[Northern Light]

I was expecting to read about flooding caused by the lack of groundcover and soil damage caused by the area's wildfire a few years ago. One would think a higher power is saying folks shouldn't live there. Seriously, that's the problem when you build near a watercourse, particularly one that drains out of the mountains. "once in a century" seems to becoming a common phrase these days.

Indeed!

I used to live in Fredericton, NB and every year much of the city's waterfront would flood and down by Gagetown. I would question, why, why when we have such a massive and mostly uninhabited country do we build on flood plains? I bought my Fredericton house way up on the hill.

Intelligent choice on your part.

And an intelligent question.

To be fair, some of these communities were built next to the water when there were no pumps to push the water uphill and you needed to be on the same level for home-use or industrial use.

That said, times and technology have changed.

We certainly shouldn't build anything else in higher-risk floodplains; and should, generally move to buy people out who live in them.

Where there would be a completely absurd expense, and tremendous loss if we abandoned a historic downtown or such, we ought to have proper mitigation in place.

See Winnipeg and Duff's Ditch. An extreme measure; but lots could be done, at a smaller scale and in a more aesthetically-pleasing way to mitigate risk.

You can create a low-lying park just upstream of the area you want to save, that's natural, with flood-tolerant species, and an overflow channel that goes into it.

That could significantly reduce flooding frequency and severity and serve as a lovely natural walking area most of the rest of the time.

 

[lenaitch]

Indeed!



Intelligent choice on your part.

And an intelligent question.

To be fair, some of these communities built next to the water when there were no pumps to push the water uphill and you needed to be on the same level for home-use or industrial use.

That said, times and technology have changed.

We certainly shouldn't build anything else in higher-risk floodplains; and should, generally move to buy people out who live in them.

Where there would be a completely absurd expense, and tremendous loss if we abandoned a historic downtown or such, we ought to have proper mitigation in place.

See Winnipeg and Duff's Ditch. An extreme measure; but lots could be done, at a smaller scale and in a more aesthetically-pleasing way to mitigate risk.

You can create a low-lying park just upstream of the area you want to save, that's natural, with flood-tolerant species, and an overflow channel that goes into it.

That could significantly reduce flooding frequency and severity and serve as a lovely natural walking area most of the rest of the time.

Yes, historic low-tech' water access as well as river transportation. In Fredericton's case, and possibly many others, I don't know if the historic natural seasonal freshet has been improved or aggravated by dams. I agree with the Admiral; I would much rather buy a property on high ground with a nice view of water. It's also likely cheaper.

For historic communities, it would be an extremely costly public undertaking to raze entire neighbourhoods. A mentioned earlier, none of this applies to Fort Mac which only dates back a few decades. Toronto pretty much learned its floodplain zoning lesson after Hurricane Hazel. I saw a Fort Mac resident being interviewed on TV, where she said she called her insurance company and found out they don't have flood insurance because they built on a floodplain. It struck me as a particularly bad time to be asking that question for the first time.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, historic low-tech' water access as well as river transportation. In Fredericton's case, and possibly many others, I don't know if the historic natural seasonal freshet has been improved or aggravated by dams. I agree with the Admiral; I would much rather buy a property on high ground with a nice view of water. It's also likely cheaper.

For historic communities, it would be an extremely costly public undertaking to raze entire neighbourhoods. A mentioned earlier, none of this applies to Fort Mac which only dates back a few decades. Toronto pretty much learned its floodplain zoning lesson after Hurricane Hazel. I saw a Fort Mac resident being interviewed on TV, where she said she called her insurance company and found out they don't have flood insurance because they built on a floodplain. It struck me as a particularly bad time to be asking that question for the first time.

re: Fort Mac and the history and politics of floodplain building:

Fortress McMurray: After decades of building on the floodplain, a city moves to protect itself from its capricious rivers

If all goes according to plan, in a few years Fort McMurray will be a walled city. The anticipated cost: nearly $300-million

www.theglobeandmail.com

Note the year - 2019. Mr. Hough lost that race.

AoD

 

[Videodrome]

But both are smears based in slander, so why bother.

What about Wack Andy?

I like Yankee Doodle Andy.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Ok, that one's good!

Nice one!

