Just like the govt guarantees the pensions if the fund fails, it can also take excess surpluses. That seems totally reasonable?

The government doesn't guarantee the pension if the fund fails, they manage it so it doesn't fail.

EDIT TL;DR That means they're not financially liable to top up the pension, it means they get to decide how the pension returns to a healthy state, potentially by rewriting the contribution rules.

Most of the unions assume this means the next step is the government will stop funding their portion of the contributions instead of sharing the savings with employees. The step after that is if (really, when) the fund becomes unhealthy, the government gets to unilaterally decide how to fix the fund. Sure, they could top up the fund completely out of public revenues, but they could require employees to help top up the fund.

The reason why the unions think this will happen is because it has happened before. Any employee under the PSPP who's been employed for greater than ~15 years (I can't remember the cut off date) makes 35% of the contributions to their pension, with the government making the other 65%. Anyone who's been with the public sector under that cut-off pays 50%. That's because we started this same cycle back in the early 2000's with the government taking the surplus, but not putting the money back when investment returns were low. AFAIK, a similar cycle has happened at least once before that.

I think "entire" is too strong a word.

Yes, you need charging, maintenance, supply chain, etc. but in very limited quantities at first. Usually, pilots are started with a limited number vehicles, staff, routes, and infrastructure. Similarly old vehicles are often phased out with as the depots, maintenance facilities, etc. are converted to support the new vehicles.

This is not only economically and environmentally efficient, but also operationally efficient. If you simply switch from one technology to another over a short period of time, you're opening yourself to minor issues causing major havoc.

Honestly, this sounds low.

As you alluded to, I think it's the fact that there are a lot of cases where patients have low-costs that bring down the average significantly. The CMAs you mentioned are ~47% of the Canadian population and there are a LOT of other cities that also do cancer treatment. I also get the impression that we've gotten much better at diagnosing and treating cancer, so for every complicated, high-cost patient, there are probably dozens of cases that have pretty straight forward treatment.

I really would love to see the distribution of cases.

The article does link to the report from the Canadian Cancer Society. The report says that,

Over the lifetime of each person, an average of $11,199 in time costs, $16,018 in out-of-pocket costs and $5,560 in indirect costs are expected to be incurred by people with cancer and their caregivers. In total, and averaged across all cancer types, an individual is expected to incur $32,778 in costs related to cancer over their lifetime.

however the report doesn't break it down further, or explain exactly what makes up each of those categories, which is disappointing. As others pointed out, it would be nice to know things like:

• Out of those "out-of-pocket" costs, how much can be claimed as medical expenses on an income tax return (15% tax credit), and is that factored in to the calculation?

• How much is lost wages?

It's hard to consider ways of reducing these costs (Pharmacare, Welfare, refunds/tax credits for friends/family helping, etc) without knowing the details of these costs.

Nope. FTA:

Employees were offered the same pay for 32 hours as they had received for a 40-hour work week.

It was part of their contract negotiation, and they took reduced hours in lieu of a pay increase.

most employees say the shortened week has also improved their work-life balance.

This is worded funny, implying there are some who said less hours did not improve work life balance. I can’t really figure that.

FTA:

Most notably, at the one-year mark, 84% of all employees “somewhat” or “strongly” agree that the 32-hour work week has improved their work/life balance.

One reason I can see why someone wouldn't agree with this statement is because an employee already has a great work/life balance, so while an extra 8 hours (plus commute) of free time is nice, it may not improve their work/life balance.

Also, there are exempt employees who may be negatively impacted by the initiative:

Another concern raised by the report is the fact that exempt employees are having to work more than 32 hours per week. These are salaried employees, not eligible for overtime pay.

...

31% of exempt employees, mostly managers and directors, responded that the initiative has had a negative impact on their workload. Nonetheless, 67% of exempt employee respondents agree that the initiative has improved their work/life balance.

If you're new, IMHO you should be looking at the distro as a whole, not the DE specifically. Yeah, if you find one you mostly like but want to try other similar distros, it's probably a good thing to stay with the same DE. However, it's not something to get hung up on as distros often tweak the DE.

And to answer your question, Cinnamon. After years of distro-hopping, I've spent most of the past decade on Linux Mint.

That isn't a critique of the justice system, that's a critique of capitalism.

In Google Maps: Settings -> Navigation -> Guidance volume

You do know why they live out in the sticks, right? They live on Reserves, i.e. land that the Government of Canada "reserved" to move native peoples onto so the government could move settlers onto that previously inhabited land.

And yes, the Government of Canada is legally required to provide services to those Reserves where they are currently located (partially because of the above actions). If the Government of Canada wants to, I wouldn't be surprised if there are opportunities for moving Reserves but that would have to be voluntarily or we'd just be replaying the sins of the past.

Another A+ example of how the government can solve the Indian problem as cheaply as possible...

Could kill me, yes. Easily? No. I would likely roll-over a car with it's low hood, but a truck with it's high, upright grill is likely to knock me down and then run over/drag me. It's a similar situation with a motorcycle.

Also in Canada, the War Measures Act was used during the FLQ Crisis in 1970. While some may disagree with using martial law, I don't think many would say it was used in a corrupt, power-grabbing way.

It's not how easy they could kill him, it's how easily they could not see him (for example, at a cross walk).

As for killing, one of those trucks could easily do me in and I'm 6'0" 280lbs.

Poilievre added that municipal government revenues have grown through the collection of development cost charges, and would require municipal governments to speed up permits.

Poilievre is almost partially right here. Development charges are waay too high in a lot of areas. In some communities in the GTA, they are >$100K!! However, municipal governments have done this as to not upset residents by keeping their property tax increases low. As my municipality's CFO said, municipal governments are the only level where their income doesn't increase with inflation (Ontario is still using 2016 property assessments).

one has Cyanogen

You are running a device that is nearly a decade without updates?

I think people who think about housing critically get it, but unfortunately I don't think most Canadians get this, either on or off Lemmy. It's too easy to see "1.3 Million Vacant Houses" and think that's a solution for the Housing Crisis.

I am fully supportive of public housing and coops, but that doesn't explain how a "limit 1 house per family" rule would work or what it's intending to achieve. If you or @Sunshine@lemmy.ca want to expand on that you can even explain it in the context of a whole system, I'm happy to hear it. I am a policy wonk and just want to understand this proposal.

Why did you feel the need to editorialise the headline so much? I know it's not a requirement on this sub, but that's usually so posters can provide better context

I'm Canadian and my lower-bound estimate is 25¢/km(~€0.17/km), so 50km would be $12.50(€8.44). And I think it's a lot more expensive to drive in Europe.