Slashdot Mirror

There are lots of murders and burglaries that aren't reported. People disappear in big cities, and unknown bodies are discovered.

This report (from 2009) shows burglary is among the highest reported crimes, at 54%. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n...

How do you know "cohabitation rate in Quebec is very high"? I was never able to find any statistics on this

Really? You must not have looked hard.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tabl...

OK, but what men will get in return for being chivalrous? What men will get in return for protecting and constantly helping women? ...
I don't know if you are a man who is virtue signaling in order to get sex or one of those "feminazi"

Relationships are not transaction-based. You do not get a card where you get a blowjob after 10 "nice guy" stamps.

I talked about me. I talked about me who should have been pressured into marriage and the traditional husband role, even if my freedom looked more appealing. Yet, you immediately changed the subject to make it about women. Why?

Because men aren't forced into the roles you claim they are forced into. Men were the ones deciding what those roles are, so men chose the roles they would prefer to take on.

but it doesn't change that you think only about women and completely ignore men. What does that say about you?

Not the parent poster, but it shows I'm not a denizen of r/incel.

We menfolk have it really good. All those traditional gender roles? We never had to obey them. You could go ahead and never get married. You could go ahead and abandon your family. You could go ahead and fuck any woman regardless of your marriage vows.

This feels like oppression to you because you're losing elevated status, not because you're actually oppressed.

Anyway, your idea that women can still have a "partner" is dying. I live in Quebec, where feminism is very strong, and as a result most men are now like me. The synthetic marriage rate (the number of women who will marry at least once before the age of 50) has fallen to 30% for women and 27% for men. Only 30% of women will find a husband, and considering that the divorce rate is about 50%, it means not a lot of women will be able to find a stable partner.

You realize that "partner" does not mean "spouse", right?

Let's go to the numbers: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tabl...
Married + Common Law in Quebec = 47% of the population.
Married + Common Law in Ontario = 47% of the population.

My God, look at that massive difference!! Quebec is clearly a place where people can't possibly form long term relationships without being forced into them by society!!!! Or not.

Well, in my case, when one of my clients wants to get things on his own terms, what I do is to tell him to find someone else.

Golly....I wonder why you're having so much trouble with long-term relationships.....it's not like there's a massive warning sign, alarm klaxon and flashing lights around this sentence.

Once again, relationships are not transaction-based.

In South Korea, for example, 30% of jobs are in manufacturing, compared with 22% in Canada.

So superficial it makes my head explode, and stupid, too.

Employment by industry

All industries (2017): 18,416.4 (thousands)
Goods producing services: 3,875.9

That's 21.0% of jobs in Canada in the "goods producing services" sector as of freshly updated statistics for 2017.

This sector further breaks down:
* agriculture
* forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, oil and gas
* utilities
* construction
* manufacturing

Actual manufacturing: 1,724.8

That's less than 10%.

Right, Canada hasn't manage to integrate "social tasks" into driving those oversized, bitumen dump-trucks up in Fort Mac. To a first order, I'm guessing that 60% of this entire correlation could be explained by Canada being (geographically) just a tiny bit bigger than Korea, with correspondingly more jobs anchored behind a steering wheel (all of which would be categorized as "at risk").

True manufacturing sectors that remain in Canada and the United States are generally the hardest manufacturing jobs to automate, and with the largest value add.

Here's just one in depth discussion of the matter:

Adam Davidson on Manufacturing — 2012

Adam Davidson of NPR's Planet Money talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about manufacturing. Based on an article Davidson wrote for The Atlantic, the conversation looks at the past, present, and future of manufacturing.

Davidson visited an after-market auto parts factory in Greenville, South Carolina and talked with employees there as well as with executives at corporate headquarters.

What is the future of factory work in America? Why are some manufacturing jobs in America while others are in China or elsewhere?

The conversation looks at these questions as well as how well or poorly the U.S. education system prepares students for the world of work.

Snippet:

Russ: Which is surprising. Because I think what is surprising, at least to a novice like me, we have in the back of our mind this idea that all these factories are so mechanized, there's so much robotic help--a robot, that's as smart, as precise, as careful, as repeatable, replicable as you'd want. So, why is it that there are--how can there be a quality difference between what a factory stamps out here versus there?

Guest: That was one of the big lessons that I learned. As the machinery that a factory uses gets more and more expensive, sophisticated, it requires more and more human intelligence to operate it. It doesn't require more people. It requires a lot fewer people. But the people that these new machines require often have to have far more skill and be able to think through problems with much greater sophistication.

Many of these jobs could be further whittled away, but mostly by re-automation. And this gets way harder with each iteration (and with less immediate ROI from the scant number of workers displaced).

———

Half the time Russ drives me nuts, because I'm not a neoliberal at heart, but I take my anti-neoliberalism seriously, because it deserves an informed critique (this requires endless hours wading into murky waters you don't really like, but that's simply the cost of not being an idiot). True neoliberals don't find it as painful as I do to be generally well informed; their posture is primarily to dismantle, and there's simply no end of things that suck and on the surface appear to justify hasty extermination, with only the selfish hand (powered by whose industry, exactly?) to fill and close the gaping wound. (Hard not to love the perpetual-motion-machine immune system of the invisible hand when it

people being on the road 5-6hrs for a commute is common all across north america

Unless you mean per week, you are way off. Average commute in the U.S. is about 27 minutes (one way). About 7.3% of U.S. workers commute an hour or more each way. For comparison, about 8.5% walk, bike or take public transit (and those groups are not mutually exclusive. About 23% of those with commutes more than an hour use public transportation).

