• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't really sure where else to ask this, but I know someone who has recently become homeless. She lives in BC(north van), and was telling me that she gets income assistance but not very much(less than $500) that's really low, especially given how high rent is in the vancouver area. My question is, would a single person with no disabilities and dependent children also qualify for the GST credit, and Employment Insurance in addition to their Income assistance? I've heard that you can work part time while you're on EI too. Hope someone can answer :)
 

Kyuur

Member
I wasn't really sure where else to ask this, but I know someone who has recently become homeless. She lives in BC(north van), and was telling me that she gets income assistance but not very much(less than $500) that's really low, especially given how high rent is in the vancouver area. My question is, would a single person with no disabilities and dependent children also qualify for the GST credit, and Employment Insurance in addition to their Income assistance? I've heard that you can work part time while you're on EI too. Hope someone can answer :)

They only qualify for EI if they lost their job through no fault of their own. You can work part-time on EI (doing so right now). No idea about the GST credit though, sorry.

Additionally, if the rent is too high there maybe they should consider moving elsewhere until they land back on their feet?
 

lacinius

Member
I wasn't really sure where else to ask this, but I know someone who has recently become homeless. She lives in BC(north van), and was telling me that she gets income assistance but not very much(less than $500) that's really low, especially given how high rent is in the vancouver area. My question is, would a single person with no disabilities and dependent children also qualify for the GST credit, and Employment Insurance in addition to their Income assistance? I've heard that you can work part time while you're on EI too. Hope someone can answer :)

Since 2014 you no longer have to apply for the GST tax credit, as the CRA will calculate if you are eligible based on the income tax return that you file... so that's the key, your friend should be sending in an annual income tax return even if your net income is zero. More here: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/gsthst/fq_qlfyng-eng.html
 

maharg

idspispopd
They only qualify for EI if they lost their job through no fault of their own. You can work part-time on EI (doing so right now). No idea about the GST credit though, sorry.

Additionally, if the rent is too high there maybe they should consider moving elsewhere until they land back on their feet?

Note that just because your employer says you were terminated with cause doesn't mean they had a right to necessarily. If they didn't give warnings or their cause isn't legally sufficient, you can apply for it anyways and they'll investigate.

I know someone who was let go for "lack of culture fit" and refusing to work unpaid overtime, but he wasn't warned for anything and always did his work well. The EI people were like WTF no when they looked into it.
 

bremon

Member
Yeah maharg is correct; just because your former employer says letting you go made sense, doesn't mean there isn't a second side to the story or that things won't fall in favour of the employee (they often do).
 
So, can we talk about this? Chong is slightly favored in new poll...but the majority of people want someone else. This is a bit of a surprise from the previous poll that showed Leitch being the most favored candidate, though it shouldn't allow for complacency to creep in , especially given how many candidates are currently in the running, let alone that Leitch or O'Leary could still win.

This is a poll of the general population rather than just Conservative members. Even in that sample of 65, a person can just say they're card carrying Conservatives when they're really not, and 65 is still not a large enough sample. It's really difficult to poll for things like that.
 
So, can we talk about this? Chong is slightly favored in new poll...but the majority of people want someone else. This is a bit of a surprise from the previous poll that showed Leitch being the most favored candidate, though it shouldn't allow for complacency to creep in, especially given how many candidates are currently in the running, let alone that Leitch or O'Leary could still win.

I know Viewtiful already pointed this out, but it's a sample of 65. That means 8 people, somewhere, said they were card-carrying Conservatives voting for Lisa Raitt, 7 said they'd vote for Michael Chong, and Forum is trying to extrapolate something from that. That's absurd.

Also absurd: Kevin O'Leary. I'm sure Conservatives must love their party being treated like something that's just sitting there, ready to be taken over by a guy who plays a millionaire on TV.
 

CazTGG

Member
I know Viewtiful already pointed this out, but it's a sample of 65. That means 8 people, somewhere, said they were card-carrying Conservatives voting for Lisa Raitt, 7 said they'd vote for Michael Chong, and Forum is trying to extrapolate something from that. That's absurd.

Also absurd: Kevin O'Leary. I'm sure Conservatives must love their party being treated like something that's just sitting there, ready to be taken over by a guy who plays a millionaire on TV.

I am well aware of the size not being large enough to draw any conclusions which I prefaced my post with, albeit I will admit it should have been worded to better reflect that.

As for O'Leary: Oh goodie, what we really need is an arrogant businessman with an incredibly insufferable attitude and asinine suggestions coming straight out of the ether whose public persona of success is largely based on their appearances on a television series and is not in any way reflective of their actual net worth or skills as a businessman, in large part due to their multiple failed ventures, running a political party, let alone a country.
 

