouver, one of Canada's fastest growing cities and a magnet for immigrants, is also in a seismically unstable region. And Houston, one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S., and another magnet for immigrants, is in a low-lying area prone to hurricanes and flooding. I continue to maintain that crime is mainly a localized issue, whereby if one is seeking a safe place to live one can find such places in either country. As for social programs, I think you don't fully understand the comparisons between the two countries. If one is looking for handouts and subsidies, Canada no doubt offers newcomers more goodies than does the U.S. However, if you're a taxpayer who somehow falls through the cracks due to an economic downturn, ill health or disability, I believe the American system is actually superior. Its disability coverage (Social Security vs. CPP-D) is more generous. And its unemployment insurance system is actually better in some aspects as well. For those who lost jobs in the last recession, I believe the maximum period one could collect EI benefits in Ontario was "extended" by a few weeks to a maximum of somewhere short of 40 weeks. My American brother-in-law, who lives in a prosperous northeastern state and who was laid off at that time, saw his UI benefits extended to almost two years. The big differences are in health care but as our system has been allowed to deteriorate so dramatically I'm not sure we retain bragging rights on this. 2.) I agree that there is a distinction to be made about the attractiveness of the U.S. as a migration destination for those from developed vs. developing countries. I have read that among the citizens of developed countries the U.S. ranks well down the list preferred places to which one might relocate, however this is mainly a hypothetical assessment as most people in developed Western countries are unlikely to seriously contemplate emigration. Emigration is now dominated by those from the developing world and among these migrants the U.S. retains its long-held allure. It may be difficult for many from the developing world to get into the U.S. these days, but admission to the U.S. remains the holy grail for a huge contingent. Canada, by the way, has a relatively high emigration rate for a developed Western economy and by far the most common destination for Canadians is the U.S., followed I believe by the U.K., Australia and France.

No, I'm just saying you're behaving like a meddling hypocrite if you think you have the right to pontificate about Toronto's civic politics when you won't subject the politics in your own little hamlet to similar scrutiny. You haven't provided any numbers to facilitate a comparison. The size of the municipality in which you live is irrelevant to whether you have a supposed right to better representation, as you and OftenWrong (who is wrong about this) believe to be the case. Unless you're willing to subject your critique to objective comparison and scrutiny, I hereby politely but firmly beseech you to butt out. By your "typical to people like you" comment, I take it you mean educated and informed people, right? By the way, I believe 'typical of' rather than 'typical to' is proper grammatical usage. I don't usually like to be too picky about such things in online forums, but if your intent is to insult you might seem more credible if you do so using proper grammar.

Too bad they're not opening that job up to foreign competition.

I know Canadian IT PMs who can't get jobs. So why is Canada allowing express entry for such positions?

It's unfortunate that not enough people seem to realize this. I think the only solution is to pursue an entirely secularist agenda. Neither pandering nor appeasement will work. Organized religions are inherently chauvinistic, so promoting or encouraging as a valid societal benefit a broad interpretation of religious 'rights' must be discouraged. A functioning and peaceful diverse society requires the adoption of secularism as an underlying principle.

1.) You continue to be ridiculous. Please copy and paste the entry in which you content that I actually said this. I pointed out that the situation you cite "is so exceptional as to render your argument ridiculous" and I note that in my considerable experience, growing up a Catholic and attending Catholic schools, I'd never encountered a nun who covered her face. And I challenged you to indicate that you'd ever seen a nun wearing facial covering. The reality is that the one media citation you provide serves at best as an "exception that proves a rule." Perhaps you might brush up on rhetorical logic. 2.) Again, it's an exception that proves a rule. As I said, the example is so unique and rare as to establish the case that facial covering is not a general characteristic of the attire worn by nuns. 3.) Clearly you did lose. I challenge you to leave your home today, locate a nun wearing facial covering and take a picture of her and then return and post it under this topic. You might want to take a winter coat with you, though, as well as changes of clothing for all the other seasons as you likely won't return home for a very, very long time. But, in order to make the rules here realistic, I'll give you 48 hours to post such a picture that also includes details on the location of the photo as well as its time and date. If you can't do so, you'll concede your loss in this debate.

Or, you might look at the issue from a broader angle. A Muslim writer who penned an article published in the NY Times last year pondered whether the problem of integration emerges from the fact that many Muslims neither understand nor accept the Western ideals of liberalism and freedom "...liberalism also brings them realities that most of them find un-Islamic — irreverence toward religion, tolerance of L.G.B.T. people, permissive attitudes on sex. They can’t easily decide, therefore, whether liberalism is good or bad for Muslims." If this is the case, why is the onus on the West to resolve the conundrum posed by liberalism for Muslims when they're moving into our societies? My view of religious freedom also entails freedom from religion. I don't want to promote religious fundamentalism of any sort nor be told that I should be polite and accommodating and just ignore it. If there is no middle ground where the other side has to concede on some things (i.e. irreverence, gender equality, LGBTQ rights) as well in the process of adaptation, I will stand on principles that have emerged in the West as a legacy of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Anything less would amount to appeasement and for us to do so on a broad scale would effectively amount to the death of the Western project, which has so enormously enhanced human existence. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/is-free-speech-good-for-muslims.html

So, apparently you've never actually seen a nun wearing facial covering. Well, methinks I've won this argument.