So almost all commuters who drive themselves to work could simply charge at home if they drove an EV. Even current ones with the lowest range (about 58 miles for 2018 Smart Electric) could accommodate most (68%) of commutes, which are 15 miles or less each way according to the U.S Bureau of Transportation Statistics. And other low-ish range options (Fiat 500e @84 miles or Honda Clarity @89 miles) could handle up to about 89% of commutes (about 21% are 16-30 miles, along with the aforementioned 68% that are 15 or less). And there are several other current EV offerings (Leaf, e-Golf, Soul EV, Focus Electric, etc...) with ranges of 110-150 miles, and a few (Teslas and the Bolt) greater than 220 miles.

tl,dr: commuting distance is not a problem for current generation EVs for 90+% of U.S. commuters. (In Canadia, your mileage, or kilometerage, may vary -- and they're actually better according to the slightly dated stats here which says 89% of commutes are 24km or less)

there's a lot of signs that it does: that it desensitizes them to violence

Actually no there is no evidence of such a thing. Please cite your evidence. My evidence is that in spite of having so many violent video game over 20 years, violence among young adult and kid either reduced or stayed stable. e.g. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... in this case totasl youth crime in canada sink quicker than general crime https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... if violent video game had any impact, you would expect a rise somewhere between 2000 and 2015 when video game spread started to peak up for youth, you would not expect to drop it now that it is even more widespread. So what is your evidence that youth are desensitized by violence ? Because they certainly commit less crime today, kinda strange for people desensitized ? Or maybe you were spouting belief based on no evidence. Just sayin'.

there's a lot of signs that it does: that it desensitizes them to violence

Actually no there is no evidence of such a thing. Please cite your evidence. My evidence is that in spite of having so many violent video game over 20 years, violence among young adult and kid either reduced or stayed stable. e.g. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... in this case totasl youth crime in canada sink quicker than general crime https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... if violent video game had any impact, you would expect a rise somewhere between 2000 and 2015 when video game spread started to peak up for youth, you would not expect to drop it now that it is even more widespread. So what is your evidence that youth are desensitized by violence ? Because they certainly commit less crime today, kinda strange for people desensitized ? Or maybe you were spouting belief based on no evidence. Just sayin'.

Most consumers will never notice, most of the pancake syrups in the supermarket are just manufactured sugar with some coloring.

And well, another corporate cartel with price fixing experiences bad karma, let me shed a tear for you. As for the trees, I do feel bad for them.

As a representant of the nicest country in the world, I call that this is utter nonsense! (Sorry about that)

Talking about the trees... If the climate get hotter, couldn't we simply move the production more to the north? After all, It's not like we don't have space avalaible : http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/cen...

I' m not British, BTW, I'm Canadian.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/1...

In 2016:

1604 Americans were murdered by knife. With a population of 323.1 million in 2016, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.496 per 100,000.

175 Canadians were murdered by knife. With a population of 36.3 million in 2016, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.482 per 100,000.

71 Australians were murdered by knife. With a population of 24.1 million, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.295 per 100,000.

213 people were murdered by knife in the UK. With a population of 65.6 million, that works out to a knife-murder rate of 0.325 per 100,000.

Despite the widespread availability of guns, Americans killed each other by knife at a higher rate than other countries. So it's not the guns. There's just something about Americans which make them more likely to kill each other, period. In that light, it's not at all surprising that U.S. police response is more aggressive than in other countries.

1) Universities don't control the cost of textbooks, publishers do

Professors require that students use the latest edition of the books, killing the used book market and keeping prices artificially high.

2) A quick look a resident's cost for Canadian universities shows an average tuition of $5428 US and a max of $17808 US.
The average cost of a 4-year college in the US, is, by comparison, at least $23,600, and the most expensive about $43k

The Canadian tuition you quoted is per-year (see official stats here

I think you need to check your stats on Medicine. Health and social workers are overwhelmingly more female. I'll use my own country as an example: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/table...

Construction is male dominated 7:1
Natural resource harvesting is male dominated 4:1
Manufacturing is male dominated 3:1
Transportation (trucking) and warehousing is male dominated 3:1

Education is female dominated 2:1
Healthcare and social assistance is female dominated 4:1

It's almost like women don't like to hunt or gather, but rather nurture, heal, and educate. Must be something wrong with these numbers though, that can't be right.

Dude, where's your usual slew of unrelated links? It's like you're hardly trying any more.

You mean those factual links that you never look at, then whine incessantly over when someone else points out that they're factually accurate. Then run away, until a later time like this, where you whine over something instead of adding something to the discussion.

Don't worry, you can find them over on statcan.gc.ca Unless of course you think that official government statistics aren't factual...like you usually do.

two different areas i guess, Here in Ontario it seems to be more for taxes and duties from shopping in the states. Given the different demographics that travel through the ports it does make sense that they would target different demographics..