CazTGG

Member
I maintain that O'Leary will be the next Prime Minister whether we like it or not

O'Leary's disdain for French will ensure that he's going to have an uphill battle maintaining any seats the CPC is currently holding in Quebec, let alone retaking any for the next election. I don't doubt it's possible, especially after what we saw this year, but that, combined with him not living in Canada for some time (remember the smear campaign against the last major party candidate who wasn't from Canada?) has far a more difficult path to take the Conservative Party of Canada than, say, Trump did with the Republican Party in the United States, and this is assuming he wins instead of Leitch.
 

Alavard

Member
O'Leary's disdain for French will ensure that he's going to have an uphill battle maintaining any seats the CPC is currently holding in Quebec, let alone retaking any for the next election. I don't doubt it's possible, especially after what we saw this year, but that, combined with him not living in Canada for some time (remember the smear campaign against the last major party candidate who wasn't from Canada?) has far a more difficult path to take the Conservative Party of Canada than, say, Trump did with the Republican Party in the United States, and this is assuming he wins instead of Leitch.

There's also the comments he made about running for leadership of the Liberal party as well. That's hardly going to play well for the harder right-wing side of the Conservative party.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Brad Wall is the most popular politician in his jurisdiction in Canada and has been for ages. I don't think he has much reason not to say whatever the fuck he really thinks, SK will elect him for it.

o-PREMIERS-570.jpg

December's update:

CzkvLtQUcAAa7zk.jpg:large
 
Brad Wall is the most popular politician in his jurisdiction in Canada and has been for ages. I don't think he has much reason not to say whatever the fuck he really thinks, SK will elect him for it.

o-PREMIERS-570.jpg

How they handle the Crown Corps through the deficit will either be his cementing in SK politics for years, or it will be the backlash that ousts him immediately. I fear he is going to be stupid enough to privatize them, but I still hold out hope he wont have the stones to do it.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalization-pot-task-force-1.3893876

A task force appointed by the Canadian government to study the legalization of marijuana determined Tuesday that sales should be restricted to those 18 and older, with a personal possession limit of 30 grams.

The Canadian Medical Association had recommended setting the age at 21, with strict limits on quantity and potency until 25. But the task force said higher age limits would simply drive young consumers into the hands of the black market, something the government hopes to actively discourage with its push to legalize pot.

Provinces and territories should, however, be provided with the flexibility to set their own age restrictions on purchasing the drug, the report said. The nine U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana sales have matched the age limit to the drinking age of 21.

I'm thinking there should maybe an ongoing thread about pot legalization since it's going to be nation-wide and an ongoing process. Anyways, 30g is plenty.
 

djkimothy

Member
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalization-pot-task-force-1.3893876



I'm thinking there should maybe an ongoing thread about pot legalization since it's going to be nation-wide and an ongoing process. Anyways, 30g is plenty.

Just read the article, it's a pretty level headed assessment from the group.

I've been hearing the age limit of 25 being float around a lot so colour me surprise if they do the 18 or 19 age point.

And LOL at the LCBO when the report mentions it shouldn't be co-sold with alcoholic or tobacco products. We don't need prohibition era strategies to be shoe horned with this new drug strategy.

The recommendations (for minimizing harms of use) from the official document:

