When asked whether his government would require porn websites to verify the age of users, Poilievre gave a one-word answer: “Yes.”
He didn’t offer further explanation, and his office quickly followed up with a clarifying statement asserting that the Tories don’t believe in the imposition of a digital ID.
Sooooo a pop-up that says “Are you 18 or over? Yes / No”?
Or will he decide that Yes, digital IDs are something we believe in afterall?
He’s doing the typical conservative move of saying one thing to reporters and then his office releasing a statement saying another. That way the people who don’t like porn can refer to his answer to the question and those who do can refer to his office’s statement.
If you shop online you’re likely familiar with the experience — you agree to buy for a certain price, but by the time you check out, the cost has ballooned with fees and surcharges.
Place a shipping order with Canada Post and you might be hit with a “fuel surcharge” of almost 25 per cent. Buy movie tickets, flowers, make travel plans — all could be subject to hidden fees that are subsequently added to the originally quoted cost.
Critics call it drip pricing, a strategy that has been deemed unlawful. Consumers now have the power to fight back, with multiple class-action lawsuits filed in British Columbia targeting the practice.
Vancouver lawyer Saro Turner, who is involved in some of the drip-pricing lawsuits, says more are likely on the way.
“The average consumer is not a mathematician,” he said in an interview. “Companies that have a significant volume of commerce have to show the price in a meaningful way, not in a deceptive and misleading way.”
Turner said the path to the lawsuits was paved by June 2022 changes to the federal Competition Act, that now explicitly labels undisclosed fees and surcharges that make advertised prices “unattainable” as a “harmful business practice.”
The amendments mean Canadians can now launch class actions against companies that advertise unattainable prices, then tack on mandatory fees as consumers click through to buy products or services.
Turner’s firm has drip-pricing cases pending against online florist Bloomex, travel site Omio, and Cineplex.
“I think there probably wasn’t an awareness just about how pervasive (drip pricing) was,” he said. “People are upset about it.”
In another lawsuit filed in Vancouver in Federal Court, customers accuse Canada Post of violating the Competition Act’s anti-drip-pricing provision with the fuel surcharge it adds to shipping charges.
On its website, Canada Post offers three price options for regular, express or priority deliveries. For example, posting a three-kilogram package within Vancouver is listed as costing $14.11 for regular, $17.91 for express and $27.47 for priority shipping, before tax.
But no matter which option is selected, Canada Post then adds a 24.5 per cent fuel surcharge.
The before-tax prices increase to $17.57, $22.30 and $34.20.
Canada’s Competition Bureau has already taken a number of firms and industries to task over drip pricing, for example, penalizing vehicle rental companies millions in 2017 and 2018.
In November 2023, the bureau announced an $825,000 fine against ticket reseller Ticket Nation for drip pricing, finding that the company misleadingly advertised prices that were inflated up to 53 per cent by undisclosed fees.
Ticketmaster was penalized $4 million in 2019, and reseller StubHub was fined $1.3 million for similar conduct in 2020.
Last year, the Commissioner of Competition Matthew Boswell took Cineplex to the Competition Tribunal over online ticket sales that include a mandatory “online booking fee,” though Cineplex has denied wrongdoing.
“Consumers expect to pay the advertised price. We’re taking action against Cineplex because misleading tactics like drip pricing only serve to deceive and harm consumers,” Boswell said in a news release at the time.
“For years, we have urged businesses, including ticket vendors, to display the full price of their products upfront.”
In the case filed against Bloomex in March, the class represented by Turner’s firm alleges the florist wrongfully adds a $1.99 surcharge to customers’ orders. The lawsuit says the fee is described as being “used to offset rising costs of product, handling, and delivery.”
Advertising a lower price before adding the charge is “false and misleading” of Bloomex, the lawsuit says.
The case was filed in Federal Court in Vancouver days after Bloomex was fined $894,000 by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for misleading consumers with such pricing, among other things.
