My wife and I once had enough saved up to buy a used car from the dealership. The sales manager told us their incentives were structured around financing, so paying cash up front wouldn’t count towards their monthly sales figures, and to them it was “useless”.

Ended up financing with an open loan and paying it off, in full, on the first payment. Probably lost them ~$1000 in processing fees but they knocked off another $150 for my first interest payment.

No you’re understanding is incorrect. There is a big difference between an expired cheque and a reissued cheque.

If I walk into a bank with an expired cheque, they will not honour it, so there is no risk of 2 people cashing the separate cheques. If I walk in with a valid certified cheque, they MUST honour it, even if someone already cashed the reissued cheque.

You are correct that the recipient could wait ~1.5 years for the cheque to expire and then issue a new cheque, but that’s a significant delay and the estate likely wants to close its books before then.

It’s due to the capabilities of the wait times reporting system. Alberta has integrated reporting on all acute care sites, updated every 2 minutes, due to having a single organization (AHS) overseeing the IT and reporting infrastructure of every hospital in the province.

It’s amazing to me how quickly we forgot that carbon pricing was a conservative policy proposal. It was literally a concession the Liberals made to the Progressive Conservatives in the early days of planning to address “global warming” back in the days of the Kyoto Accord. PC’s wanted market solutions instead of regulatory heavy handedness to shape Canada’s way forward. LPC preferred cap and trade, but couldn’t get it passed, so they agreed to support carbon pricing because it was better than nothing.

Fast forward to today and suddenly carbon pricing is Liberal policy and ignore/deny is the CPC strategy.

I strongly recommend the book “The Four” by Scott Galloway. He does an excellent job of breaking down how the Four Horsemen (Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook) destroy regional competition by leveraging their power as content gateways yet constantly skirt regulations that apply to broadcasters. Their cries of “we’re not a broadcaster, we’re just an aggregator” ring hollow when their algorithms determine what articles & headlines people see and they have shaped public opinion on various topics (e.g. elections, supreme court decisions, labour negotiations, public demonstrations, etc). He outlines how Google outmaneuvered the NYT and became the defacto gateway to all journalistic content because they were able to freely link to content created by others, while still putting an editorial spin on stories through their aggregation (eg should the story talking about “BLM protestors” appear before or in place of the story about “counter-racism demonstators” (narrator: they are the same story).