- Set a national minimum age of purchase of 18, acknowledging the right of provinces and territories to harmonize it with their minimum age of purchase of alcohol
- Apply comprehensive restrictions to the advertising and promotion of cannabis and related merchandise by any means, including sponsorship, endorsements and branding, similar to the restrictions on promotion of tobacco products
- Allow limited promotion in areas accessible by adults, similar to those restrictions under the Tobacco Act
- Require plain packaging for cannabis products that allows the following information on packages: company name, strain name, price, amounts of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) and warnings and other labelling requirements
- Impose strict sanctions on false or misleading promotion as well as promotion that encourages excessive consumption, where promotion is allowed
- Require that any therapeutic claims made in advertising conform to applicable legislation
- Resource and enable the detection and enforcement of advertising and marketing violations, including via traditional and social media
- Prohibit any product deemed to be “appealing to children,” including products that resemble or mimic familiar food items, are packaged to look like candy, or packaged in bright colours or with cartoon characters or other pictures or images that would appeal to children
- Require opaque, re-sealable packaging that is childproof or child-resistant to limit children’s access to any cannabis product
- Additionally, for edibles:
>Implement packaging with standardized, single servings, with a universal
THC symbol
> Set a maximum amount of THC per serving and per product
- Prohibit mixed products, for example cannabis-infused alcoholic beverages or cannabis products with tobacco, nicotine or caffeine
- Require appropriate labelling on cannabis products, including:
> Text warning labels
(e.g., “KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN”)
> Levels of THC and CBD
> For edibles, labelling requirements
that apply to food and beverage products
- Create a exible legislative framework that could adapt to new evidence on speci c product types, on the use of additives or sweeteners, or on specifying limits of THC or other components
- Provide regulatory oversight for cannabis concentrates to minimize the risks associated with illicit production
- Develop strategies to encourage consumption of less potent cannabis, including a price and tax scheme based on potency to discourage purchase of high-potency products
- Require all cannabis products to include labels identifying levels of THC and CBD
- Enable a exible legislative framework that could adapt to new evidence to set rules for limits on THC or other components
- Develop and implement factual public education strategies to inform Canadians as to risks of problematic use and lower-risk use guidance
- Conduct the necessary economic analysis to establish an approach to tax and price that balances health protection with the goal of reducing the illicit market
- Work with provincial and territorial governments to determine a tax regime that includes equitable distribution of revenues
- Create a exible system that can adapt tax and price approaches to changes within the marketplace
- Commit to using revenue from cannabis as a source of funding for administration, education, research and enforcement
- Design a tax scheme based on THC potency to discourage purchase of high-potency products
- Implement as soon as possible an evidence- informed public education campaign, targeted at the general population but with an emphasis on youth, parents and vulnerable populations
- Co-ordinate messaging with provincial and territorial partners
- Adapt educational messages as evidence and understanding of health risks evolve, working with provincial and territorial partners
- Facilitate and monitor ongoing research on cannabis and impairment, considering implications for occupational health and safety policies
- Work with existing federal, provincial and territorial bodies to better understand potential occupational health and safety issues related to cannabis impairment
- Work with provinces, territories, employers and labour representatives to facilitate the development of workplace impairment policies

Plus much more points at the source!
 
Just read the article, it's a pretty level headed assessment from the group.

I've been hearing the age limit of 25 being float around a lot so colour me surprise if they do the 18 or 19 age point.

And LOL at the LCBO when the report mentions it shouldn't be co-sold with alcoholic or tobacco products. We don't need prohibition era strategies to be shoe horned with this new drug strategy.

The recommendations (for minimizing harms of use) from the official document:



Plus much more points at the source!

There is literally nothing wrong with any of this. I can't wait to see the Conservatives bitch and moan that it isn't enough though.
 

maharg

idspispopd
The only thing I think is kind of dumb is that it still acts as if there's any evidence that there's some kind of dangerous dose that product will need to be kept below. Meanwhile you can sell 50% alcohol that can literally kill someone if they consume enough of it.

On a practical level, being too cautious here will still leave a black market for not watered down product.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
^
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if pot is hidden behind curtains like cigarettes and have giant "YOU WILL DIE" warnings on them as well.

Meanwhile everyone be vaping.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Commit to using revenue from cannabis as a source of funding for administration, education, research and enforcement
There is here, once again, my pet-peeve that no one but me seems to care about, of trying to tie specific sources of government revenue to specific types of spending. I don't have anything against spending money on administration, education, research or enforcement, it just seems like a needless complication to try and do stuff like this. Just let government revenues flow into one pot and then go spend it wherever it'll do the most good. It probably doesn't even matter in most cases because it's not actually implemented in any real way, but it would be really lame if we got into a situation where money was going to one thing when there was a greater need elsewhere because of rules like this.

Also there doesn't seem to be any mention of limiting where and when weed can be smoked? I'm all for legalization, but I worry the stench will start spreading everywhere.
 

CazTGG

Member
There is literally nothing wrong with any of this. I can't wait to see the Conservatives bitch and moan that it isn't enough though.

I've already had a few folks I know say things like "well why don't we start making more guns? It's the same thing!" or "they shouldn't be allowed to own it at the age of 18 since the brain is still developing until the age of 23" so methinks they're already on that.
 
I mean, you say that, but it's been illegal for years without much scientific fact to back it up...

You're not wrong. I just hope they're going to do responsible warnings and not "barely researched" hearsay, hide yo kids kind of bullshit. No need.

I dunno man, would anyone really trust the math involved? It might be complicated and look scary.

couldn't resist sorry

I had to put all my anger training into use to not get triggered here.
 

