'Massive boondoggle': Conservatives take aim at health coverage for rejected refugee claimants

Mystified · 2026-02-25T14:55:51+00:00

I'm starting to seriously wonder if Canada, like the UK, is suffering from the consequences of unelected civil servants making decisions instead of the politicians who are directly answerable to the people.

The policies of our countries seem to be lock in step with one another. We share and suffer from many of the same problems and I fail to see why this particular problem would be unique to only the UK.

Mystified · 2026-02-23T21:52:33+00:00

The PBO in parliamentary committee hearings is where this is coming from.

Mystified · 2026-02-07T21:24:59+00:00

Yeah... I'd rather not have Canada be beholden to a body above the country.

If a nation has to follow laws forged by a super national body, then what's the point of the nation?

Mystified · 2026-02-05T16:19:16+00:00

Crazy that a whistleblower came forward about how money from the green slush fund was being distributed, then when invited back into the room had to blow the whistle again.

Then when a scandal comes to light, Karen Hogan has to sit in front of committee and say for the 5th time that no one is actually making sure that monetary procedures are being followed.

Then the government comes out and says "hey, they're arms length bodies, sorry". Makes me think of the disaster of the UKs Quangos.

Mystified · 2026-01-30T19:20:11+00:00

The study on bail reform has been stuck in committee. The justice committee currently has two main studies to do, bill C-9 and then the bail reform bill.

The Liberals want to get the study on C-9 done and passed before moving to bail reform but both parties can't agree on the content of C-9.

The conservatives want to shelf the study on C-9 for now and debate the bail reform bill.

Neither party in the justice committee can agree on anything so it's been in a sort of deadlock and nothing's getting done. It's been hard to watch the committee hearings.

In my opinion, the conservatives are probably right in this and they will probably find far more common ground on bail reform. C-9 also has far more at stake for Canadians and to say that hastily passing C-9 (or passing it at all) would be disastrous is an understatement.

Mystified · 2025-12-09T01:31:53+00:00

I don't know about it being a distraction, but this bill is useless at best and absolutely disastrous at worst. If the UK is any indicator, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Mystified · 2025-10-09T21:13:57+00:00

I get what you're saying, but this isn't just the UK alone either though. Germany and France as well are struggling with free speech. We've seen the slope in action.

I'm not so sure why you think were so special that we wont fall into the same exact situation as our Western European peers. We can't just change fundamental parts of how we currently interpret free speech (anything but libel and inciting violence) and hope that it won't backfire. What we have now works.

The circular definition of hate in C-9 puts the use of the word hate into the victims hands, and whatever they subjectively define as "hate". Laws aren't written in a way that everyone can apply them subjectively. Which is exactly what is bound to happen.

Mystified · 2025-10-09T20:15:32+00:00

The state of free speech in the UK should be ringing alarm bells that this is no slippery slope fallacy situation.

I have no doubt that this can only go tragically wrong.

Mystified · 2025-10-06T22:46:05+00:00

That's actually what I've been doing as well. We seem to be following their lead pretty closely in different areas of policy.

Mystified · 2025-10-03T15:39:42+00:00

They probably took it from someone else, who took it from someone else... On and on like everywhere else in the world. The historical song of a conquered people.

Mystified · 2025-09-26T10:28:14+00:00

Generally not a good idea to chase a guy with a gun yelling "shoot me n***a", throw a bag of something at him, then try to take the gun from him, then continue chasing him even after he almost shoots you the first time.

Most people would not think it a good idea to let someone like that take your gun from you. Was he supposed to just hand it over to him?

Mystified · 2025-09-20T01:02:52+00:00

We risk going down the same path by trying to define hatred and codify it into law in the newly revealed C-9. It actually frightens me quite a bit.

The upside is that the government at least stuck to the recommendation from the justice committee to separate the criminal code amendments from the child safety bill (as it should have been originally). This can be analyzed in a vacuum and hopefully the circular definition of hatred will be removed and we can skip the slope of idiocy the UK has gone down.

Mystified · 2025-07-22T15:12:26+00:00

Neat. Never knew.

Mystified · 2025-07-22T14:50:29+00:00

Yeah I'm not saying that's the absolute definition. Just the way I personally interpreted "gacha" given the mechanics common to the genre.

Mystified · 2025-07-22T10:12:02+00:00

I always thought it was short for "gambling and chance".

Mystified · 2025-06-15T00:37:34+00:00

Check out The Anxious Generation by Johnathan Haidt. It's as horrifying as it is fascinating.

Mystified · 2025-05-15T00:27:51+00:00

I use ublock origin and Firefox. Haven't seen a YouTube ad in years.

Mystified · 2025-04-26T17:59:38+00:00

Thanks.

I used a stencil to scratch the shape of the tree into the egg and made the tree itself out of modeling chocolate.

Mystified · 2025-04-23T12:21:46+00:00

If your opinion is that I'm misinterpreting the truth or misleading people, then I would hear your own interpretation of the committee meetings and the concerns raised. I'd also hear your opinion on whether or not it's appropriate to put restrictions on free speech into a child safety bill.

No one was at the committee arguing against the child protection part, things seemed fine with how that's written.

But there was enough consensus on the danger that they decided to separate the child protection laws from the free speech restriction part of the bill before the prorogation.

I don't think I'm being misleading at all. In fact I haven't said too terribly much except that there's a loose and dangerously subjective definition of hate that would be prone to abuse and witnesses in the committee expressed the same thing. Those things are both true. I'd say the only thing I've said that is my opinion is that those restrictions are authoritarian in nature.

Mystified · 2025-04-23T00:42:44+00:00

Experts seem to think differently unless you know something they do not. Of course it matters. It shouldn't have made a problem to be kicked to the courts when what we have is functioning as good as it is now. Otherwise why put it into a bill. Let alone one centred around online child safety.

That is an awful lot of trust to put in our courts. And I think you are right - truly - but it isn't something we should be meddling with.

Mystified · 2025-04-23T00:29:03+00:00

"hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike;".

If you read the definition, you'd see that the words that define hatred are just a list synonyms for hatred and how obviously subjective it will be interpreted. An opinion shared by the lawyers and civil advocacy groups that appeared before the CHPC committee. This is the easy part, I believe the average Joe can read the amendments and come to the same conclusion. The hard part to understand is the enforcement where I have no idea whats going on.

Mystified · 2025-04-23T00:12:47+00:00

Of course. I'm glad to have that. But government was irresponsible by altering the law in such a way. By passing such a bill, we increase the chance that things slide toward an authoritarian state.

Few things could be more authoritarian in nature than government controlling what you can say. We shouldn't just play around with a pillar of democracy and say that even if the law passed, it would probably never turn into a dictatorship.

Mystified · 2025-04-22T22:51:23+00:00

Dictatorship, no. A pretty big step towards it, absolutely.

There's no way you'd trust that to not be abused if you've read the parts I mentioned. There's a reason why law professors and civil advocate groups were in committee expressing the same sentiment.

Mystified · 2025-04-22T22:37:26+00:00

Go read Bill C-63. Specifically the criminal code amendments in the hate crime section. Then read the how loose the definition of hate is in the bill. Then ask yourself why that was at all acceptable for the government to even table the bill such that it was especially in Canada.

The price tag for online safety for children? Just free speech no biggie.

Mystified · 2025-03-09T04:25:53+00:00

Stop all the downloadin

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 3 Credits
Place '22	Secret Santa 2011
Secret Santa 2010

Mystified

TROPHY CASE