Another proposed class action, also filed last month in Vancouver, alleges Omio wrongfully advertises lower prices before adding a “service fee” to final prices.
It cites an example of a plane ticket from Vancouver to Toronto advertised initially on Omio’s website for $281, before applying the service fee that boosts the cost to $300.75.
Canada Post, Omio and Bloomex did not respond to requests for comment on the lawsuits. The lead plaintiff in the Canada Post case declined to comment, and their lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.
Canada’s Competition Bureau declined an interview request.
More changes to the Competition Act are winding their way through parliament, and Turner said they will allow consumers to seek damages from companies that abuse their “market dominance” and firms that make fake claims of environmental benefits of their products or services, known as “greenwashing.”
He said public officials can’t necessarily prosecute every case due to limited resources, but the competition law changes allow private law firms and consumers to go after companies directly.
“Where you’re a small consumer, you lose $1.50 or three bucks or whatever, some small amount up against a mega corporation, how do you enforce that?” he said. “Class actions come in and they incentivize lawyers … to gather together a bunch of people who have a small loss, jumble them into one group and start a lawsuit. Now, all of a sudden, the economics work.”
“You’re the victim. You can get your buck fifty, whereas before you could not.”
Good. I’d rather not open our already overwhelmed healthcare system to people who aren’t paying into it and aren’t even citizens or permanent residents.
I was managing a condo and we had a car theft. Luckily we had hd footage of the thieves entering the garage, working on the theft. We had clear faces, time stamps, getaway vehicle make and model with plates.
We called the police and it took them almost a week to visit us. They couldn’t even be bothered to pretend they gave a shit. They wanted the footage, couldn’t wait to leave and told us there’s nothing much they can do but make a report. I’m sure the footage and report just went into a drawer forever
It should be highly noted that despite the substantial danger he poses to everyone, especially children, the courts decided it was OK to release this animal into the general population.
Until we start holding judges responsible for the actions of those set free, this “justice” system doesn’t benefit anyone except those committing crimes.
EDIT: Has Keith’s friends found this post? What’s up with the downvotes? Stop defending this violent pedophile.
Obviously he got arrested again at least once at some point because here we are talking about him getting released again.
Also from that 2nd article: “He was also convicted in 2000 of sexually assaulting a young boy and of sexually assaulting a 45-year-old blind woman in separate incidents.” So this goes back even father than I what I can find just on google. Serial rapist catch-and-release for over two decades. Canada’s legal system is a joke.
On March 31, 2023, the Ontario government terminated the Physician and Hospital Services for Uninsured Persons (PHSUP) program, which provided healthcare access to undocumented individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving Rivero without coverage.
Drug Fraud hard at work to save those tax dollars that he needs to bribe his rich-assed “friends” with.
personally, i am happy to have my taxes pay for undocumented, non-tax-paying humans who need healthcare... mostly because i care about humans regardless of their tax paying status and that i dont think any humans should have to pay directly for healthcare.
'fair'? whatever.
this guys experience is actually a step backward not forward. stop thinking backwards.
Same here and I felt the same way when I saw the story in the news.
I’d rather see tens of thousands of dollars spent on taking care of the medical needs of a human being than in paying tens of thousands of dollars on another bureaucrat or politician flying around the country attending conferences or expensive meetings.
We have more than enough money and resources to pay for the medical needs of everyone in the country regardless of their status or situation … it’s the creeping privatization of our medical system and institutions that makes it so unaffordable and needlessly complicated and difficult to maintain.
Just south of us are 26million uninsured people who desperately need healthcare and 100million in medical debt. We can’t afford to support them, nor do i really want to more directly support america. So how do we, from a legal point of view, differentiate between the small sustainable group of people above vs the potential huge group of people, niether would have paperwork, both need help.
This isn’t just concern trolling, if you have a genuine answer to that question I’m all ears, but I have 0 doubt in my mind that if there’s a backdoor way for Americans to get canadian healthcare they will take that option en mass.
