I think it depends on the individual. The ones I get are definitely crappy (and occasionally hilarious, like the time it was trying to sell me a copy of Latin for Gardeners.)
If by that you mean "headquartered in Canada and manufacturing in Canada for the Canadian market" then the answer is no, I'm pretty sure the last ones vanished no later than the middle of the 20th century. Some US and other foreign companies do have manufacturing and assembly plants here, but I wouldn't call them Canadian. (Ford Canada used to be semi-independent and produced some own-model vehicles early on, but they're nothing more than a subsidiary of the US company now.)
Short-term vs long-term. People are currently worried about short-term costs to the exclusion of long-term ones. You're correct that not investing in green solutions has a high long-term cost, but people who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table don't have the mental resources to worry about the condition of the world and its influence on prices a year or a decade or a century from now. And that may not be right, but it's the way things are.
Skimming the article, the suggestion seems to be to use "people" or "humans" rather than "users" This is idiotic on the face of it: "user" refers specifically to a person who is interacting with a computer, not just any person. There are, y'know, still human beings in this world who have never encountered a computer. Some of them never will. There's no wifi on North Sentinel Island, but the inhabitants are definitely humans and people.
Exact same number of characters (5), and "UXers" requires pressing the shift key while "users" doesn't. So it's a fail from the typing efficiency point of view.
Certain provincial governments have developed a tendency to scream "but jurisdiction!" about any federal policy that might affect them, whether or not it's useful or justified to do so and regardless of what other stimuli are applied.
You don't have to be a company in order to advertise something. Charities, unions, lobbyists, and governments all put out ads for various purposes. (Note that I'm not saying anything about the content of this particular video, or the value of proportional representation, just that an advertisement doesn't necessarily have to be pushing you to exchange money for specific goods or services so that the advertiser can profit.) You're still welcome to claim that the video isn't an advertisement, but you'll need a better reason.
There's a difference between ignorance—even willful ignorance—and active malice.
If the Peruvian government lied about why it wanted the weapons, and our government believed them, then our government is guilty of ignorance and stupidity, but not malice.
If the Peruvian government lied about why it wanted the weapons, and our government knew there was a possible issue but sold them the weapons anyway, that's willful ignorance, but still not malice. Consider the following scenario: Your neighbour borrows a kitchen knife from you, saying he needs to chop some vegetables. Instead, he uses it to kill his wife. You knew that he and his wife had a bad relationship, and you've told him off when you've seen her with suspicious bruises, but you weren't expecting anything like this. Still, you provided the weapon, and you didn't try to step between them. To what degree are you guilty? Should you have interfered in their relationship? That's where I suspect we're at: our government not agreeing with or encouraging the Peruvian government's behaviour, but not shunning the perpetrator or making any real attempt to stop what's going on. Like it or not (and I don't like it), this is really common in international relations. If the original headline had used "ignores" in place of "supports", I would agree with it 100%.
If the Peruvian government told the truth: "We want these weapons to kill and maim our own people," and our government still sold them, then that's malice and would make the headline accurate as it stands. But I doubt that's what actually happened.
"Supports" is stretching things way out of shape. "Ignores" or "does not attempt to prevent" might be accurate, depending on what's actually taking place in Peru (about which I have no idea, nor do most Canadians), but to what degree is it acceptable to interfere in another country's politics? Do they expect Canada to enact a trade embargo with Peru to get mining companies headquartered here to stop investing there? This is not stuff we do casually, nor should we.
So tell me, if the choice is between having the safe consumption site close to your kids' school and having people doing their drugs in the open near your kids' school and leaving their used needles lying on the playground, which are you going to pick? Often, these places are where they are because that's where their clients already are.
You may also want to measure out the radius of 200m from every school or daycare in your town or city on a map and see how many places are left where they can park SCSs. I admit I haven't actually done this, but my bet is that the options will be considerably reduced.
It's just about inevitable that some SCSs are going to end up in someone's backyard. Figuring out where they'll do more good than harm is more important than enforcing arbitrary limits. This is typical right-wing "think of the children" rhetoric. Don't fall for it.
And even then, most people are still choosing to go to the three cities and immediate outlying areas where the most economic influence and possible social connections are - Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal.
This is the real issue. Having grown up in a dot on the map in the middle of the Ontario boreal forest on the arctic watershed side of the Shield, I can tell you that it isn't all that much harder to build infrastructure there than it is further south (sometimes takes a little longer because of longer winters, that's all). It isn't even horrible land agriculturally as long as you take the shorter growing season into account when you're choosing what to plant. So more of the land is usable than you might think. However, people want to go to the places where people already are.
Fewer homes are built -> municipality receives less money -> municipality can't afford to build out infrastructure like water, sewers, and roads because they can barely afford to maintain the existing stuff -> even fewer homes are built. My cat can figure that out, so either PP is dumber than my cat (possible), or his goal isn't what he claims it is (likely).
There is a certain unfortunate irony in the realization that one of the easiest ways to avoid this kind of thing is to buy a commercial digital signage panel intended for advertising instead of a consumer TV.
I think it depends on the individual. The ones I get are definitely crappy (and occasionally hilarious, like the time it was trying to sell me a copy of Latin for Gardeners.)