I dont know if Vancouver has its own version of http://cbiusa.com/ but given the brokerage fees that fedex and ups charge it is very often cheaper to have it shipped to our "amerifriend" and bring it back ourselves. That leads to many more people than would fit in to your demographics being searched. And as such i am more certain that tax and duty dodging is a much more prevalent issue than kiddie porn or illegal immigrants, atleast for ontario border crossings.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/arts34-eng.htm there are three times as many travelers entering by car than there are by plane, and that includes all borders and airports. given that only a fraction of those air travelers could have come from asia... well im going to stick with my original point that they want to look at your phone to collect their taxes... with the added bonus of catching people with kiddie porn or illegal immigrants. it also makes sense that different entrance checkpoints would focus on different issues in general.

Canada, although with higher unemployment overall, is trending up. +8.6% in natural & applied sciences and related (category including software developers) http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/l... See codes http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imd... Alberta and Quebec are doing better lately. There are wide variations by provinces. http://www.etalentcanada.ca/pr...

The large majority of Canada's populace live in urban centers (81%).

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/table...

"If youre near the crime scene - you COULD be involved" Er, yes. If you are near the crime scene you COULD be. That is why police interview people, you know, that are near the crime scene.

Define near.

Cell phone tower location methods are accurate to around .75 square mile. https://transition.fcc.gov/psh...

Now let's take say, New York City, with it's over 27 thousand people per square mile https://www1.nyc.gov/site/plan...

So let's say half of these people aren't using a phone for some reason. It is still pretty easy to come up with a hellava lot of possible witnesses/suspects for a crime. Regardless, that is a hellava lot of suspects that have to be eliminated from suspicion in some cases.

Toronto itsellf is around 4150 people per square kilometer https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/ce...

This comes out to around 10749 peeps per square mile. For this alone, mass collection is going to be really inefficient. Given the margin of error location wise for the logs, some poor gumshoe may have thousands of people to cross off the witness/suspect list.

I have this vision of interrogation rooms starting to look like sports stadiums.

Nothing wrong with getting location data from a suspect, or even looking over phone logs for data, but turning everyone in the area into a witness/suspect is just so inefficient that you might as well just drag everyone in a square mile of a crime in for questioning.

By age group, 18-24 year olds are the most homicidal and most hate-filled group:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8...

That could just demonstrate the fact that those prone to violence or those living in violent places/situations tend to die young, so many simply don't make it out of the 18-24 age group.

By age group, 18-24 year olds are the most homicidal and most hate-filled group:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8...

So Canada's economy is defunct and was completely stagnate, not growing at all while the minimum wage raise went into effect?

Does the Canadian economy control the US economy?

In the United States, we have 2% agricultural workers. We export half our food; and textile and biofuel crop account for more than a third of our agricultural production. We import 17% of our food consumption.

That means 0.67% of the American population supplies 83% of the food we consume. Our major import sources include Canada (2% population is agricultural production) and Mexico (employs 13.4% of the population as farm workers, as of 2011). Canada has, by itself, 13% of the US food import share--leaving 5% to Europe, China, Mexico, and so forth.

That means the equivalent of approximately 1.6% of the U.S. population feeds the entire U.S. population. Let's call it 2%, and I'm wrong because it's *smaller* than 2%.

Here's the important bit, about technology, cut straight from Wikipedia:

Given the historic structure of ejidos, it employs a considerably high percentage of the work force: 18% in 2003, mostly of which grows basic crops for subsistence, compared to 2–5% in developed nations in which production is highly mechanized.

Developed nations--you know, the wealthy ones, not the blown-out backwaters what can barely hobble along on feudalism and haven't yet got running water working--are running 2%-5%, whereas less-developed nations use more labor to produce the crops needed to feed themselves.

You can, of course, lie through your teeth by using global numbers and including all those undeveloped subsistence farmers and low-tech societies to try to dismiss the impact of technology on a society's economic behaviors. It works as well as mixing bile into a pool and then claiming water is brown.

I'm a man, so maybe I don't "get it", but I never understood the problem that women have with walking alone. Are women really more likely to be attacked by random people on the street? Just giving a quick read through this article (from Canada, where I live) it seems that the majority of assault on women happen in a residential setting, and "Men are physically assaulted in a public place outside the home more often than women" and "Women more often physically assaulted by a spouse, men by a stranger". It seems as though men should be the ones who are worried about walking alone. Looking over the whole thing, it seems like there's little that women should be worrying about. Obviously they should probably stay out of certain areas at night, but it's not like they should never go out alone, or even worry about it most of the time.

>What do you mean? Millions more people own guns now than they did 30 years ago, and violence crimes of all kinds, including those involving guns, have been going steadily down, and are down 46% since the 1990's. So, more honest people own legal guns, and we have much, much less violent crime.

The same sort of downward trend is present in Canada, where gun laws are stricter and have not been relaxed. Attributing the decline to more availability of guns is dubious.

If you want your statistical data to be reliable, it has to be random and that means it cannot be a self-selecting group of responders.

The actual questions on the long form (which is sent to one in five households, randomly selected) are here: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs...

And no, most Canadians don't believe the government will do anything sinister with the information. We have a long tradition of democratic traditions and strong democratic institutions and those offer far more protection than refusing to answer a bunch of questions. If a government is out to get you, it won't matter whether or not it has census data.

A sample of the actual 61-question census can be found here:
http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imd...