 

[Videodrome]

Braid: Poll shows Dr. Deena Hinshaw's a smash hit, while government popularity lags

A new poll from Marc Henry’s ThinkHQ shows fully 88 per cent of Albertans approve her handling of COVID-19.

calgaryherald.com

Kenney is barely more popular than Trudeau in Alberta

 

[tiffer24]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today announced a ban on some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade "assault-style" weapons in Canada, effective immediately.

Starting today, licensed gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sorts of weapons in this country.

"As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed," Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said. "Enough is enough. Banning these firearms will save Canadian lives."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131

 

[Videodrome]

Works for me!

 

[Northern Light]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today announced a ban on some 1,500 makes and models of military-grade "assault-style" weapons in Canada, effective immediately.

Starting today, licensed gun owners will no longer be allowed to sell, transport, import or use these sorts of weapons in this country.

"As of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed," Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said. "Enough is enough. Banning these firearms will save Canadian lives."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131

Good, as far as it goes.

Now, if we begin to enact the gun control legislation we already passed 10 months ago.............

We can move on to addressing handguns!

 

[PinkLucy]

These are existing rules that people who now find themselves working from home can take advantage of. They're not specific to COVID 19. Just to clarify.

 

[lenaitch]

Good, as far as it goes.

Now, if we begin to enact the gun control legislation we already passed 10 months ago.............

We can move on to addressing handguns!

If you are thinking of Bil C-71, it was enacted in June of last year; however, there is apparently a bunch regulations that have to be developed that would likely impact several parts of the legislation.

I would be interested to see any legislation that proposes to allow municipalities to ban handguns within their borders. Only from an academic perspective (I'm not directly effected one way or the other - I got rid of my handguns several years ago), because there is traditionally a Justice Department background legal analysis on introduced bills that, in addition to other elements, discusses Charter implications. It would be interesting how they would view such a Bill in relation the Section 15 (Equity). Of course, no one ever knows for certain until a case ends up in the SCOC.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Works for me!

Works for the black market as well!

It's like drug prohibition: lol, best of luck.

 

[Northern Light]

If you are thinking of Bil C-71, it was enacted in June of last year; however, there is apparently a bunch regulations that have to be developed that would likely impact several parts of the legislation.

I would be interested to see any legislation that proposes to allow municipalities to ban handguns within their borders. Only from an academic perspective (I'm not directly effected one way or the other - I got rid of my handguns several years ago), because there is traditionally a Justice Department background legal analysis on introduced bills that, in addition to other elements, discusses Charter implications. It would be interesting how they would view such a Bill in relation the Section 15 (Equity). Of course, no one ever knows for certain until a case ends up in the SCOC.

I was, and my point was that some regulations are taking too long to deliver.

The minister let slip that they were hoping for budget money to implement the regulations in the now pre-empted budget.

Not a fan of this way of doing things. You pass a law, that should come with a supplementary spending estimate to implement said law.

No excuses.

 

[Northern Light]

Works for the black market as well!

It's like drug prohibition: lol, best of luck.

I don't think they are equatable that way.

We have clear evidence from multiple countries that have implemented more substantial gun control that you can indeed drive the amount of violent crime down.

This is the case for a number of reasons.

1) Guns in a black market are typically way more expensive than drugs.

2) Relatively few people have a physiological additions to guns

3) Those who don't but want them anyway (say street gangs) tend to be capable of risk/reward analysis. They are profit-machines. If the penalty for possessing or using firearms is high enough, it adversely affects the bottom line to go there.

These don't apply to products where pre-existing addiction is a motivating factor.

To be clear:

a) Gun control does not eliminate the ability of criminals to get a gun; it simply makes it more expensive and more challenging which reduces the proportion of criminals who end up choosing to get/use one.

b)This order-in-council is far more show than substance; but that doesn't make it bad, simply inadequate.

 

[SunriseChampion]

These don't apply to products where pre-existing addiction is a motivating factor.

This doesn't take into the account the vast majority of drug use which is not based in addiction, but yeah, the two aren't quite the same idea. It's true.


I'm assuming you're thinking primarily of Australia in terms of countries that implemented something like this and drove gun crime downward. I know that's a very good example. Are there others?