We rotated treatments to kill them off. No single one could do it.

The mineral oil one was fairly successful.

There was a great herbal product called Quick Nits from Australia that could be applied and left in a cap overnight but it seemed to come and go from the Canadian market in just a couple of years.

One thing worth knowing is that heat and drying them out is effective. While there are protocols for blow dryers, old fashioned bonnet hair dryers are an another good way to kill them and the eggs as well as avoid infections.

After the first lice infestation, we literally tracked one down and had our kids our kids use it once a week while playing on a computer or tablet. It cut down the reinfections.

Surprised by some of the comments here.

Whether or not the solution being proposed is the best or only one is the question.

Instead several users are taking any discussion as being anti-democratic.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada raised concerns about how these long ballots were impeding the democratic process, including by presenting barriers to accessibility by voters.

This has become an increasing problem, with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s riding being targeted in 2019.

There seem to be two kinds of barriers:

• physical barriers to finding and marking the ballot of their choice
• becoming informed of the positions and intents of candidates when there are so many candidates that do not actually intend to serve as MPs.

The underlying issue seems to be that a small group of qualified voters in a targeted riding are nominating a very large number of candidates.

That is 60+ candidates put forward by the longest ballot group were all nominated by the same small number of voters.

Is this reasonable?

Democratic rights are balanced with responsibility under the Charter. Is it reasonable for a single voter to sign the nomination papers for 50 candidates or even 20.

Only being able to sign the papers for one candidate in one election period may be too limiting as not all candidates obtain enough signatures to be minor drop out later for other reasons.

Would limiting the right to sign nomination papers to 2 or 5 candidates be a reasonable balance under the Charter?

While this specific solution being proposed by this CPC member may be too restrictive, it seems worth a debate.

And perhaps the second issue of voters being able to reasonably obtain information about the intent and positions of candidates would be resolved if there were not so many nominated candidates.

The Rhinoceros party position that their candidates would resign if elected was well known so voters could make an informed choice. The current long ballot situation doesn’t offer that choice.

A proactive referral to the Supreme Court of Canada might be the best way to get an understanding of the balance of democratic rights. It would be best to have a read on what would be a reasonable limitation on both those who sign nominations and those who put themselves forward vs the responsibility to have accessible ballots with candidates who intend to serve before any changes to the the elections act is brought forward.

I feel as though the entire point of this was to make Canadians feel ashamed and discouraged on the day before our national holiday.

And in that Trump was successful. It’s brutal and bullying propaganda.

No success of realpolitik in negotiations can undo that.

The business community and media were calling the digital services tax an unforced error.

But the real unforced error is Carney getting played to do something destructive to national unity heading into Canada Day.

This is one of the few cases where his lack of political experience is showing. I’m wondering if his team will let him understand that and see the polling impact.

I have sent you a DM.

Good luck. Great grandparents born in Canada can be enough. That would make your grandparents ok your mother’s side citizens. (There have been some retroactive corrections of women’s loss of citizenship in marriage.)

Do you have a Canadian ancestor?

The 2023 Bjorkquist decision overturned the first generation limit to pass down citizenship. There is an Interim measure to accept applications for special grants of citizenship beyond one generation and there is a bill in Parliament to put in place a remedy to address the findings of the Superior Court of Ontario (which the federal government has not appealed).

Truly awful.

This office is part of a complex that includes a Coastal Health urgent care clinic and other provincial government services.

This office is street facing but seems to back against the urgent health care centre.

My point is that the principle of existing homeowners funding infrastructure for new homes is only tenable when

• developers are not creating huge externalities by creating ever larger suburbs with infrastructure funded by the core (take Ottawa as an example for that dynamic)
• when the base of established homeowners is large enough to support the rate of growth.

In the first case, development fees based on lot size for new sprawling burbs are a reasonable way to push the market towards density.

In the second case, with a high rate of growth in a specific market, other means of redistribution such as government subsidies may be a better way to redistribute.

But you’re not in agreement with charging the full economic cost of the sprawl to the homeowners who choose to live there?

We’re in Ottawa, so that may be an exception, but generally here it’s been extraordinarily expensive to develop the suburbs beyond the greenbelt, and until the development fees were increased in the late 90s, studies showed that new homeowners only bore about 1/5th of the cost.

Much of the development classification from farmland was effectively unplanned and forced through by suburban municipal councils before the amalgamation in the 1990s.

The costs of extending utilities across the National Capital Commission lands was extraordinary and no one inside the greenbelt benefited. A major bridge had to be built because the traffic impact was not considered etc.

There have been more recent improvements such as the retroactive construction of separate wastewater and storm water systems in the core that benefit everyone by keeping sewage out of the rivers.

The O-train construction unfortunately has been a burden on all without the benefits that should come with a modern rapid transit system.

We live in a society - yes.

But that’s the reason many of the development fees were put in back in the 1970s and 80s - there were significant equity issues where the exponentially growing new shiny suburbs were built on the property taxes of a much smaller base of urban homeowners who were left with old, inferior and unmaintained city infrastructure.

So, let’s seriously consider whether what the equity issues are now and whether those fees are reasonable cost recovery for infrastructure vs a tax cash grab - or if there’s enough of a base of established homeowners that they could carry the development costs for new homes through reasonable tax increases.

Actually, they did not get subsidized by prior generations of owners - unless you’re talking about people in their 90s.