It's 40 pages of fill in the square with nitpicky crap like "so what DID you do at your job as a COMPUTER EN-GINEER." That's 40 pages per person. No wonder Canadians hate it.

Salt is a good example as many western nations are now having widespread iodine deficiencies because they've cut out their main source of iodine, which was iodised (table) salt.

[citation needed]

Here's a Lancet published study that found that Iodine deficiency in the United Kingdom was around 70% in 2011. Of course, that's just one study, the WHO put the rate in North America at around 10% in 2004, and this study put the rate of iodine deficiency in Australia between 50% (for pregnant women) to 75% for the volunteers. It's not clear to me whether the samples in the studies are unrepresentative, if the WHO is underestimating the levels of deficiency, or if there has been a rapid rise in the level of deficiency. Regardless, it looks like North Americans are likely getting enough iodine, the WHO result seems to be somewhat confirmed by Stats Canada who estimate that only about 30% of Canadians are not getting enough iodine. The level is higher than the WHO estimate but much lower than the UK and Australian measurements. This could be a cultural difference if North Americans are much more liberal with their salt than comparable overseas populations.

it refers to a "well-regulated" militia

which translated to today's meaning is "well-trained"

dirty harry constitutional activism in the last century (a freak out over crime, which was actually solved by better policing and sentencing) has meant we have easy guns for every hothead douchebag who wants one. and so the usa has a sky high homicide rate compared to its social and economic peers, who have actual gun regulation

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8...

but if we followed the actual intent of the founding father's second amendment, they were saying we need *well-trained* gun owners. the founding fathers linked proficiency with ownership. their words. the text of second amendment. not the reinterpretation of activist judges from the last century. we fucked up with prohibition, and reversed that. time to reverse the legal fuck up over firearms from the last century

all we need is testing and licensing before you get a gun. like we do with cars, an equally dangerous tool that any mouth breathing retard should not get just because he wants one

"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws..."

i'm saying you every right to a gun, you have to prove you can use it first. a statement any *responsible* gun owner agrees with. all of the problems with guns is from hotheads easily getting one. make it harder to get one, the hot heads simply don't use a gun. they use a knife, which is far less lethal, because they aren't trying hard in life: they are casual hot heads or genuinely deranged. if it is hard to get one, they don't have the ability to try that hard. the same hard concentration they lack because any sleight or flush of anger makes them start shooting. proof:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

oh sure, criminal masterminds will get any gun they want. and use that gun carefully: they are criminal masterminds. they won't shoot up street corners or discos or movie houses, which is the fucking problem in the usa, because guns are so easy for any asshole to get

"there's too many illegal guns out there already..." yeah, it will take awhile to drain the swamp. progress will be slow and delayed for years as police mop up all the unlawful guns out there. as if just because doing the right thing is hard, that that is somehow a valid argument against doing the right thing

now the crazy part:

guaranteed i will get responses to this comment from people screaming i am stealing all guns. I AM SAYING GO AHEAD AND GET A GUN. just prove you can use one safely and proficiently first LIKE THE FUCKING FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED. a statement any actual responsible gun owner agrees with

still, you will hear "WHY YOU WANNA GRAB MA GUN" (wheeze, gurgle), just because i am saying you need to prove you can use a gun before you get one. hardly earth shattering, completely moderate, agreed to by a majority of responsible gun owners. but the kneejerk propagandized morons will act like i'm out to steal all guns. fucking pathetic brain dead zombie retards

http://www41.statcan.gc.ca/200...

Looks like it's pretty sparse up north...

As for the Mexicans, they aren't trying to get here because of climate or lack of resources, they are trying to get here because of jobs, benefits, and American society.

The kids going to school in the dark issue is the reason that we don't have DST all year around.

youth crimes are largely committed between 3PM and 5PM.

According to this graph the peak is between 3-6PM on weekdays but it is not much different than any other segment between noon and midnight. From the graph approximately 73 youths were accused between noon and midnight. Of that, 21 (29%) occurred between 3 and 6. That is 4% over the expected average of 25%. Sorry but a 4% difference is not largely.

let kids go to school 1-2 hours later and get home later.

The problem with your solution is that parents could no longer take their kids to school in the winter as they need to be at school after the parent needs to be at work. The solution to that would be to shift the work day too but that would be the same as shifting the clock.

Anyone under the age of 30 who wants to make a life for themselves, in my oppinion, should live anywhere else in Canada.

Unless you go to university. Quebec has the second lowest tuition in the country. Somehow McGill classes are taught in English.

Quebec gets tons of free money from the feds to pay for this and free kindergarten, etc. If they didn't have this free money coming in from the ROC, tuition would be as high as it is everywhere.

Anyone under the age of 30 who wants to make a life for themselves, in my oppinion, should live anywhere else in Canada.

Unless you go to university. Quebec has the second lowest tuition in the country. Somehow McGill classes are taught in English.

Inflation is primariliy measured by changes to the CPI.

The CPI is calculated by taking a "basket of goods" that a consumer would buy.

This includes things like... a pint of milk, a loaf of bread, a gallon of gasoline, a pound of beef, a 600sqft apartment in downtown of several cities, a 1200sqft house in the suburbs of several cities.

Then you average it out and see if it changes over time.

How is that not cost of living?

