This local article and interview with the candidate who defeated Poilievre includes a photo of Poilievre’s former constituency office in his Carleton riding.
One has to wonder about the lack of signage on the actual office and apparent challenges in accessibility.
We rotated treatments to kill them off. No single one could do it.
The mineral oil one was fairly successful.
There was a great herbal product called Quick Nits from Australia that could be applied and left in a cap overnight but it seemed to come and go from the Canadian market in just a couple of years.
One thing worth knowing is that heat and drying them out is effective. While there are protocols for blow dryers, old fashioned bonnet hair dryers are an another good way to kill them and the eggs as well as avoid infections.
After the first lice infestation, we literally tracked one down and had our kids our kids use it once a week while playing on a computer or tablet. It cut down the reinfections.
I am fully expecting it to be at least 1/3 ponies.
Yes, I have done this in previous years.
Surprised by some of the comments here.
Whether or not the solution being proposed is the best or only one is the question.
Instead several users are taking any discussion as being anti-democratic.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada raised concerns about how these long ballots were impeding the democratic process, including by presenting barriers to accessibility by voters.
This has become an increasing problem, with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s riding being targeted in 2019.
There seem to be two kinds of barriers:
The underlying issue seems to be that a small group of qualified voters in a targeted riding are nominating a very large number of candidates.
That is 60+ candidates put forward by the longest ballot group were all nominated by the same small number of voters.
Is this reasonable?
Democratic rights are balanced with responsibility under the Charter. Is it reasonable for a single voter to sign the nomination papers for 50 candidates or even 20.
Only being able to sign the papers for one candidate in one election period may be too limiting as not all candidates obtain enough signatures to be minor drop out later for other reasons.
Would limiting the right to sign nomination papers to 2 or 5 candidates be a reasonable balance under the Charter?
While this specific solution being proposed by this CPC member may be too restrictive, it seems worth a debate.
And perhaps the second issue of voters being able to reasonably obtain information about the intent and positions of candidates would be resolved if there were not so many nominated candidates.
The Rhinoceros party position that their candidates would resign if elected was well known so voters could make an informed choice. The current long ballot situation doesn’t offer that choice.
A proactive referral to the Supreme Court of Canada might be the best way to get an understanding of the balance of democratic rights. It would be best to have a read on what would be a reasonable limitation on both those who sign nominations and those who put themselves forward vs the responsibility to have accessible ballots with candidates who intend to serve before any changes to the the elections act is brought forward.
The reason WHO frames common risk factors and common chronic diseases is because persons with these risks, conditions and diseases often end up with more than one of these diseases.
e.g., WHO now considers obesity a disease in itself, but obesity is also a biological risk factor for cancer and diabetes.
There are a lot of interrelationships in the risks.
More, with these conditions, they are also more vulnerable to infectious diseases.
It’s important though to keep in mind that, as I note in another reply, these kinds of studies aren’t just about informing individuals’ choices.
They’re not about ‘blaming’ or ‘shaming’ individuals choices.
They are about understanding what are the underlying determinants of health and risk factors that are shaping health outcomes.
Back to the study in question, and the OP’s remark that they were surprised that people were eating that much processed meat daily…
If the protein sources that are most available and affordable are the most unhealthy, preprocessed ones, then consumers will buy and consume more of these than healthier ones.
And their preferences and consumption habits will be shaped by these experiences.
And that will affect overall health and life expectancy of the population.
I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.
What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.
It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.
If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.
Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?
My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.
Full stop.
No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.
Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.
So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.
The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.
Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.
WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.
The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.
Common risk factors
Major chronic noncommunicable diseases
I feel as though the entire point of this was to make Canadians feel ashamed and discouraged on the day before our national holiday.
And in that Trump was successful. It’s brutal and bullying propaganda.
No success of realpolitik in negotiations can undo that.
The business community and media were calling the digital services tax an unforced error.
But the real unforced error is Carney getting played to do something destructive to national unity heading into Canada Day.
This is one of the few cases where his lack of political experience is showing. I’m wondering if his team will let him understand that and see the polling impact.
I have sent you a DM.
Good luck. Great grandparents born in Canada can be enough. That would make your grandparents ok your mother’s side citizens. (There have been some retroactive corrections of women’s loss of citizenship in marriage.)
