To a certain extent, you really do not want to rush legal proceedings because we’ve spent hundreds of years of common law precedence making really big deals out of minute details. Court cases can be won on even the smallest of details or slip-ups, and that can have far-reaching consequences for either side.
But yeah, other than that, 100% we should be having more judges presiding over more cases to prevent timing out criminal cases.
I refuse to recognize the existence of Manitoba, no matter the correct answer /s
You know, I work a pretty stressful job, and I think a lot of that stress and anger came from, in some twisted way, a misguided faith of sorts. I did believe that people were, at the very least, capable of making the most sensible decision when given overwhelming evidence of good vs. bad choices; that they intentionally make bad choices either because they weren’t given enough information or were acting intentionally selfish or duplicitous in some way. So whenever I had to deal with someone trying to exploit a loophole or arguing about how they swear they are going to x and such place and will pay at a later time (when you know they won’t do so), it would frustrate me, because I did believe that they were capable of making better choices.
This election is proof that people are just genuinely dumb and hopeless, to a far and large extent. Choosing to omit your own vote, or willingly voting for him, is beyond imagination. We have seen so much of what he has done in the past 8 years now, at minimum. They know what he will likely do in the next 4 years. And they still chose him. Or chose not to participate.
So I’m choosing not to feel angry at people anymore, to not give a shit if they break the rules for whatever reason they justify. Because why be angry at something if you have lost faith in it being better?
As I understand it, because she is the Deputy PM, she wouldn’t be allowed to replace Trudeau unless she lost her position first, which would basically mean the Liberals would have to lose government this next election. Only afterwards could she possibly run for party leader afterwards.
Confiscating their drugs, forcible confinement… you serious? They’ll just get more when they get the chance; they’re addicts, and there are markets for them to find drugs, there’s no easy way of stopping addicts from getting what they need. Confiscating or 24 hour confinement just ends the immediate risk of use, there’s no saying that won’t stop them from getting another hit by the next day (or even guarantee that they haven’t already used it by the time they’re confiscated / confined).
You’re advocating for punishing people effectively for being poor and addicted to drugs. That’s kind of a fucked up opinion, and opening SCSs does not mean you aren’t thinking of the children - it’s also keeping addicts off the streets and away from exposing that lifestyle to children, but on a more humane and practical level.
To be fair, yes, Canada has the second-largest land mass on the planet. ~90% or more of that landmass is largely inhospitable for larger communities though, whether it’s the Canadian Shield and the fact we can’t grow any crops on that or dig through tough rocks, the Tundra and Arctic (where it is way too cold to grow anything, much less settle), vast distances of forests - it is a lot tougher to build infrastructure in most of Canada, leaving it pretty much to the places already with larger population sizes. 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.
It would seem deceiving, given how large Canada is, but there are very few places outside of those major metro centres where people want to live, or can even live comfortable lives and be productive. Honestly, given how little good land is available in Canada, it would make far more sense to cut down on suburban developments and focus on higher-density, transit-minded communities. Single-family homes are way too inefficient for what we actually need, and having politicians and citizens who demonize quadplexes and other high density options do not help at all.
Bus driver here. Our transit commission finally got it’s first EV bus to start the transition to the electric system! But we still need to build the charging stations for it and other EVs to use, not to mention the bureaucracy and other normalities that go in certifying any vehicle for the road, plus our one garage did kinda burn down, so that has set things back a wee bit…
It’s coming, but do expect it to take a long-ass time.
Well, think about it this way:
A standard house for 4 people is probably in the range of 200k - 400k. Then you would need supporting infrastructure for each house - sewage and gas pipe connections, electrical connections, road infrastructure, all that jazz. That’s probably another 100k right there. And then public infrastrcture for things like schools, parks, firefighters, police, road equipment, etc. It’s easy to see why the costs would add up quickly to roughly $1 million or more per person. Managing city infrastructure is really damn expensive, especially for more ineffective housing options (hellooooooooo, suburbia!).
I shudder to think what country would want to actually buy asbestos. All I can think about is how much of a pain in the ass it is to clean up once used in construction.
Stay-at-school suspension for 4 years.
NO MATTER THE CORRECT ANSWER!!!