Here is the actual basket and weighting from Canada:

http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/2301_D48_T9_V2-eng.htm

I'm sure the proposal is missing a few items, but in theory, it's a good one.

I don't know that a sales tax would generate enough revenue at palatable rates. The national Canadian sales tax (the GST) seems to generate a bit under $5 billion per percentage point ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/06/16/f-gst-cut-estimate-deficit.html ) but that does have various exemptions including groceries. While the total of the federal income tax and consumption tax seems to be a bit under $200 billion per year ($153 billion income tax, $43 billion consumption tax for 2009 for example - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt02a-eng.htm ) For 2011 it looks like the federal budget was about $270 billion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Canadian_federal_budget ).

Since basic groceries are currently non-GST taxed in Canada, we could get a bit more than $5 billion per tax percentage point. From ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/america-food-getting-cheaper-unless-youre-poor/4923/ ) we see that Canadians as a whole spend about 10% of their family budget on food at home. Since the $5 billion per percentage point does not include these groceries purchases, it only represents about 90% of purchases. If we taxed that food too, we should generate about $5.6 billion per percentage point. To generate $270 billion we would need to charge a rate of 48.2% on total purchases of about $560 billion.

Is this total purchases number reasonable? Stats Canada says ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil131a-eng.htm) the average family consumption for 2011 was about $55k for 13.3 million households ( http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011003_2-eng.cfm ) for $731 billion so this is not an unreasonable number. I'll use the $731 billion as it is probably more accurate than the calculation based on GST collection. So if we have $731 billion in purchases, we will need to collect at a 37% rate to generate $70 billion.

If you make exemptions for "necessities" the rate would need to be higher. How much higher? Well, if we want to exempt the necessities, one way would be to in some way not collect taxes on "basic needs", or give a rebate on the taxes paid for those amounts. We can get a figure for what these "basic needs" might cost ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada#Basic_needs_poverty_measure and http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=3443 for 2006 data) . Not taxing these "basic needs" would be "better" than just excepting categories like "food, gas, utilities" in that we would be able to collect taxes on food and gas and utilities beyond the "necessary" level - people buying "rice and beans" end up getting them without being taxed while those buy8ing caviar and foie gras get dinged by the tax-man. Yeah this might be hard to administer, but we are trying for the best possible argument for this type of system.

In 2006 this seemed to be about $16,000 per couple or for the whole population of a bit under 32 million, this would to about $256 billion in exempted purchases. Gosh, that's a big fraction of all purchases! Maybe the average family size is bigger than that? Actually, it seems to be about 2.5 for the whole country, b

I'm sure the proposal is missing a few items, but in theory, it's a good one.

I don't know that a sales tax would generate enough revenue at palatable rates. The national Canadian sales tax (the GST) seems to generate a bit under $5 billion per percentage point ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/06/16/f-gst-cut-estimate-deficit.html ) but that does have various exemptions including groceries. While the total of the federal income tax and consumption tax seems to be a bit under $200 billion per year ($153 billion income tax, $43 billion consumption tax for 2009 for example - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt02a-eng.htm ) For 2011 it looks like the federal budget was about $270 billion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Canadian_federal_budget ).

Since basic groceries are currently non-GST taxed in Canada, we could get a bit more than $5 billion per tax percentage point. From ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/america-food-getting-cheaper-unless-youre-poor/4923/ ) we see that Canadians as a whole spend about 10% of their family budget on food at home. Since the $5 billion per percentage point does not include these groceries purchases, it only represents about 90% of purchases. If we taxed that food too, we should generate about $5.6 billion per percentage point. To generate $270 billion we would need to charge a rate of 48.2% on total purchases of about $560 billion.

Is this total purchases number reasonable? Stats Canada says ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil131a-eng.htm) the average family consumption for 2011 was about $55k for 13.3 million households ( http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011003_2-eng.cfm ) for $731 billion so this is not an unreasonable number. I'll use the $731 billion as it is probably more accurate than the calculation based on GST collection. So if we have $731 billion in purchases, we will need to collect at a 37% rate to generate $70 billion.

If you make exemptions for "necessities" the rate would need to be higher. How much higher? Well, if we want to exempt the necessities, one way would be to in some way not collect taxes on "basic needs", or give a rebate on the taxes paid for those amounts. We can get a figure for what these "basic needs" might cost ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada#Basic_needs_poverty_measure and http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=3443 for 2006 data) . Not taxing these "basic needs" would be "better" than just excepting categories like "food, gas, utilities" in that we would be able to collect taxes on food and gas and utilities beyond the "necessary" level - people buying "rice and beans" end up getting them without being taxed while those buy8ing caviar and foie gras get dinged by the tax-man. Yeah this might be hard to administer, but we are trying for the best possible argument for this type of system.

In 2006 this seemed to be about $16,000 per couple or for the whole population of a bit under 32 million, this would to about $256 billion in exempted purchases. Gosh, that's a big fraction of all purchases! Maybe the average family size is bigger than that? Actually, it seems to be about 2.5 for the whole country, b

I'm sure the proposal is missing a few items, but in theory, it's a good one.

