As a teenager, Poilievre had a job at Telus doing corporate collections by calling businesses.[16] He also later worked briefly as a journalist for Alberta Report, a conservative weekly magazine.[17]

Neither of these are hourly jobs.

In 2003, Poilievre founded a company called 3D Contact Inc. with business partner Jonathan Denis,[29] who became an Alberta Cabinet minister years later. Their company focused on providing political communications, polling and research services.[30] After founding the company, Poilievre ran for MP as a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, which had recently been formed from a merger the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives.

This wouldn't be an hourly job either. The links to the source for him starting this company don't list Poilievre as a director, or any other sign that he actually started this company, or what his role at it was. I've tried searching but can't find anything else that verifies this.

Yet another example of a government more interested in the profits of a company than in the welfare of its citizens or their future.

Yes, this decision could add costs to development of houses. Guess what - it could also drastically reduce them, if new development forgoes ANY enbridge, saving time on utility install, plus the installation of the natural gas lines into the house.

Another great journalistic article from the Narwhal.

EDIT: I wasn't going to add this, but the OEB actually examined enbridge's cost and found that the cost to developers is minimal.

For those who aren't aware, Financial Post is owned by Postmark Media, a media conglomerate owned by (66% share) Chatham Asset Management LLC, an American Hedge Fund. They also own controlling stake in AMI media (now a360 media) which was responsible for killing a story about an affair Trump had with Karen McDougall (playboy) in advance of the 2016 election. Read the link for a few other stories they killed related to Trump and the 2016 election. (For what it's worth after the scandal broke, Chatham Asset MGMT took action and sold off some of the newspapers.)

Additionally, Postmark Media has a strong history of endorsing the conservatives, for what thats worth.

When it moved to the natural resources committee in November for study, the debate descended into a chaotic mess and lengthy filibuster that at one point had MPs screaming at each other to shut up.

The noise was so loud during the final meeting in early December that two MPs voted the wrong way on a motion because they couldn't hear what was being proposed.

Man every time I read stuff like this or watch some of the videos from the house, it makes me realize how sad and pathetic this all is. Seriously? I can't imagine how my work would react if I began screaming and berating a coworker.

People who go hunting don't go by "off the top of their head".

Now I can't speak to the laws in California for hunting, but in Canada they have pretty crazy strict laws regarding illegal hunting, including seizure of anything used in the act (trucks, atvs, guns, boats, etc), removal of gun license, and huge fines.

A quick google search shows the method they've used, and have been using for the last decade as an attempt to stop the spread: Barred owls are much more aggressive, and playing their calls can lure them in to fight, in a way the spotted owls don't, so you don't need to just go based on visual differences. Here's one article about the removal process up to now with an interview of a biologist who's pro-hunting.

Relocation of the barred owls isn't feasible, because no matter where you send them, there's probably already owls there, and relocation often results in the animal dying off anyway.

What's the alternative? Watch as the spotted owls are out-competed and go extinct due to human development and habitat destruction? To me, that seems worse. We already hunt to maintain populations of animals in other species - deer spring to mind. Since we've eliminated many of the deer's predators, we need to maintain that role, which includes setting hunting targets each year. Why are these owls different?

I mean depends on how you define easily.

Even assuming infinite money, Canada has built roughly the same number of houses per year since the 90s. This means we have roughly the same number of skilled and experienced carpenters, roofers, plumbers, etc that work in new builds.

This means that if tomorrow we passed legislation eliminating every single bureaucratic red tape AND convinced developers to build everywhere they have land to do so, we would take years to catch up with the point where our houses:population ratio is back among the rest of the western world.

Did you read the article? They're just making it easier to vote (3 day voting window, expanding mail in votes, etc.) they're not doing any serious changes

Yes but during that period he didn't have a license.

Without a doubt it's someone on a vendetta against him, but those regulations aren't weird, hidden ones.

If you call yourself a professional engineer, that's a protected title and you must actually be a professional engineer. Part of being a professional engineer is paying dues to the organization in your area.

Pretty sure they bought the trademark from the company who owned it previous (for a 1980s era board game if I recall correctly). They bought it to prevent shitty 2077 clones with the same name from popping up. I haven't heard of them actively pursuing copyright infringement against others who use cyberpunk.

If you're living in Ontario, email or call your MPP and ask why Ford is only imementing 14 of the 15 recommendations. It's very telling that the 15th is the ones that actually directly would impact his developer friends. And honestly, screw them. Screw them even more if they've started the development process already and would have to stop. Maybe then they'll learn to do things the right way, not push it through these back channels like we're some country without laws.

Yes and no.

RVs don't have to meet the building codes the same way that houses do. I'd be very skeptical of the covered porch the man built that houses a furnace - there's no comment in the article about that, but I'd be surprised if it met all the requirements for long term housing.

It's fair for the Town to enforce their bylaws and housing codes. We have building codes for a reason.

Additionally, from the article

"We're required to enforce our bylaws and I think that it's demonstrated that we do sympathize with the situation they're in, because we've been working with them for the last two years," Crowder said.

It sounds like it's taken quite a while for them to prepare building plans. They say they 'have them in hand and plan to start the building process soon', which means they haven't actually applied yet. I'm curious what their sewer, water, and power situation is, as those hookups and/or septic beds also require permits from the Town. Living somewhere without running water or sewage removal is a concern for the neighbors.

Two years for just rough plans without having got approval from the Town yet? That's a slow timeline. Especially if they're living on the site the whole time. They haven't started the process yet? Why doesn't the Town say 'start the process and we can discuss extending your time allowed in the trailer'?

This is an odd situation, but the article doesn't go into enough details for us to get outraged about the Town's role.

I don't disagree - not being able to meet the minimum amount agreed on is not sufficient as a country.

But reading the article, it seems those in the actual combined defense meetings between Canada and the US have not commented or raised to the Canadian side their lack of funding. Additionally, Canada is looking to expand the definition of military spending - not sure how much that would actually change our percentage though.

And to call our military a joke isn't really valid - we do spend a shit ton of money on military. Not anywhere near the US, but we can't compare ourselves to the worldwide military superpower with 10x our population and 11x our GDP. Canada still places in at 6th in the NATO countries on raw dollar spending.