Do you have a Canadian ancestor?
The 2023 Bjorkquist decision overturned the first generation limit to pass down citizenship. There is an Interim measure to accept applications for special grants of citizenship beyond one generation and there is a bill in Parliament to put in place a remedy to address the findings of the Superior Court of Ontario (which the federal government has not appealed).
Truly awful.
This office is part of a complex that includes a Coastal Health urgent care clinic and other provincial government services.
This office is street facing but seems to back against the urgent health care centre.
My point is that the principle of existing homeowners funding infrastructure for new homes is only tenable when
In the first case, development fees based on lot size for new sprawling burbs are a reasonable way to push the market towards density.
In the second case, with a high rate of growth in a specific market, other means of redistribution such as government subsidies may be a better way to redistribute.
But you’re not in agreement with charging the full economic cost of the sprawl to the homeowners who choose to live there?
We’re in Ottawa, so that may be an exception, but generally here it’s been extraordinarily expensive to develop the suburbs beyond the greenbelt, and until the development fees were increased in the late 90s, studies showed that new homeowners only bore about 1/5th of the cost.
Much of the development classification from farmland was effectively unplanned and forced through by suburban municipal councils before the amalgamation in the 1990s.
The costs of extending utilities across the National Capital Commission lands was extraordinary and no one inside the greenbelt benefited. A major bridge had to be built because the traffic impact was not considered etc.
There have been more recent improvements such as the retroactive construction of separate wastewater and storm water systems in the core that benefit everyone by keeping sewage out of the rivers.
The O-train construction unfortunately has been a burden on all without the benefits that should come with a modern rapid transit system.
We live in a society - yes.
But that’s the reason many of the development fees were put in back in the 1970s and 80s - there were significant equity issues where the exponentially growing new shiny suburbs were built on the property taxes of a much smaller base of urban homeowners who were left with old, inferior and unmaintained city infrastructure.
So, let’s seriously consider whether what the equity issues are now and whether those fees are reasonable cost recovery for infrastructure vs a tax cash grab - or if there’s enough of a base of established homeowners that they could carry the development costs for new homes through reasonable tax increases.
Actually, they did not get subsidized by prior generations of owners - unless you’re talking about people in their 90s.
That’s what the development fees and taxes were put in place for - especially in places where extending services out across greenbelts into suburbs was incredibly costly.
Having crumbling roads and community infrastructure in the core and polished, higher quality infrastructure in the burbs was an equity issue that was taken on in the 1970s, long before my generation was anywhere near buying homes.
I do think it’s fair to have lower development fees where there’s densification - that bringing more people to use and support existing infrastructure.
But subsidizing sprawl remains as problematic as it was in the 1960s.
Last thought, Intergenerational Inequity wa ma first recognized and discussed in the 1990s regarding GenX.
GenX remains the most ignored generation but the fact is that the generation suffered two very deep recessions in 1983 and 1987-1991 plus faced incredibly high (18%) interest rates and inflation in the 1980s. This meant that none of them were buying homes before their 40s without the help of parents. While Canadian GenX ducked the US mortgage-backed securities disaster in 2008, it’s really a false narrative to suggest they are or have been in the ‘I’m all right Jack, devil take the hindmost’ frame of mind. If anything, they know the social safety nets and equity provisions were the only thing that made things possible for them.
Explain to me please why existing owners should subsidize the building of city infrastructure in new developments.
I don’t live in Toronto but building new sewers, water systems, roads, community centres etc. shouldn’t be funded by existing taxpayers who still have above ground utility cables and no sidewalks.
And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.
Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.
At a certain point, I realized that from another perspective, the big divide seems to be between those who see continuous distributions as just an abstraction of a world that is inherently finite vs those who see finite steps as the approximation of an inherently continuous and infinitely divisible reality.
Since I’m someone who sees math as a way to tell internally-consistent stories that may or may not represent reality, I tend to have a certain exasperation with what seems to be the need of most engineers to anchor everything in Euclidean topography.
But it’s my spouse who had to help our kids with high school math. A parent who thinks non Euclidean geometry is fun is not helpful at that point.