I don't know that a sales tax would generate enough revenue at palatable rates. The national Canadian sales tax (the GST) seems to generate a bit under $5 billion per percentage point ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/06/16/f-gst-cut-estimate-deficit.html ) but that does have various exemptions including groceries. While the total of the federal income tax and consumption tax seems to be a bit under $200 billion per year ($153 billion income tax, $43 billion consumption tax for 2009 for example - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt02a-eng.htm ) For 2011 it looks like the federal budget was about $270 billion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Canadian_federal_budget ).

Since basic groceries are currently non-GST taxed in Canada, we could get a bit more than $5 billion per tax percentage point. From ( http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/america-food-getting-cheaper-unless-youre-poor/4923/ ) we see that Canadians as a whole spend about 10% of their family budget on food at home. Since the $5 billion per percentage point does not include these groceries purchases, it only represents about 90% of purchases. If we taxed that food too, we should generate about $5.6 billion per percentage point. To generate $270 billion we would need to charge a rate of 48.2% on total purchases of about $560 billion.

Is this total purchases number reasonable? Stats Canada says ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil131a-eng.htm) the average family consumption for 2011 was about $55k for 13.3 million households ( http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011003_2-eng.cfm ) for $731 billion so this is not an unreasonable number. I'll use the $731 billion as it is probably more accurate than the calculation based on GST collection. So if we have $731 billion in purchases, we will need to collect at a 37% rate to generate $70 billion.

If you make exemptions for "necessities" the rate would need to be higher. How much higher? Well, if we want to exempt the necessities, one way would be to in some way not collect taxes on "basic needs", or give a rebate on the taxes paid for those amounts. We can get a figure for what these "basic needs" might cost ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada#Basic_needs_poverty_measure and http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=3443 for 2006 data) . Not taxing these "basic needs" would be "better" than just excepting categories like "food, gas, utilities" in that we would be able to collect taxes on food and gas and utilities beyond the "necessary" level - people buying "rice and beans" end up getting them without being taxed while those buy8ing caviar and foie gras get dinged by the tax-man. Yeah this might be hard to administer, but we are trying for the best possible argument for this type of system.

In 2006 this seemed to be about $16,000 per couple or for the whole population of a bit under 32 million, this would to about $256 billion in exempted purchases. Gosh, that's a big fraction of all purchases! Maybe the average family size is bigger than that? Actually, it seems to be about 2.5 for the whole country, b

Since when does fresh water not count as a natural resource? Quebec has the largest fresh water reserves in Canada (Statistics Canada) and largely contributes to Canada containing 3 of the world's renewable freshwater reserves (Environment Canada).

(FYI: there are more senators in Quebec than Alberta for historical reasons. This was adopted to ensure that both French- and English-speakers from Quebec were represented appropriately in the Senate Senate of Canada)

More guns = more suicides, whatever you think of the different methods the numbers seem to suggest guns make it easier/more tempting.

Romeo and Juliet, something like that? Those were successful all the way through. Does the society want them dead? Not really. But, darwinistically speaking, the society benefits from mentally stable people, not from head cases. Those *should* evolve out, in the grand scheme of things. Like taxes, if you support a certain behavior you get more of it. There are people who try to commit suicide repeatedly (and fail N-1 times out of that.) Then firemen are summoned, the police, and the doctors... what for? In the USA the Constitution guarantees your right for pursuit of happiness, but it does not define what form it may take. If you cannot live without your man|girl, don't. Will I be sad? Probably. But I cannot tell you to suffer for years, if not for the rest of your life, just because it is in my personal interests, either political or religious, to keep you alive. That would be awfully selfish of me. On that subject:

No, two people who didn't know eachother. They didn't have some illness, they weren't a drag on society, and I wouldn't call them particularly mentally unstable. They were just extremely depressed for a period. I'm sorry dude but you sound like a massive asshole. People who are so depressed they're willing to kill themselves and your solution is to give them a hand and act like you're some kind of altruist? Have you actually met someone who's attempted or committed suicide? You seem to be throwing out these cardboard stereotypes about suicidal people, criminals, old people, everyone. There's such insane variety around any kind of label you can imagine and you seem to be ignoring all of it.

I'm not sure where you live, but in most countries criminals cannot stop. There are the usual socioeconomic reasons for that. There is not enough jobs even for citizens who never jaywalked. What chance, in your opinion, a man with a burglary or a theft under his belt has? How many store managers will be happy to give him the keys to the money box? The only jobs that are left for them are menial jobs, like digging of ditches. Maybe one can become a licensed professional, like an electrician or a plumber, but that's not easy - there is a requirement for apprenticeship, and with that see above.

Can a criminal reform? Yes. Most of those success stories are from white collar crime, where for example an accountant made a "mistake" toward his own bank account. Just once in his whole life. He won't do that again. Kevin Mitnick is a good example. Some violent criminals embrace religion in prison and also become ex-criminals. The vast majority, however, is stuck in the vicious circle forever. They don't know how to live differently, and the society rejects them even if they try to end their wrong ways; they become career criminals.

That's a lovely four paragraph explanation explaining how criminals are criminals for life. Unfortunately it's simply not true, even for violent crime.

It doesn't matter how much you argue otherwise, crime is a symptom of youth and as they age people generally turn away from a life of crime. (I wouldn't be surprised if incarceration was negatively correlated with future offences but that's an unrelated debate).

