144
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
281
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/24511890

The fact that this is a real image is infuriating

20-01-2025. This is a real image

132
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
42
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
130
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
33
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
116
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
17
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
8
submitted 6 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
31
submitted 7 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
16
submitted 7 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
15
Reform Act (Canada) (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago by SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_(Canada)

Usage

The caucus member ejection provisions were first used when the Conservative caucus voted to eject Derek Sloan on January 20, 2021.[9][10][11]

In February 2022, the leadership removal provisions were invoked for the first time by the Conservative caucus following the 2021 election, which used it to trigger a leadership review against, and remove, Erin O'Toole. During the review, 45 MPs voted to retain him against 73 who voted for his removal.[12] Deputy Leader Candice Bergen was selected as interim leader.[13][14] O'Toole's removal marked the first time since the Reform Act was passed into law seven years prior, that a party caucus formally challenged and dismissed its leader.[15]

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 48 points 8 months ago

Pierre also said that CBC was proganda and he regularly reposts article from them. He also likes to reminds how how the Liberals brought a nazi into parliament but forgets to say he was part of the crowd clapping for the guy.

Then there's hanging with actual Nazi's. This dude has almost no resume inside the Parliament after 2 decades of being a MP but he'd built quite a reputation outside of it.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

In case anyone is wondering this does not mean there will be a election soon just more political turbulence.

The end of the confidence-and-supply agreement doesn't necessarily mean an immediate election. The Liberals could seek the support of the Bloc Québécois or try to continue negotiating with the NDP on a case-by-case basis.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

A 2012 report from David Campanella, then the public policy research manager for the Parkland Institute, and Greg Flanagan, a public finance economist, concluded that privatization has led to Albertans paying more compared to public stores.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

In case anyone needs a recap:

Presidential candidate calling for people to second amendment their politics into reality for almost a decade. Someone took them up on that suggestion.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith — who once told former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson she wished he would put a federal cabinet minister in his "crosshairs" — called on "progressive" politicians to temper their language Monday after former U.S. president Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

Out of the many repost of this story since Friday this is most wild claim I've seen. It's on r/Canada level of ignorance.

The authors of the study by the non-partisan Fraser Institute

I've also never seen something with that many citation on Wikipedia.

The Fraser Institute is a libertarian-conservative Canadian public policy think tank and registered charity.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

Credit bureaus are testing the inclusion of rent payments in credit scores, saying it’s a positive move launched by Ottawa.

Translation: The 2 private companies that monopolize peoples credit ratings says they're very happy that the federal government pushed even more business and influence their way.

For anyone wondering. If you wish to make a complaint, contact your provincial or territorial consumer affairs office. The federal government doesn’t regulate credit bureaus.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

This truly sounds pathetic. Although it clearly displays the real power hierarchy.

In February, the House of Commons' committee that studies food prices urged Loblaw and Walmart to sign on to the grocery code of conduct, or risk having it made law. Both organizations have said they will not sign the code as currently drafted, saying it could raise prices for Canadians.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

The article heavily leans on Ontario and what doesn't work.

If anyone wondering how things are going for a province the adopted a payment system less focused on volume.

700 more family physicians in B.C. since payment revamp: doctors

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

It's amazing that a 7 billion dollar company goes to court to fight someone for $800. Aside from obviously being in the wrong.

...awarding $650.88 in damages for negligent misrepresentation.

$36.14 in pre-judgment interest and $125 in fees

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

"Hodgins says he was offered a C$2,000 flight voucher by the airline, but said compensation would not “fix the problem” of how the airline failed its disabled passengers."

Given how much this seems to be happening I'd be for fining any airline that does this 100k. Half for the victims and half for disability advocacy groups.

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 69 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Microsoft's pay guidelines for job offers:

Level 70:

Base pay: $231,700 to $361,500

On-hire stock awards: $310,000 default to $1.2 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $945,000

Level 69:

Base pay: $202,400 to $316,000

On-hire stock awards: $235,000 default to $1.1 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $750,000

Level 68:

Base pay: $186,200 to $291,000

On-hire stock awards: $177,000 default to $1 million with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $490,600

Level 67:

Base pay: $171,600 to $258,200

On-hire stock awards: $168,000 default to $700,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $336,000

Level 66:

Base pay: $157,300 to $236,300

On-hire stock awards: $75,000 default to $600,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $160,000

Level 65:

Base pay: $144,600 to $216,600

On-hire stock awards: $36,000 default to $300,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $90,000

Level 64:

Base pay: $125,000 to $187,700

On-hire stock awards: $24,000 default to $250,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $60,000

Level 63:

Base pay: $113,900 to $171,500

On-hire stock awards: $17,000 default to $200,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $44,000

Level 62:

Base pay: $103,700 to $156,400

On-hire stock awards: $11,000 default to $125,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $32,000

Level 61:

Base pay: $92,600 to $138,100

On-hire stock awards: $6,500 default to $75,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $24,000

Level 60:

Base pay: $83,500 to $125,000

On-hire stock awards: $4,500 default to $50,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $16,000

Level 59:

Base pay: $74,400 to $110,800

On-hire stock awards: $3,000 default to $30,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: $0 to $12,000

Level 58:

Base pay: $70,300 to $92,600

On-hire stock awards: $2,500 default to $20,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 57:

Base pay: $63,800 to $83,000

On-hire stock awards: $1,500 default to $10,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 56:

Base pay: $60,700 to $77,900

On-hire stock awards: $1,500 default to $10,000 with approval

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 55:

Base pay: $55,200 to $71,300

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 54:

Base pay: $51,600 to $67,000

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 53:

Base pay: $46,600 to $59,700

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

Level 52:

Base pay: $42,500 to $54,600

On-hire stock awards: N/A

Annual stock award range: "By career stage"

[-] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago

As someone who believes:

A) Housing investors collectively have made incredibly large amounts of money at cost of other Canadians.

B) Essentially every single level of government has done little to aid in housing/infrastructure developments. If not outright block them.

C) Given the other 2 issues aren't dealt with immigration is the only thing that can completely pivot overnight but we've only increased it.

I think the biggest issues is that in the last election 80% of voters seemed to think more of the same was okay. To be clear I'm talking about the people who voted for a party who's housing minister said that investor is helping the situation or the party's leader said the same or people who couldn't even be bothered to vote.

view more: next ›

SamuelRJankis

joined 2 years ago