Good point, Aaron. I love dogs/cats/animals but worry a tad about husky dogs and such when I imagine them in cramped pads downtown most days: not the life for a dog built to run miles and miles up north. Also, de-barking dogs...even if out of consideration for neighbours, it's not considerate to the dog. Hamsters, at least, won't bark.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.This isn't about VIA. It's very difficult for online media to survive, and their coverage about Olympic Village is not the issue. We set out to shine light on the difficult truth about what it's really like to find and sell real estate in Vancouver. Every city has its problems, and this is one of Vancouver's most serious and pressing. We will be covering the issue more throughout 2013.
I'm sure the people calling Leisel Jones fat would love to submit their own bodies to public opinion. She's in that bathing suit to swim, not be a bikini model.
Thanks for inquiring. Yes, it's a really confusing issue but here's the response/explanation from the CIC:
"... the first Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January 1, 1947, marking the beginning of Canadian citizenship as a legal status. Prior to 1947 people born or naturalized in Canada were considered to be British subjects. On January 1, 1947, in general, those who were born or naturalized in Canada before that date became Canadian Citizens."
This worked out for the vast majority of Canadians, but take a woman like Jackie Scott. She was born in 1945, back when her father was supposedly a British subject (even though he was given materials from the Canadian government talking about how he's a citizen fighting for the country). To compound matters, she was born out of wedlock even though her father and British war bride mother married shortly afterward and raised her as would any other family.
So what Kenney's saying is that everyone in Canada was a British subject at the time and then became Canadian after 1947 "in general". Scott, being born abroad and out of wedlock, didn't qualify for this "in general" part. Although she has appealed her case numerous times, the government has so far yet to give her citizenship.
In addition to that, there were other strange loopholes, such as being stripped of citizenship if you were a born-abroad Canadian who wasn't in Canada on your 24th birthday, although that issue has been fixed for most Canadians.
For more, please see: http://blog.lostcanadian.com/2010/01/12-ways-to-lose-your-citizenship.html
It's not just Lululemon (and as an Asian in response to @Sherry, I don't think that company's just catering to Asians: they'd go out of business if the market was that narrow. We're not all into yoga).
High-end designer clothes, if I'm not mistaken, also don't really do sizes larger than 16 UK (which is actually not that big). Read this story from the UK about an average-sized woman being turned out of Chanel and Louis Vuitton because apparently, super-rich women don't get fat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1176973/Too-fat-fashion-How-Tanya-Gold-size-sixteen-shunned-designer-brands.html
Thanks for all the comments. Just a note that the WikiLeaks emails aren't about China per se. The Stratfor analyst is saying that if it does end up being that amount, he predicts Chinese companies (such as Sinopec, PetroChina) would have to contribute that amount.
Okay, I get it. You don't like the Fraser Institute and you don't like the Koch brothers. But why the biased, one-sided, one-source articles straight out of first-year journalism school? Why are you relying on straw man arguments: Koch evil = Fraser Institute evil. Nowhere have you provided a convincing argument that there is anything wrong or incorrect about the Koch brothers operations or the Fraser Institute reserach. You don't like Koch's politics so therefore, in your eyes, they are bad and the fact they donate money to the Fraser Institute is also bad. Seems like a pretty immature line of reasoning. But given the Observer's blantant left-wing politics and low standards of writing, I guess that shouldn't be surprising.
Thanks, Tubby, for your input. But from our perspective these aren't "straw man" arguments: the current government has been attacking -- pretty strongly, in fact -- environmental organizations based on the fact that they've received foreign funding. David Suzuki, as you've seen, has been demonized for being too political. We're asking why the pro-oil and Conservative organizations have been allowed to do the same without scrutiny.
It is an April Fool's joke, please don't worry about the law coming into effect! It was published on April 1 as a humour piece.
Thanks for your input, we've changed it to "Travel". It is an article explaining how to get around sustainably should a traveler visit France, but you bring up a good point.
@We dont want your oyl
So regarding "dirty Canuck oil"...if you read some of the news reports here you would know that many Canadians staged protests against this oil pipeline as well. Some Canadians have been arrested for it. Meanwhile, many in the U.S. are furious that the deal looks like it will not go through.
- 1 of 3