hitops

So Topaz that means you are at least 60 yrs old. If you don't mind my asking, what do you do for a living?

Good question, as far as I know it's conclusively associated with a significant increase in accidents. There have been instances where pot has been found after accidents, but little evidence that it was actually contributing. Where there is no controversy, is that alcohol and driving is far more dangerous than pot and driving.

That's not a different way looking at it, that's the same thing as I said. Exports far outpace imports, and will continue to do so regardless of new pipelines. Of course, with the new pipeline to the south we could increase that margin even further. But the new question is whether the US even cares anymore. They are supposed to be energy independent by around 2018-2019, at which point there may be little reason to approve more lines from so called 'tar sand' oil, and only political costs.

shortlived, is that you?

True it's ridiculous that we send western oil to port and import ship-borne oil in the east. But false that it would somehow work out to an even equation. The total exports are and would be far in excess of the imports.

Or truck, which is even more costly and even more risky. Pipeline is by far the safest way for oil to move, we have known this for a very long time and the numbers demonstrate it. No method is perfectly safe. If you want electricity and to be able to travel anywhere or really do anything resembling living in a modern civilization, that's life.

It is. I don't think you have any idea how to evaluate scientific literature, if I'm to assume you believe the link you gave supports your point. A bunch of studies saying it's harmful, and a couple saying there may be some benefits in mice. That's not evidence. I review this kind of stuff for a living, nobody who would be taken seriously ever suggests studies in mice can be used to make conclusions about humans. That's useful for generating ideas for further studies, not for saying anything about therapeutic value for people. Pot is harmful in some ways, but for most people not too significantly. You are right it is the smoke as far as lung issues, but the drug is also mind-altering and obviously can be used for abuse just like many other drugs including Rx drugs. We give it too some people for pain management and it can be quite useful in well-selected cases. There is no good quality evidence for therapeutic benefit beyond that. There is some lesser quality evidence that it may increase the risk of testicular cancer.

The house is still not clean though, which was the point. If the head refuses to change, it's not gonna happen, so the result is the same. You are assuming behaviour would change. Bad assumption.

I didn't agree with it then either. But we did something about it, we kicked out the NDP and things are different now. We also got rid of the wheat board, and it's been going just fine. Getting by on your own really beats assuming everybody owes you something. I also disagree with other free handouts I benefit from. Examples include new homeowner credits (years ago), child tax benefit, tuition tax benefits, income splitting, personal incorporation or even charitable donations. I may be forgetting some. I also have a mortgage but I would never vote for a home mortgage tax deduction like they have in the US. Why should other people pay for my choices? This may be hard to believe, but it's actually possible for people to vote based on principles rather than just immediately sell your vote to whoever hands you free candy the fastest. I love politicians who actually take a stand on good economic policy, but most are just bed-wetters who can't explain fast enough how they will be buying your vote with somebody else's money.

For some people 4-5 beers/day is casual drinking. Let's just define it as 0.5-1 per day. Pot provides no measurable health benefits and likely does do harm, but this is not even in the same ballpark as the harm from cigarettes. So IMO it makes no sense to criminalize it while smoking is legal, we miss the revenue and push people underground which puts them into contact with other more harmful things. It's well-known that very intelligent, high-functioning people use pot with no issues. The same cannot be said for hard drugs, and smoking has become associated with lower-income, lower-education these days.

That's already what happens in 98% of cases even with a senate. An elected senate would just be a second elected body, like the US. It's largest impact there is the creation of complete gridlock most of the time. It is redundant, we have an elected body already. we don't need a second one. I understand this may not be practical because of constitutional issues.

What difference does it make? The fact is that it doesn't happen, and that's all that matters. Immigrants are not the problem - most are fine. The problem is the family class which are old and therefore use 10x as many health care dollars per year compared to your average person, and do not pay taxes or produce very much economically. Yes they generate economic activity by simply being here and consuming things and needing things to be bought to take care of them. This doesn't even come close to the costs exacted on the system though.

