suds

Well that I don't know. Alberta only produces a fraction of the amount of milk Ontario or Quebec does. It likely has something to do with it.

Apparently Alberta does a few things a little differently than Ontario. When dairy farmers in Alberta exceed their quota, the excess milk is still allowed to be sold to processors but the revenue is shared between all the dairy farmers in the province. Hmmmm.... sounds like a better plan than dumping 30,000 litres down the drain. And then there's this.... in order to sell milk in Canada, a farmer must have a license to produce up to a set amount (quota). Initially given away free, these licenses have been bought and sold on the open market and have an estimated worth of $32 billion (2018 figures). If the supply management system is done away with, then someone is out $32 billion. Would the government make good with the farmers who paid a pile of cash for a license for the honour of producing milk in this country? I would hope so as it would be the fair thing to do. Comments?

I'm all for free markets and free trade with countries that are similar politically and economically with our own. Then along comes the supply chain issues as a result of covid and the war in Ukraine. Maybe, just maybe, it's not such a bad idea to not put all our eggs in one basket. To become less dependent on others for our food, medical, vaccines, and energy supplies. In the past I was against the supply management system. Now I'm not so sure. If something works decently why mess with it?

So the Canadian dairy industry is a 'cartel' as I understand it and quotas are used to keep prices stable. The US dairy industry is often referred to as 'free market' but with approximately 73% of US dairy farmer's revenues coming from government subsidies. Which may explain the cheaper milk prices. So on one hand we have quotas and on the other.... subsidies. Which one's better? As far as I can recall we've never had any serious dairy shortages in this country. $5.79 for a 4L bag of milk doesn't sound excessive. I would prefer all this excess Canadian milk not being poured down the drain but being put to better use. Over all, is our system any better or worse than the US?

We have a charter right to free speech (with a few exceptions) but not the right to be heard. Social media platforms make use of algorithms which extract relevant information based on what it perceives we want to read, hear, or see. If the government can force the platforms to change those algorithms to its liking, then it can dramatically affect what we do read, hear, and see in more ways than one. If it's politically unwise to mess around with free speech, this would be the next best thing. I agree with Mike that the government should make crystal clear on what its intentions are. Or why were so many amendments (12) necessary for the senate to pass the bill?

Give me a benevolent dictator if you have to, but one who cherishes individual liberty, equal opportunity, and a market economy. I'm tired of all these so called 'elites' always rigging the system for themselves. I'm tired of these so called 'socialists' (the ones who want the collective to run the means of production) with all their 'good intentions' if ever put into practice would not end well. We have a system of government that has served us fairly decently over the past 150 years. Maybe only a few tweaks are required but surely no major overhaul. An old chinese proverb... if it ain't broke, don't f**k with it.

I believe you have me confused with someone else. My response was to the OP.

My source claims that as of june 2022 the average salary of a dutch member of parliament was 117,700 EUR (which at today's foreign exchange rate would equal $170,000 CAD). If you were to add on the 8% holiday pay that all dutch workers get it would increase to $184,318 CAD. Not a hell of a lot of difference I'd say. https://www.amsterdamtips.com/salaries-in-amsterdam-netherlands

Since the BCCNM was created by statute (obtaining its authority from the provincial government) it has to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Hamm feels her constitutional rights to free speech have been violated or the BCCNM has exceeded its jurisdiction she can take it to the courts. You're comparing apples to oranges. Anyone who believes this decision won't ever affect them, might be very naive in my opinion.

The BCCNM received 2 anonymous complaints. One alleging that Hamm's transphobia made her 'unsuited to her career'. The other accusing her of promoting hate speech. I can't really comment on either complaint other than it is the duty of the BCCNM to take every complaint seriously. I have to question though why this is taking so long.

The BCCNM gets its authority through the B.C. Ministry of Health. No government oversight at all? What about unions? No nurse's unions out there? You might be absolutely right, but I find it amazing that this particular college has the ability to terminate the employment of whoever they want for whatever reason. Am I wrong? The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has this to say.... Furthermore, the Justice Centre submitted, the College is tasked with keeping patients safe and regulating the profession in the public interest, and not with giving social justice activists a tool for ‘cancelling’ people with whom they do not agree. Comments?

Who gets to decide what a 'protected belief' is, and what is not? Who gets to decide what is 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' and what is not? In my opinion, truth is above all else.

Let's see how a woman fared under similar circumstances in the UK..... from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (excerpts, link provided below) In December of 2019, Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling, spoke up on Twitter in defense of a British woman, Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was terminated because she, too, expressed gender critical views. Following her tweet, Ms. Rowling was accused of “transphobia”, denounced by many celebrities—including some of those who were made wealthy by her books—and suffered a deluge of vile social media abuse. In response to the tempest over Ms. Rowling, nurse Amy Hamm co-sponsored the installation of a Vancouver billboard ad in September 2020, which simply proclaimed “I ♥ JK Rowling”. Shortly thereafter, a self-proclaimed “social justice activist” complained to the BCCNM that Amy Hamm’s alleged “transphobia” made her unsuited to her career as a nurse and called for Ms. Hamm’s removal from her current and future nursing positions. A second anonymous complaint was also submitted to the College, which accused Ms. Hamm of “promoting and stoking hate speech towards trans and gender‐diverse communities”. Meanwhile in the UK, Ms. Forstater’s case at the employment tribunal was initially lost on the basis that her gender critical perspective— essentially that biological sex is real, important, immutable, and not to be conflated with gender identity—was not a protected belief. The tribunal had found that gender critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” Ms. Forstater appealed the decision, and last month was vindicated by a judge who ruled that Ms. Forstater’s gender critical beliefs, which were widely shared, including by respected academics, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons but only to protect the rights of biological females, were entitled to protection under the UK Equality Act. https://www.jccf.ca/court_cases/bc-college-of-nurses-and-midwives-v-amy-hamm/

Has she got a lot to learn.