I think the best way to solve the program of the undocumented workers above is to make the path to legal immigration easier to transfer into and to grant medical coverage earlier in the immigration process.
if the person needing help needs a non urgent medical care … then you can spend the time and energy defending the merits of legality and funding
if the person is losing, has lost their limbs for whatever reason and treatment will further affect their long term well being … then treat them due to compassion and don’t send them into a bureaucratic hell hole
While I understand the sentiment, it is unrealistic and naive. Doctors and nurses get paid. Someone has to pay them, and while you may be personally happy to see the system cover the costs for one illegal undocumented immigrant, the supply of money and health care resources is not endless. Indeed, we already have a massive shortage of doctors in large parts of Canada. Obviously, our model of health care doesn’t work if we allow non-taxpaying, non-citizens to have free treatment. Imagine, if you will, the millions of Americans that would flood our country if they could get free health care here.
discussing the resource management is a strawman. we can already afford to provide healthcare for the planet (including paying all those involved), assuming we prioritize it.
would we need to spend more? yep. we would need to increase medical schooling, medical spending. so?
this is a species-level problem. think bigger than your borders.
how much healthcare would canada be able to provide if they didnt spend a stupid amount on the exact opposite... human killing devices. the same goes for every 1st world country.
I’m not sure I understand you. Who is this “we” that can already afford to provide healthcare for the planet?
If you mean all the taxpayers in the world can afford to pay for all the health care of all the people in the world to a high standard, that just isn’t true. Canada is a highly developed country with lots of resources to devote to modern health care, but much of the world is not like that. The need for health care FAR outstrips the supply. Even in Canada.
Second, we in Canada don’t have any control over the health care policies of the rest of the world. If you are just musing about how the whole world should come together and prioritize medicine instead of bombs, well, sure, I guess most everyone would agree with that. But that’s like wishing for world peace. It’s not a realistic health care policy for Canada. As I said, and which you pointedly did not respond to, we can’t freely open our health care system to the victims of America’s dysfunctional health care system, not to mention the rest of the world. Sure, it would be great if Canada could heal the world, but we can’t. It isn’t about “fairness”, it is about our ability to maintain a functioning system in a world we don’t control.
Thirdly, the argument that ending military spending would significantly improve health care is a nice idea, but it is a red herring. Canada, and most Western nations, spend less than 2% of GDP on military. Ending military spending would help a little bit, but it wouldn’t “solve” the problem of funding health care.
Another option is to send the bill to the employer. The guy has already paid enough with losing two legs, and the employer should be responsible since they took a risk by hiring someone without legal status.
“Was working illegally” as if they somehow forced an employer to pay them under the table instead of hiring a citizen. As if their income would even qualify for any significant tax revenue.
It takes two to tango, employers pay payroll and insurance tax as well.
But, I also agree. People who do not pay their fair share of taxes (even if that fair share is $0) should not benefit from the services those taxes enable.
Now you must agree billionaires and corporations should also stop receiving government subsidies because they are not paying their fair share, right?
Same thing goes for conservative regions that historically suck up funding while contributing none, right?
Anything else and you would just be a hypocrite lying about why lesser classes should be treated worse; that would be terrible!
Now you must agree billionaires and corporations should also stop receiving government subsidies because they are not paying their fair share, right?
Nope. If they’re not paying their fair share, they need handcuffs.
Same thing goes for conservative regions that historically suck up funding while contributing none, right?
Nope. Humans get what they need. If the cons running a region say no, then they also get billboards.
Anything else and you would just be a hypocrite lying about why lesser classes should be treated worse; that would be terrible!
Every Canadian or landed new-comer needs equal healthcare access. Everyone pays as per their income (and we spend almost as much as we should spend putting the cheaters in cuffs) to fund the consolidated service that leverages its size for discounts (why don’t the cons love that?)