They could have purchased TomTom, for example and had everything up and running immediately.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. From Apple's mapping attribution page:

© 2006-2012 TomTom
Business listings data © Acxiom, 2012.
Map data © AND.
Property parcel data for USA. © CoreLogic Inc., 2012.
Satellite imagery data © DigitalGlobe, 2012.
Map and postal data © DMTI, 2012. This software contains Postal Code OM Data copied by Apple under a sub-license from DMTI Spatial Inc., a party directly licensed by Canada Post Corporation. The Canada Post Corporation file from which this data was copied is dated 2012.
Business listings data © Factual 2012.
Map data © Getchee, 2012.
© INCREMENT P CORP., 2012, http://www.incrementp.co.jp/gc01info/e/legal01.html.
Map data © Intermap, 2012.
Map data © LeadDog, 2012.
Business listings data © Localeze, 2012.
Mapping data for Australia and New Zealand. © MapData Services Pty Ltd., 2012, PSMA http://www.nowwhere.com.au/lic/NowWhereLic.htm.
Map data © MDA Information Systems, Inc., 2012.
Neighborhood data © Urban Mapping, 2012.
Map data © 2012 Waze.
âoeReviews from Yelpâ Yelp, 2012.
(CanVec)
© Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved.
http://www.geogratis.gc.ca/geogratis/en/index.html
(CGIAR-CSI SRTM)
CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information, http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/
Flickr Shapefiles Public Dataset, Version 1.0, http://www.flickr.com/
(GeoNames)
GeoNames and contributors, http://www.geonames.org.
(GlobCover)
© ESA 2010 and UCLouvain, http://www.esa.int/esaEO/index.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://www.nasa.gov

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012. Contains Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/

(OSDM)
© Commonwealth of Australia, 2012. This data has been used with the permission of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has not evaluated the data as altered and incorporated within this software, and therefore gives no warranty regarding its accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose. http://spatial.gov.au

(OSM)
OpenStreetMap contributors, http://www.openstreetmap.org/
(StatCan)
Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.gc.ca
(TIGER/Line® fi

Actually, given the US's history, the proper recourse should be...

Let's turn this around. How would the country of origin handle illegal immigration? Let's take a close neighbor, Mexico, it's not like they would they spend $100 million flying people back.

America lets in more people than any other country in the world combined. Borders need to be enforced and laws applied evenly, to everyone. America granted amnesty to everyone who entered the country before, see Regan's Reform and Control Act of 1986. 35+ million people have immigrated since 1965. That's more than Canada's entire population which is currently estimated at 34 million. Imagine if 10% of your population wasn't there legally, California is near the same size population wise as Canada but has a larger economy.

I don't think it's right if you get caught committing a crime that it should be rewarded. You're advocating granting citizenship (or a greencard) ahead of anyone who is 'on the waiting list' who's following the rules? The only people who like waiting seem to be the Star Wars / Trek / LotR fans....

Paying taxes, of course, are optional as an American, as it is considered patriotic not to pay them, or 'in your best interests' to pay them; the choice is yours.

Most other countries require you to be a productive member of society. If you don't have any money, any education, or anything to really offer, most countries won't let you in. Why is that?

Hmmm.
So, lets see. You point to a wiki that gets its information from China. IOW, it is ONLY Chinese saying what is going on with Canada.
According to Canada's information that CIA gathered, Export to China is not even 4% as of 2010.
US 74.9%, UK 4.1% (2010)
In fact, Canada exported .5T in 2010, and of that, China was less than 10B. To be fair, that last number was in 7B 2006, but do you really think that China massively increased the imports from Canada? I seriously doubt it.

More importantly, most all that Canada exports to China is RESOURCES. Not products. China blocks that, esp. from the west.

The ignorant one would be the person ignoring facts and just making them up. That would be you.

All of the decisions made about our child are discussed at length in a rational manner. We always come to a resolution, and the average outcome shows that we are each "right" about half of the time. I suspect many people who are under 40, have a family, and live in a large urban centre may share that experience as gender-based roles have transformed in recent decades. Respecting your position, single-income households where the father is working must by necessity favour the mother in decisions regarding children. The opposite should be true for single-income households where the mother is working. In those cases "daddy knows best".

In 2010 11% of single income households had a stay-at-home dad.
In 1976, it was 1%.

Those numbers are for Canada, but I think in the USA the number is closer to 16% though the way the statistics were collected makes it hard to compare. I could only find one survey for the UK indicating 6% stay at home with the kids, but I'm not sure how representative that data is.

I think maybe you had your kids in the 70's? The times, they are a changin'.

Ethnically, compared to the US, you're still homogenous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom
vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
vs Canada (because its a bragging point for Canadians) http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-562/pages/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Count&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page

In the US, this is difficult to measure, because many "hispanics" consider themselves white, and answer censuses accordingly. Additionally, many mixed race folks will tick off multiple boxes, so totals don't come out to a nice neat 100%. So, skin color is really not the best answer, and ethnicity starts getting smeared in only one generation, so even though Mr Gomez may be proud of being Latino, he may not speak Spanish, cook/eat traditional Hispanic foods, and is married to Mrs Koloski, who's father was Polish and mother was half German-half English. It gets complicated. By Eurpean standards, the US is a vast mixing pot, the number 1 "ethnicity" is German, at 17%. Everything else trails down from there. And pretty much everything in the world is represented.

