From what I’ve seen, that doesn’t apply to Canada’s boreal forests

Chaterpedia is a great resource for us - the section 10 discussion explicitly discusses the legal situation of impaired driving.

https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art10b.html

However, such a limit is justified under section 1 because of the importance of reducing the harm caused by impaired driving

To anyone reading this, I’d remind you that local politics are THE MOST important. You can far more easily get local politicians in who are extremely progressive, and begin movement from there. The lack of parties means its much simpler to run, and most people don’t even bother voting. Plus those changes can have drastic impacts on what you see and do on a daily basis.

People here lean left more than most other places. Carney is, without a doubt, more right leaning than Trudeau, who many already struggled with his neolib policies. Shifting FURTHER into those policies isn’t going to make this place like him

I mean I’m not even American and I know Miranda rights only need to be read to apply to interrogation AFTER being arrested. Typically by that point theyve already determined you’re drunk driving based on questions during the detention period.

refusing to comply with breath tests during a vehicle stop is against the law - I’m not aware of it violating any US rights, though again I’m not american. That’d be like refusing to stop when they tell you to

How many other crimes are directly defined with a time-sensitive impairment?

If they allowed you to both call a lawyer and wait for them to arrive you could arrange for your lawyer to be a) 2+hrs away, b)alseep or c)any other time delaying tactic.

I agree I don’t like the status quo, but if you have a reasonable alternative that still allows them to catch people who are drunk driving, I’m all ears.

the difference is that the liberals will still keep voting Liberal, whereas the Conservatives will not vote at all.

No idea where you’re pulling this from. All the election data I look at shows a very consistent PC/Reform party of 30% of the popular vote. Liberals typically hit a low of 20-30% as well, through the Mulroney days. Even when both parties were ‘destroyed’ (2014 Ontario Provincial Liberals hit 19% popular vote, PCs hit 16% in '93 but rebounded to 19% in '97), they retained nearly identical as percentage of popular votes. Please show me elections years with significant drop in conservative or NDP voting numbers due to scandal.

I’ve shown you an example of the liberal party voters doing exactly what you claim they’re not and you’re glossing over. I’m happy to continue the conversation, but I need you to start showing more than your own internal biases and opinions. Show me dates, facts, and numbers to back up what you’re saying.

The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.

That’s the first I’ve heard of the corruption being a cause. The reform party was created because western Canada, particularly Alberta, was pissed that Mulroney was working so closely with Quebec during his attempts at constitution reform, and that he was raising taxes.

But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption

Just double checked, and the PC party still got 16% of the vote when the reform party appeared, who got 18%. Reform did better because they won more seats because they were primarily western canada, but popular vote, which is the more realistic measure of how well a party is doing, was nearly identical.

When you look at election results through the years, percentages voting for Liberal and Conservative have been pretty much constant at a baseline 30%. Reform split that vote between themselves and PC. The remaining 30% is split among NDP and Bloq, then swing voters.

This doesn’t really change much, despite what you’re arguing. There are a few exceptions but I’d argue that’s less to do with corruption and more to do with the finances and perceived gains by the party in power.

When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there

Dude, I literally just pointed out a case where the liberal party WAS reduced below official party status, and remained there, and that case happened in the last decade. By your own argument, this means they were wiped out politically. They have as many seats as the PC party did post-mulroney, when you’re saying the conservative voters kicked them out.

Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.

You had me in the first half - but I’d argue that core 20-30% that libs and cons have are both so entrenched they refuse to vote anyone else are the ones who are willing to overlook corruption. If cons were as willing to kick out for corruption, they’d have kicked Doug Ford out after his greenbelt scandal. Instead he got another majority.

I’d argue that cons are more willing to kick people out for violating the conservatives political alignment than the liberals are. I’ve seen many arguing that Carney is actually super liberal and these conservative actions he’s taking are actually good and in line with the party.

The party loss after Mulroney was, IMO, primarily due to the during reform party - a division of the conservative party. If you look at voting percentages, the conservatives still claimed 30% of the vote, just divided differently.

