An interesting contrast here. Air Canada is forced to honour an erroneous committment made by its service department. Government of Canada is not forced to honour a committment made by its service department.

I could understand it if the error was discovered and acted upon in a reasonable time, but over 30 years? That's just not acceptable.

I thought the idea behind high salaries was to attract the best talent. Turns out that it just floods the applicant pool with grifters and it's almost impossible to sort them out.

Also, did anyone notice that the "fixed" election date has been quietly put off for a week? I don't suppose that this has anything to do with the fact that the previous date would have left a bunch of MPs a week short of their 6-year pension eligibility? (Just a little tidbit dropped in the latest Sandy and Nora podcast.)

Well, since there is no syphilis vaccine, nobody is vaccinated.

Is this not by design?

1. Create a company, making sure that your personal assets are insulated from the corporate liabilities.
2. Convert corporate assets and liabilities to personal assets with exorbitant pay by stripping corporate assets and propping things up with loans.
3. Company goes bankrupt.
4. You take your millions and cry about the economy and regulations.

I've yet to hear of a corporate bankruptcy that left the owners and officers and board members on the bread lines.

... more consistency with our competitors...

They don't sound like competitors, but partners; collusion, no competition.

What happened to "competition lowers prices"?

The letter I'm sending to my MP:

I urge you to fight against this proposal on moral grounds. That might sound like an odd point of view, but hear me out.

One of the greatest challenges facing us with online activities is not what we or our children have access to, but how companies are handling critical permanent identification. Every day there is a new report of some entity that has lost control of information that has a major negative impact on those whose information was exposed.

There are ways to effectively manage such information and there are companies and government departments deploying those systems. However, there is currently no legal or regulatory framework making those systems and methods mandatory. Until that legal and regulatory environment exists, it is not just a bad idea to expand data collection requirements, but immoral.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the possibility that some person is exposed as a consumer of pornography. I'm talking about those whose incompetence and/or low standards of care allow criminals to gain access to the identifying data for use in criminal activity.

I don't know about you, but the porn industry is the last industry I would ever trust to properly secure and manage identifying information.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Seems straightforward to me. It's pretty typical to permit testimony from those who were directly victimized. It's also pretty typical to permit impact statements from those indirectly victimized.

Just so you know, judges are specifically not to look to the will of the people but to the law.

Legislators are the ones who are supposed to consider the will of the people.

If the will of the people really is to have a law like this, then the Sask Party is doing it's job in bringing forward the legislation. That, of course, assumes that our provincial government has appropriate jurisdiction over everything the law covers.

And that gets us to the injunction. An injunction is not about "no you can't do that" but about "hang on there, it doesn't look like you've covered all the bases".

No, we needn't cancel all the fun activities that involve large groups of people. But maybe we should give some thought to how those things work.

Would normalizing the use of decent masks help? Would it help to offer refunds to those who test positive or even just don't feel well? Maybe there are ways to run them that doesn't require people to be packed in like factory farmed chickens. Maybe there are ways to manage ventilation in a way that doesn't move the air horizontally through facilities. Maybe there are ways to partition the crowd into smaller cohorts that don't mingle with other cohorts.

I wouldn't mind finding a way to attend some of these things without just accepting that I'm going to catch something every couple of times I go out.

... Canadian retailers lack direct control and influence over the global supply chain...

I'm going to call BS on that one. Some of the largest retailers own many parts of the supply chain and exercise monopsony power over many other parts.

You are talking about least expensive, they were talking about average.

I think that the active participation of members is how we get strong communities. One way to be an active participant is to take responsibility for what you want to see. If you don't like the bot, block it.

This is analogous to walking out of a movie you dislike rather than calling for it to be banned.

As far as I can tell, it's not breaking any terms of service or policy. That doesn't mean that terms of service and policy can't be modified, but that should be done only to address general principles, not specific cases. (Although it may be that a specific case makes obvious the need for change.)