Basically:
US is about 70-75% "white", 25-30% "non-white"
UK is about 92% white, 8% non-white
Canada is about 83-84% white, 16-17% non-white

US has a broader mix of European heritage as well, and the white/non-white has a very grey edge to it. As far as immigration, the US has an estimated 10 million undocumented workers from Mexico alone. By definition, they are all immigrants (born in the US == automatic citizenship). Per captia, that would be like the UK having 1.5-2 million Polish plumbers, rather than the 500K that actually were in country at one time (if the Polish plumbers were in the country illegally - if you count legal immigrants, it would be more like 6 million, and you'd drop to 85% white or so).

Black seems to work in every situation except American politics. Black is used colloquially here, "African-American" tends to denote a formal situation that is possibly racially charged (so someone being careful or playing a race card).

Why does the SQ, the SPVM and the OPP all wants a copy of this useless boondoggle ? and by the way the goal was not to catch anyone but to reduce risk in case of domestic violence and mental health issues...

Which it has failed to do completely. In canada the vast majority aren't firearms, they're physical assaults. And the vast majority of gun offences are with hand guns. So, why do you want to use something that has done nothing but cost money? And has done nothing but to track lawfully abiding citizens who were already abiding the firearms laws on non-restricted, restricted, and forbidden weapons?

You do not hear about non event. You can only look at statistic and Edmonton is the city with the highest murder rate in Canada. And they have the one only police chief oppose to the register. If I was looking for efficiency in policing I would be looking at Guelph city and Quebec city and avoiding the western style of law enforcement like the failure it is... http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.pdf

Equality before the law is....

Already exists. What you're looking for is exemption outside of the law.

Do I have to remind you that marriage is part of the civil law and that there are no laws to propagate this obligation to religions.

Agreed, the HRC should be dissolve and existing laws and tribunal used instead...

I'm guessing you don't know what you're talking about. Since that's exactly what the HRC has already done. Go read up about s.13, get back to me.

Since when did the HRC (are we both talking about the Canadian Human Rights Commission) disband ?

I you ask me we should vitrify that place and just forget about it and never try to create a state using force again!

Balfour.

It is called dark humour, not every one likes it... Who would be stupid enough to detonate enough material to vitrify the whole middle east, it would provoke a nuclear winter ;)

Just like your post and mine !

Right...

It's called honesty...

There are 343,492 Canadians in Silicon Valley?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110622/dq110622a-eng.htm

> However, the severity of violent crimes has increased.

Has it?
"Both the severity and the volume of police-reported crime declined in 2009, continuing the general drop seen over the past decade (Chart 1)."
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11292-eng.htm

If we use your logic, this means that violent media decreases severity of violent crimes, so we should increase violent media.

Even $5 a gallon will not do it. Last time or time before that I was in Germany I was paying something like twice that.

Per capita energy consumption of the US is approximately double that of Germany, which if anything argues that high cost is highly effective in increasing efficiency.

The vast majority of Canada is unpopulated or sparsely populated. 90% of Canadians live in a 200 km strip along the U.S. border. Distance from Vancouver to Halifax is 4443 km, giving a 200 km strip an area of 888,600 sq km (which includes a lot of water, but ignore that). Canada's population is 33.2 million, 90% of that is 29.8 million. So 90% of Canadians live in a population density of 33.5 ppl / sq km. The U.S. has a population density of 32.1 ppl / sq km.

From net index site, the U.S. has an average connection speed of 10.16 Mbps. Canada has an average connection speed of 7.89 Mbps.

You guys really should read up on international politics once in a while. Not only does the EU wield enough power to do this, they have already done this against the US with steel- the European Union is estimated at 500 million people (2010), that is a really big export market, taxes need not rise 4000% to get the message across.

Canada primarily deals with U.S., any EU economic ties are relatively marginal compared to that. It's not really a big stick. Oh, sure, it would hurt, but nowhere near enough, especially since, once it's applied, it would become a matter of principle to not give in.

Also, such measures hurt the one applying them as well. Which is why they can only be used with noticeable effect in a situation where the other side is at a significant disadvantage (e.g. they primarily export to you, but you import from nay other places). Which is not the case here.

Then, of course, the laws being demanded would also have an economic effect, and one could easily argue that it would be negative overall.

Most of the US is inhabitable and there are actually people there. There are large swaths of Canada which don't have many people http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm . Now if these outliers are getting serviced at high speeds, then you are ABSOLUTELY right and we should be even more ashamed of our lack of progress.

Personally I think that politicians and broadband providers in the US are responsible for most of the hold ups.

You make a very good point. Some of this may just be different wiring, some of it is also likely social norms. Women in general still tend to take a larger roll in housework etc. - maybe it's just a time issue (although this is becoming less of the norm - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060719/dq060719b-eng.htm). In other words, maybe the fact that there are fewer women in FOSS development than men isn't necessarily evidence of greater sexism in the FOSS community and it's more a reflection of a different, external gender difference.

Could also be a remnant of old-school development teams too - when your entire team has been together since the start, it probably doesn't have too many females on it. There have been a couple of times I've wanted to submit some kernel patches (fairly minor stuff - I do driver development as part of my job so sometimes I see something here or there that could use a fix). I never have though, 'cause I know it won't get accepted. Not because I'm female necessarily - more because my name isn't morton or torvalds =).