I strongly disagree, these driving tests do nothing for promoting safety, and everything for minor rule following. In some cases what they teach is actually less safe. Like having to waggle your head around to "show the tester you are looking" or not using backup cameras and other driver aids.

If we want to increase safety we should send people to skid school periodically, not retest them on useless easily abused by testers items. Also we should invest more heavily in public transit. I'd far rather see money go to public transit then further enable these private testing facilities to let their poorly trained testers continue abusing people trying to get their license and learn actual practical skills.

100% a money grab, especially now that it's been privatized. My partner just did the written test and at least a quarter of the questions were those inappropriate "What is the punishment for offence Y?" questions. Why is knowing that at all important? As long as we know what things are illegal it should be enough. Those are the only ones she got wrong and had to take the stupid test twice.

No doubt that they put that many of those useless types of questions because they know if they didn't no one would fail. But this way they get a lot of people taking it twice, which you can do without even waiting, as long as you pay more fees for each try.

I'm sure 80% of all drivers could not pass a road test, myself included, because those road tests are full of massive bullshit from testers with inflated egos.

I still remember the shit they tried to tell me I did wrong. One asshole tester said that I wasn't aware of the speed limits because.... I should know that road X was in a commercial zone and all commercial zones are 60, and that driving 40 by the school was wrong because it's the only school in the city without a 40 speed limit.

The testers are generally incompetent so them wanting to introduce more road testing seems like a bad idea.

I've always paid >50% of my income when I rented. Sounds good!

No it wouldn't. Here is a comparable: https://www.realtor.com/rentals/details/166-Amsterdam-Ave_New-York_NY_10023_M33265-52776?property_id=3326552776&from=ab_mixed_view_card

A three bedroom would go for $12k a month, but we don't even have three bedroom units here. Assuming this is a two bedroom it would probably be in the middle of the range given. So 7k-8k USD. But Toronto shouldn't be as expensive as Manhattan, NYC.

No, we don't end up in the same place. While the liberals are not great, neither the liberals or the NDP will erode our social progress like the conservatives will. Both would also probably be better for the environment if that's your jam.

Literally the only reason to vote for the conservatives is if you agree with their campaign of hate and intolerance. If you want social regression go vote for them, but you wont' get anything else out of them.

Even if he was hypothetically not lying about wanting to address housing in the way he suggests, I still wouldn't be able to support him because eroding our social protections and freedoms is not worth it.

But I also think the likely hood that he upsets his rich suburban supporters and friends by allowing condos to be built next to their nice houses is close to zero. So it's probably one of those bullshit planks like the liberals saying they were going to potentially get rid of first past the post. There are zero consequences for our politicians lying like this.

It would be nice if our elections laws defined a class of promises where if they are broken an election is forcibly triggered.

How's your linux phone doing?

Also, I do think it's realistic to get people to eat less meat. Going one or two days without meat, or on days you do have meat just having less, would make a substantial impact. A lot of cultures eat a lot less meat than north american where people seem to expect a whole steak for each meal. Both Asian and Indian food has a lot less meat in each dish, for example.

The mostly meat and potatoes diet is something we can change realistically, I think.

Hopefully we change this law. Trying to charge people for links is incredibly bad. There is no need for any law. If the news sites want to get money for links they can just put all their articles behind a login gate and make them not scrapable.

It doesn’t seem like an overreach to me. The CRA can ask for any tax related data they want. I’d think you’d actually want them to do this as it might might reporting taxes easier.

All companies report employee income tax and now most people can just download that information from the CRA instead of having to enter it manually.

If they were asking for non-tax related data that would be a problem.

LOL what a galaxy brain. Complaining to the house that your kid’s favourite singer isn’t coming to Canada.