People see this as a Conservative vs. 'Left' fight, but I think this is a mischaracterization because of the parties representing the true divide, and the real reason why the parties champion the forms that they do - it's a rural vs. urban fight. If you looked at the GTA from satellite image at night, it's all continuous population from Ajax to Hamilton around Burlington Bay. That area makes sense for PR, but the fact of the matter is that no-one would care about chasing votes in Newmarket if they can go down to Lake Ontario and just chase the 'bang for the buck' down there. Repeat across Canada and you see the parties representing rural (mostly CON) are anti-PR, and ultimately, Lib will support that too with some of the less population dense seats they have too. Break the problem with PR favoring density, and that'll be the only way everyone agrees to it...
There's listings for some pretty intensely expensive properties at 550 Park Avenue. I saw one for over $10M with its own gym. I don't know - maybe we're getting a deal out of this. Tough to say with Sask Today putting together such a terrible article.
Yeah, unofficial word on the Canada 'briefing' was that the US 'PowerPoint' to going to war in Iraqi was a lazy and stupid presentation that didn't impress anyone.
Screw them. Let this be a lesson to any new business that thinks of investing in moving to the area. Kill any chance at a job in the area and let the community rot away.
What about cigars?
If New York is the City that never sleeps, Toronto is the city that has a 11pm bedtime.
There was a war on - all the real heros were fighting overseas?
Well, depends. It certainly can be used in a variety of situations. The basis of the notwithstanding clause doesn't require that rights be set aside, it can be used to identify that an interpretation of rights is incorrect. For instance, where rights have been determined in the outcome of a case that isn't deliberately mentioned in the relevant act, it would be perfectly acceptable for parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to say "no, that's not what is written in the law we wrote." The 'threat' of using the notwithstanding cause in Ontario recently in the Ford government is a good example of that. They ended up not needing it because the courts determined that the original ruling was probably 'wrong' before it was needed...
In this case, gender expression is a right that has been established repeatedly despite it not being explicitly mentioned in Section 15. (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (the basis is that gender expression is related to the sex of the individual). So, it 'technically' could be used correctly in this situation, but they are certainly assholes for fighting people for expressing their gender when it has been firmly set outside of the language.
Hundredaire?
Thousandaire.
Looks to me that Exhibition Place owes tax and it depends on the agreement, which we haven't seen, if that tax gets passed on to MLSE.
I'd argue the opposite for one reason only - so that I can identify idiots, bigots and terrible people on sight. Any person in government that is causing me problems and showing religious garb? Kick it up to a supervisor if I think I can tie it to poor decision making based on goat-herder values from over 2000 years ago.