The bigger difference I see is that Mulroney had managed to win nonconservative votes, which then left during the 93 election.

That means those liberal voters you claim never bote anything else voted VERY strongly against the liberal party and for the conservatives to give Mulroney his wins.

From my knowledge, the NDP has never been wiped out. They’ve been reduced down to a few seats, much like any other party, but they’re still the NDP. Liberals in Ontario were gutted entirely, not dissimilar to any of your conservative examples above, and lost official party status after nearly 15 years in power. Despite how awful Ford has been, they STILL haven’t clawed back to even a shadow of a party. If that isn’t an example of them being destroyed in public opinion I don’t know what is.

I’d be curious what historical data you’re referencing?

What do you base this ‘strong economy’ bit on? As far as I can tell, Carneys taken most of PPs playbook out from under him.

What policies did PP propose that would’ve given us a “healthy economy”?

The problems I’ve seen, as an adimittadly casual air-source carbon capture follower, are that no system in use currently can actually prove viable. All the calcs and test samples don’t line up with field results. For sure we need to figure out why and make it work, but it being sold as an answer is still extremely suspect

I want to see something where funding is allocated now with no way to claw back the funding.

Offer huge rebates for solar installations on residences or commercial buildings, with ties to maximum $/kw install costs so its not just more profit.

Offer more funding for clean energy projects with requirements they’re under construction by the time they leave office.

Cancel tax breaks offered to o&g companies now, and force whoever comes in to justify adding the breaks back in.

Don’t drop your ZEV policy, but state it will be in force. Make car companies do the r&d now so they’ll be locked in anyway by the time you leave office.

Enshrine the right to the healthy environment for children in our charter, so any changes that damage that in the future will be challengeable legally.

To argue that he’s doing what he can, and if he doesnt toe the line of moderate (ie way too little action) well lose and things will rebound is ridiculous. There’s a non-zero chance things will rebound anyway. Take action that can’t be undone NOW, and make it harder for pp to undo.

The two aren’t comparable. You really want Doug Ford to decide what and who can be eligible for what treatments, only to have it overturned by the next premier?

Unelected, nonpartisan bureaucracy is what prevents those swings.

But you’re not wrong - Ford is smothering healthcare, as seen by the hospitals struggling with finances right now. Its a problematic sign if most of the major hospitals are all struggling at the same time. Less funds mean poorer service and less availability, and that part is directly driven by politics in the longrun.

Typically, civil engineers are the only ones who can stamp drawings, and the ones who take legal responsibility for the design. But I know there are some jurisdictions where eng techs can ‘design’ and take some level of responsibility, so wanted to leave that door open.

Something tells me you’re not in road design though, regardless of title.

Are you a civil engineer or technician?

In my area MOST small residential roads will already require semis to turn into oncoming in order to make tight turns - this is not uncommon, and a reason there’s additional licensing for those vehicles. They have a wide turning radius and should know where and how to make that maneuver safely.

There’s nothing wrong with this setup - speaking as a civil engineer in road design.

Nah, fuck that. Corporations regularly steal millions of dollars a year in wage theft from regular Canadians. We don’t need to be punishing people who did the work from getting paid for the work they already fucking did. The more we normalize people not getting paid fairly regardless of why, we make it less likely for others to get paid properly and less likely for them to go to court over it.

Regular domestic citizens get fucked.

I agree.

You reward them by paying them and then they and everyone back home sees its a viable approach to beat the system and they follow suit

So the fix here is to hit the employers so hard they don’t risk hiring illegal again. You’re not going to out-scare desperation in people with little to lose. But most business owners won’t risk it of there’s good fines that are regularly used.

Unless I’m mistaken, not knowing about it doesn’t mean you’re not responsible?

If you own a company and your employee does shady stuff for their subordinates, you are still responsible for what they do under the acting authority of your business.

Hopefully this is an easy decision for the labour board

I mean this is wine specific, but damn if that’s not a major part.