I've gone into a grocery store and left after filling up my cart because the line was comically long. Who would ever voluntarily go to a busier grocery store? I wish there were still 24hr grocery options so I could go in the middle of the night when it's quiet.
If Alberta has a problem receiving federal funding why should the rest of us fight it? Take all the savings and divvy it up between all the other provinces that could make good use of it.
Somehow I got lucky and the paywall disappeared on refresh. My takeaway was that we should make the capital gains on investment real estate (I'm assuming anything other than principal residence) be taxed at a 100% inclusion rate. Part of the reason is that most of the people seeing these gains are at the age where they're starting to require a higher share of government spending while earning less from employment, so it's reasonable for them to pay closer to their share of taxes.
When I was in highschool (early '10s) I remember successfully arguing that since laptops were allowed in class we should be allowed to use our phones for schoolwork too. Whether that was actually good is debatable. I did actually type the majority of my work on my phone but I also wasted a lot of time screwing around, although the same could be said for the computer lab and I'm sure it would've been the same if I ever had a laptop.
(One note, apparently the school I went to was kind of weird, and only half your classes were actually lessons by your own teacher. Generally all devices were restricted during those classes, with limited exceptions on a teacher-by-teacher basis.)
If you're doing 115km/h it would absolutely not be safer to have the trucks maxed out at 30km/h slower than you. Arguably the safest speed on a divided highway is whatever the flow of traffic is (to minimize passing and lane changing).
The TFW program needs major reform to make it not remotely cost competitive with hiring local. There should be 3 scenarios that all these companies fall under: 1. Bring in someone temporarily while local training is underway (this should be the most attractive route). 2. The work assignment is shorter than the amount of training required, the requirement is legitimately so specific that training isn't practicable, or any other short term temporary requirement (this should be so expensive that it will be an actual last resort and can't possibly undercut anyone local). or 3. If the person is so crucial to your day to day operations they should be sponsored for permanent residency.
I absolutely understand, I'm in a fringe situation myself. I think when we focus too much on the wild cases like yours, we end up skipping over the minor issues that would solve the problem for most of the people who answered "not considering an EV". We need to make them more affordable to the people who can least afford it (rebates for used cars?), and we need to make it possible for people who rent to reliably charge overnight and/or at work.
Edit: I forgot your solutions about transportation, those are great as well and might add people to the "not considering any next vehicle" category. There will still be people like us though that public transport can't work for, especially as you said out west where things are a bit spread out outside the big cities.
Why not put the onus on the employer? Have them commit to a fixed term where they'll be responsible for paying this person, regardless if they want to terminate their employment. You could add your floating grace period to it as well.
Overall I think there needs to be major reform in the program, beyond this. We should be making the TFW program more burdensome on employers, both to encourage investment in relevant local education/training as well as protecting those who are recruited from being exploited.
It's 100% not what they were talking about but in the early '90s and early '00s there were sporty versions of the F-150 called Lightnings. There were also only about 40,000 made over 8 years vs. close to 1,000,000/year for the regular F-150s.
Not to mention a lot of people can't afford (or otherwise can't justify) the expense of a new car in general. We're just starting to see some of the very early Leafs drop below $10,000, so there is hope, but the range/dollar needs to improve a bit to make sense for most people.
The most insane part to me is that the minimum threshold to start cutting back OAS is $80,000 when it's only $35,000 for the CCB. This should be flipped, a fundamental requirement of the CCB is that you have a whole extra person (or more) to take care of. How does it make any sense that a senior needs more than double to live on than a whole family?
This has to be one of the weakest bunch of whining arguments from any of the bankers, executives, etc. He's not even saying it will do any damage, just that things won't improve. How does an increase in foreign investment improve our standard of living? By sucking all the profits offshore?
Unless by "us" you mean non-homeowners like me I strongly disagree. In my area (Vancouver Island) it would be extremely unlikely you wouldn't see at least a $250k gain for anyone who purchased their single family home 10+ years ago, even 5 years ago for a lot of homes. I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine the situation is quite similar for all but the most rural parts of BC.
It really sounds like the issue there is just another subset of housing (un)affordability.