The Supreme Court has ruled on Senate reform requiring a constitutional amendment. Instead of another politician dragging the country through this business of electoral reform for the House of Commons again, my advice would be.... check with the Supreme Court first. Btw, I sincerely hope a constitutional amendment is required.

It's my understanding that reforming the Senate would require a constitutional amendment, but not in changing the House of Commons' electoral system to proportional representation. All that might be necessary is an amendment to the Canada Elections Act which parliament could easily do on its own. Could either you or blackbird expand on this a bit?

I'm willing to give anything a shot, but take care you don't end up with kingmakers and nutjobs that finally get a voice. What I'm most amazed at is how a party (with a majority) can with a snap of their fingers just change the rules as to how elections are decided in this country. Of course it would have to pass muster with the senate. I would prefer the government propose changes that only come into effect after the next election with the blessings of the new government. Only then would it be left in the hands of the people to decide.

If there are no solid legal grounds for law enforcement to charge someone they can always get business to cooperate and force that someone into self-censorship. It gets around those pesky charter rights. Government and law enforcement are allowed to use coercion to enforce the law. Laws that are usually well known and that the majority of us agree with. But if the target is not breaking any laws doesn't the use of (indirect) coercion by government and law enforcement (even with the help of businesses) become illegal? We don't have all the facts for this individual case, but plainly it is happening in the US. In the US not only are they imprisoning and de-platforming people for their political views but people are also losing their jobs.

What we don't know is if the government played any active role in this de-banking, or what was in the letter the bank's head office was supposed to send him. While I can understand the bank's position I feel at the very least they owe him an explanation.

Public.... private.... who cares. What we have now isn't working. Just make it work.

Our Charter clearly states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the rule of law. In other words, every individual is equal before and under the law. Police officers along with judges are seen as main arbiters of the law and are expected to be impartial. On the other hand our Charter allows us fundamental freedoms such as 'freedom of thought, belief, opinions, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.' And sometimes the rule of law and free speech conflict with one another. From what I understand this particular RCMP officer wasn't doing anything wrong until outed by the CBC. The moment that occurred, his actions may have put into question the integrity and impartiality of the force as a whole with a number of individuals. Any reprimand in this case should be..... take it down and don't do it again. But i'm not so sure of that either. We'll see.

First you ask what would happen if the Eastman plan was executed successfully. Answer.... it would be challenged and fall into the laps of the courts. Then you question what the military would do, or which side they would take. Answer.... they would do nothing and wait for the court's decision. Now it appears you're asking what if the court's ruled the plan as being unconstitutional and Trump still refused to hand over power. Well he doesn't have too many options now does he? He's sort of run out of them. I would guess the next step would be something like congress empowering some agency to physically remove him from the white house. Putting it another way, this 'plan' had all the markings of going nowhere fast. And if it were anyone else other than Trump I would have been shocked and a lot lot more surprised. So you figure this has done 'irreparable harm to the institutions and people do you? Well you are probably right. But let's not overlook the democrats weaponizing the judicial system against political opponents and average americans, referring to almost half of US voters as domestic terrorists, and coercing high tech companies into censoring a great deal of political opposition which is a gross violation of the most important amendment of all. Is this not doing irreparable harm to the institutions and country? Admit it is and I would have to say you're worth listening to.

If Pence had executed the Eastman plan successfully his decision would have been reviewed by the courts and thrown out. Immediately would not have been soon enough. It isn't a matter for the military to decide but for the courts to decide. So the military waits just like everyone else for the courts to make their decision. Now if the Republicans (under Trump) had packed the Supreme Court with a few extra justices who they knew would vote their way (like the democrats have proposed doing)... that would certainly reinforce the 'coup' theory. Realistically, it's more an ill conceived attempt to hold on to power a little longer for whatever reason. That's not to say that congressmen like Cruz and Hawley making objections to certain voting irregularities is undemocratic or unconstitutional either. They were perfectly within their rights as congressmen to do so.

Ok, I'll bite. Where did you get that tidbit of information from?

Whether you are a supreme court justice, federal employee, national guard, or regular military, the first thing mentioned when taking your oath is to defend and protect the constitution. Obeying the orders of the POTUS may be secondary in some cases, but the orders can't be unconstitutional. You can't defend the constitution and then be forced to obey unconstitutional orders. So how would this insurrection work without having the military and justices in your back pocket? Usually in most cases these would be the first requirements.