There is one critical difference that gets ignored every time this is brought: I don't have a choice whether to be part of that system, I am part of it. I do have a choice to leave a insurer in the private sector if I'm not happy with their rates of fraud. You other point - very little if any fraud was committed in the 2008 meltdown. It happened because the system was set up with perverse incentives and resulted in completely legal, completely foolish behavior. Not only legal, but actively encouraged by explicit government policies that guaranteed loans no matter how problematic.

What something with the word 'oil in it? Oppose it!

Let's get rid of it. It makes no sense to have a non-elected body have lifetime appointment for anything that involves any kind of real power.

Exactly. And let me suggest paying more for fish (it wouldn't be double) would be the best, fairest way to go. Fish should cost what they cost to get them to our plates, not what they cost as long as everyone else in Canada is paying a fee to make my fish cheaper.

Just wondering, but don't they receive subsidies from the federal government, or at least some form of bailouts or protections? Hopefully somebody can inform us.

Actually it isn't, you can't afford as many cultural whims when you have to fully account for your own revenues. Transfer payments remove some of the necessary feedback between bad policy - bad outcome. This is specifically relevant to the economy, since this guy was an entrepreneur. As a SK-er, I have to personally contribute to this malcontent provincial government in the east, disproportionately more than those from any other province (possible exception Alberta). It's quite grating. We manage our budget, so therefore we have to give to those that choose not to.

I robustly reject the policy strategy of 'yes it has huge flaws that cause it to not actually function, but let's pass it and worry about that later'. Because the later never arrives, way to politically dangerous.

The 'I' in EI stands for Insurance. Insurance is a system which covers you for unforeseen or events that you don't expect. Seasonal workers getting laid off is not unforeseen, it's guaranteed every single year. That's a total perversion of the system and completely unfair to the rest of us who pay into the system like an actual insurance system - coverage for job losses we do not plan on or expect. If you buy fire insurance for your house, you don't do so expecting or knowing your house will burn down. You do so in case your house burns down. If you bought a house and you, as well as the insurance company, both knew that it would burn down every year, no insurance company would ever cover you. Yet this is exactly what the federal government provides to seasonal workers. So EI for seasonal workers is not an insurance system, it's a welfare system. They most certainly are not paying their honest share of it when they are taking far more than they put int, and using it every single year. Nobody else gets to do that, but we all pay into it. I'm fine if politicians want to promote this system and advertise it to the taxpayers, they should just be honest about it. Call it 'free money for people who work half the year', and let the voters decide. It sure isn't insurance, by definition.

The rest was just your own personal monologue, 10% was the only concrete point you made.

That's a talking point. When they become naturalized, the health system pays. I work in this system. The relatives paying is only temporary. And of the patients I've seen who had to be billed because they were not Canadians or naturalized, they got their bills forgiven if they had any difficulty at all in paying. So no, we pay for them in reality. If we use the example of India, they have quite cheap, good quality private care compared to what it would cost our system to deliver the same care. Even for the sake of the working relative here, it would be cheaper to be paying for health care in India, than paying for it in Canada, during the initial periods that they would receive no coverage here.

Having family members remain in poorer countries is actually by far the most effective method of foreign aid to those countries. The amount of money, for example, that people send home to families from the US is at least 4x larger than the entire foreign aid budget. This money also goes to people directly without bureaucracy, improving it's effect over government money, as they spend in directly on family needs and it goes into the pockets of other people in their community. Secondly, we don't need aging people coming into a country that already has far too many aging people. Our #1 cost by far as a nation is the health care system, and people accrue 95% of their lifetime health costs in the last decade of life. It makes no sense to to bring these people in when we have shortages in many jobs of exactly the type of jobs many immigrants will do.

Are you joking? 10% is awful. No organization with actual accountability, like a business with shareholders for example, would ever tolerate a rate like that if they were aware of it.

Good thing this isn't a quota then, isn't it? You sound like somebody who has little to no exposure to people who are quite happy to sit around and collect. I see the full spectrum in my practice, and there are plenty of totally willfully helpless people who are quite happy that you feel uncomfortable doing nothing and would be more happy paying your labor in tax money for them.