Just here to say as an unproud American that the vigor and strength and TRUTH with which you are speaking is exactly what is missing here. If it doesn't affect them, they are willing to look past it, and the country is corroded and corrupted because of it. People like you give Earth the chance to be a great place
way to go canada. slowly turning to the ‘fuck humans’ mentality of the united states.
The difference is that the US fucks its citizens where here it was someone not legally here.
Not the best outcome - the country should bankroll the healthcare and then charge it back to the guy’s home system - but painting this as if it’s America is - and I know this firsthand - very different.
seems youre infected with the same conservative virus.
Oh we have it. We’re trying to get rid of it as it’s all just displaced Texans.
I hear the UK is also infected.
Theirs manifests as a “we’ll split the system and let the best doctors run pricy private clinics for rich people”. That’ll be us in Alberta now, and then everywhere if the cruel blues win the election.
Look, if the excuse is a lack is resources, we need to up fines and tickets for people caught breaking the law.
The bulk of police funding should be coming from fines, not taxpayers. Those fines would pay for more police, which would result in more fines. It’s a simple system.
For example, the maximum fine for a conviction of theft over $5000 is up to $5000 with or without a jail sentence. Why not make it $15,000 or $50,000? Fighting crime shouldn’t be at a loss to society, it should generate enough revenue to at least cover the costs, unless the city’s crime rate drops so low that law enforcement isn’t needed.
Anyway, good on these folks. We need more people taking the law into their own hands, since it seems to be the only option available!
Raising fines doesn’t doesn’t deter criminals from doing crime. They don’t have the money to pay the fines, it’s not like rich people are going out and stealing cars - people stealing things are typically destitute.
When they generate income from fines what happens is that the police becomes a business instead of a public service. The reality of funding through fines is simply that police begin to find more pointless and small reasons to harass and ticket people, in order to boost their revenue. It becomes a game of maintaining the bottom line, and it’s not about doing the right thing or enforcing the rules. Instead of enforcing the rules they will throw the book at you just to generate a buck, and pull you over four blocks down from where you supposedly did a rolling stop.
You can’t give public services financial motives. They should always be permitted to operate at a loss because dollar value is not the same as social and societal value. When you create financial motives for a public service it ceases to provide public value at all costs (which is the literal point of social services) and becomes another business cutting corners to make line go up.
The lack of resources excuses is growing thin. Imagine if we spent what we spend in policing for any other service and it was still this ineffective. We’d have shut it down and defunded it by now
City council voted unanimously in 2021 not to participate in the province’s e-scooter pilot program.
3+ years, plus a few extra more, before they knew about the pilot. The city simply seems incapable of adapting to the needs of a changing world.
Yes, ban rentals. They are garbage and cause problems for everyone else, but don’t ban private e-scooters.
“Blind people don’t know when silent e-scooters rocket at them at over 20 KPH, driven by unlicensed, untrained, uninsured, unhelmeted, fun-seeking joyriders,” the groups said in a joint statement.
Nonsense, unless you also want mobility scooters, and both regular and e-bikes to be banned, too.
Cars kill people, and e-scooters being used away from sidewalks pose no danger to blind pedestrians. If you want to make the city safer, get people out of their cars and using micromobility or public transportation.
The problem is that the main opposition is led by David Lepofsky, an advocate for the blind who has been extremely negative towards anything offered to sighted people.
You can clearly see this (no pun intended) in the “fun seeking joyriders” snide remark in the statement.
He has never once offered a compromise or solution to any objection.
I’ve heard his rhetoric for years, and most of it is just propaganda trash. He wants ONLY the blind to have accessibility, discounting the fact that micromobility also allows people with other disabilities to move freely.
“Left strewn on sidewalks, e-scooters are tripping hazards for blind people and accessibility nightmares for wheelchair users.”
Yes, this I agree with, which is why rental e-scooters should be banned. Nobody with a private e-scooter does this, so punishing everyone isn’t right.
toronto.citynews.ca
Hot