That’s what the development fees and taxes were put in place for - especially in places where extending services out across greenbelts into suburbs was incredibly costly.

Having crumbling roads and community infrastructure in the core and polished, higher quality infrastructure in the burbs was an equity issue that was taken on in the 1970s, long before my generation was anywhere near buying homes.

I do think it’s fair to have lower development fees where there’s densification - that bringing more people to use and support existing infrastructure.

But subsidizing sprawl remains as problematic as it was in the 1960s.

Last thought, Intergenerational Inequity wa ma first recognized and discussed in the 1990s regarding GenX.

GenX remains the most ignored generation but the fact is that the generation suffered two very deep recessions in 1983 and 1987-1991 plus faced incredibly high (18%) interest rates and inflation in the 1980s. This meant that none of them were buying homes before their 40s without the help of parents. While Canadian GenX ducked the US mortgage-backed securities disaster in 2008, it’s really a false narrative to suggest they are or have been in the ‘I’m all right Jack, devil take the hindmost’ frame of mind. If anything, they know the social safety nets and equity provisions were the only thing that made things possible for them.

Explain to me please why existing owners should subsidize the building of city infrastructure in new developments.

I don’t live in Toronto but building new sewers, water systems, roads, community centres etc. shouldn’t be funded by existing taxpayers who still have above ground utility cables and no sidewalks.

Garbage dumps are close to the grid and the users.

Many of the worst offenders are very old wells, as much as a century old. Their original owners are long gone which is how governments ended up being burdened with capping them.

Like many old toxic mines, the creators of the problems have evaded legal liability by going out of business. Legal frameworks may be more rigorous now but the old wells and mines remain.

Some of the oldest wells, like the ones near Petrolia in SW Ontario, might be economically viable for methane power generation. Others in Saskatchewan and Alberta are likely not.

You’re welcome. The Bjorkquist decision implications aren’t that well known. I wouldn’t be aware if we weren’t trying to help some extended family figure it out z

Yes, your Quebecois ancestors would be considered Canadian-born.

But this opportunity to seek citizenship may be time limited as it’s an interim measure in place until the government can pass legislation to amend the citizenship act to address the issues found in the Bjorkquist decision.

Your ancestors wouldn’t have birth certificates as there wasn’t civil registration of births at that time but there is a database of baptismal records (which are valid for proof of birth from that time).

That subreddit has several people who have applied based on great-great grandparents who were born in the 19th century.

Best to look at the FAQs there. The forms are on the IRCC site but the information isn’t easily navigated around the interim measure.

You may wish also to check out whether you may be able to claim citizenship by descent under an Interim measure related to the Bjornquist ‘Lost Canadians’ decision.

It requires one Canadian-born ancestor (not a child of other countries foreign service).

While I wouldn’t usually recommend Reddit, the r/CanadianCitizenship subreddit has a useful FAQ on the Interim Measure and people posting about their experiences with the process.

You absolutely are missing the point.

It doesn’t matter what we’d like it to be.

Claiming a statistical account measures chickens when it measures albatrosses and then making inferences about chickens, would be silly.

Likewise, using labour productivity figures from the national income accounts.

Nothing to say that the points you and others are raising aren’t both much more relevant and interesting.

But when the business press drags out labour productivity comparisons as if they have anything meaningful to say on the subject, it’s a non sequitur to the conversation you’d really like to have.

Whatever the problems with the old definitions, and they are numerous, they remain the way the national accounts are published in OECD countries.

But so are too the conventions of generally accepted accounting principles for financial accounting.

These are the way our data sources are framed so to do meaningful data analysis and interpretation we have to know them.

Business schools are not immune or exempt from understanding where the data comes from and how it’s constructed. Any good business school in whatever tradition will make sure its students understand that at least.

It’s one thing be such a pedant as to make students switch from conventional and do basic microeconomics with the P and Q axes reversed (as they logically should be), just to correct a deeply embedded error in the history of economic practice - and there are profs out there who do that.

It’s another thing to be insistent on what is actually in a measure that calls itself ‘labour productivity’ and is used by uninformed or deliberately misleading business press in Canada to beat on the labour force itself when the structural issues are completely different.

It would be worth discussing if the business press didn’t constantly misinterpret the meaning of measure.

Fair enough.

There are genuine questions about whether or not the federal government should have given in to the provinces and territories in the 1990s regarding vocational and labour market training.

Both of these, and post secondary, are federal jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction at best. (But accreditation of professional associations and credentials is provincial.)

The federal government did its best to continue to directly fund these kinds of programs but the provinces, especially but not exclusively Quebec, felt strongly that this was preventing them to set their own socioeconomic development priorities.

It sounds like both the CPC and LPC federal parties had platforms that look to have the federal government step back into this space.

One has to wonder if they view the agreements they made to transfer labour market training to the provinces and territories as something they can pull back or wind up…

On the agriculture point, let’s say I am more than qualified to speak to economic terminology.

So, it may be pedantic, but it’s important to understand where economics definitions come from.

Some like labour productivity and economic rents are irrevocably tied to their origins in agricultural economic concepts.

Which means that when applied to a manufacturing or service economy, peoples’ intuition about their meaning can be very wrong.

When we’re teaching economics, we talk about ‘developing economic intuition’ but it would be much easier for students if we didn’t have to counter so many counterintuitive terms.

I was absolutely dumbfounded at the time.

There was so much revealing racism and more in that statement, but also American Exceptionalism and willingness to do anything to get a gold medal.