Fuzzy

I would bang a hot farmer!
Also there doesn't seem to be any mention of limiting where and when weed can be smoked? I'm all for legalization, but I worry the stench will start spreading everywhere.
Ever walk through downtown Toronto (especially after 5pm)? It's already everywhere here. Seems like the first thing a bunch of people who work in the financial district like to do is light a joint when they leave work. I've smelled more weed working downtown the last 6 weeks than I have my entire life living in Scarborough.
 

maharg

idspispopd
There is here, once again, my pet-peeve that no one but me seems to care about, of trying to tie specific sources of government revenue to specific types of spending. I don't have anything against spending money on administration, education, research or enforcement, it just seems like a needless complication to try and do stuff like this. Just let government revenues flow into one pot and then go spend it wherever it'll do the most good. It probably doesn't even matter in most cases because it's not actually implemented in any real way, but it would be really lame if we got into a situation where money was going to one thing when there was a greater need elsewhere because of rules like this.

In the end rules like that have no teeth. Particularly in our system, a bill saying anything like that can just be overridden by the budget.

Also there doesn't seem to be any mention of limiting where and when weed can be smoked? I'm all for legalization, but I worry the stench will start spreading everywhere.

I think this is generally a municipal bylaw thing, not really anything the federal government would have any hand in.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
In the end rules like that have no teeth. Particularly in our system, a bill saying anything like that can just be overridden by the budget.

I figure as much, but then any of this sort of talk is pure politicking. Just say we ought to spend money on whatever.
 
I think this is generally a municipal bylaw thing, not really anything the federal government would have any hand in.

I just got my marijuana card, and I'm pretty sure this is the case. I could walk down the street smoking a joint as far as I know.

I wouldn't, but it's weird to think I could.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
It looks like Brian Topp resigned from his COS position in the notley government.He won't be helping out with the BC NDP provincial election campaign next year.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/brian-topp-leaves-notley-government-1.3897140

That's good because he bombed in the last BC election and the BC NDP managed to turn what should have been a sure thing into yet another loss.

It seems more and more like the BC NDP are going to do a fine job screwing up this upcoming election too. BC NDP Leader John Horgan bafflingly raised the notwithstanding clause on some discussion about the TransMountain pipeline. Of course the Charter has nothing to do with this and Horgan just made himself look like an idiot.

The BC NDP platform is actually really good but christ they fuck it up every time. Just like every election the BC Liberals are going to bring up the fact that the NDP spent too much on ferries like 20 years ago and the Libs will roar back into government with another big majority.

(Somehow the fact that the BC Liberals have mismanaged millions on all sorts of other capital projects will never get any traction...)
 

mo60

Member
That's good because he bombed in the last BC election and the BC NDP managed to turn what should have been a sure thing into yet another loss.

It seems more and more like the BC NDP are going to do a fine job screwing up this upcoming election too. BC NDP Leader John Horgan bafflingly raised the notwithstanding clause on some discussion about the TransMountain pipeline. Of course the Charter has nothing to do with this and Horgan just made himself look like an idiot.

The BC NDP platform is actually really good but christ they fuck it up every time. Just like every election the BC Liberals are going to bring up the fact that the NDP spent too much on ferries like 20 years ago and the Libs will roar back into government with another big majority.

(Somehow the fact that the BC Liberals have mismanaged millions on all sorts of other capital projects will never get any traction...)

Brian Topp doesn't even like the direction the BC NDP is heading in right now.
 

mo60

Member
How would this go over in Alberta though?

1. Most PC members don't like the idea of a merger
2. What worked in federal politcs over a decade ago doesn't mean it will work in Alberta on the provincial level since Alberta is slowly getting more progressive in terms of social issues so a potential conservative party of alberta may actually be locked out of Edmonton and maybe parts of calgary in terms of seats if they are not progressive enough on social issues.
 

SRG01

Member
1. Most PC members don't like the idea of a merger
2. What worked in federal politcs over a decade ago doesn't mean it will work in Alberta on the provincial level since Alberta is slowly getting more progressive in terms of social issues so a potential conservative party of alberta may actually be locked out of Edmonton and maybe parts of calgary in terms of seats if they are not progressive enough on social issues.

They'll be locked out of Grand Prairie and parts of Lethbridge as well.
 
I keep getting the "HOW DID KEVIN O'LEARY MAKE HIS MILLIONS?" ads on OT, it makes me retch. Conspiracy theorist TemplaerDude suspects the clandestine campaign has already begun.
 
I keep getting the "HOW DID KEVIN O'LEARY MAKE HIS MILLIONS?" ads on OT, it makes me retch. Conspiracy theorist TemplaerDude suspects the clandestine campaign has already begun.

I haven't seen those yet. Are they pro- or anti-Kevin O'Leary?

Speaking of him, he's voicing surprisinglydovish thoughts on the military. I don't totally disagree with him on this front, actually, but I have a hard time seeing CPC members going for anything more nuanced than "Support our troops!"

I can't wait for him to get the "Will you run in the next election even if you don't win the leadership?" question. He's going to bungle it so spectacularly!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom