News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.3K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 535     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.1K     1 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Kim's Convenience is about as funny as every time I accidentaly cut myself at work.

Working Moms was alright.

Baroness von Sketch is hit and miss.

Schitt's Creek was.......underwhelming ( I watched the first series).


We need something of like Peep Show, Fawlty Towers, or People Just Do Nothing calibre or something as ridiculous as any British panel show.
Or at least something as ludicrous as Seinfeld. Or something like It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia.

Kim's Convenience ain't it. I wan't to laugh, not roll my eyes. I do that enough on the internet....they're going to get stuck back there soon.
 
PinkLucy said:
I’m not a fan of CBC TV, but I do like the radio. And they have produced some excellent podcasts
Click to expand...

I agree. Their arts and entertainment programming usually lose me, but that's just me. Much of their programming is excellent and it's too bad they have closed a number of their studios because they lost much of the local connection during those non-network programming hours. You can also receive it just about everywhere in southern Ontario and near virtually every community in the north thanks to a strong transmitter network. As someone who has lived and travelled extensively in the north - without a Cirrus account, it is welcomed.
Not specifically connected to the CBC, but I was just watching (on CBC TV as it turned out) a story on community information exchange during the recent Newfoundland blizzard. So long as the studio had power (grid or back-up), every resident could stay in touch with a small radio and a few batteries. The cel network is fine, until the towers power down. We had something similar a few years ago when a tornado went through the area. Most of the local radio stations were broadcasting canned programming on on corporate simulcast (including CBC), but we had one station with a live host who did yeoman's service trying to field calls and share information.
 
More CRTC control...and the Liberals backpedal immediately.

One of the report’s proposals, drafted by former telecommunications executive Janet Yale, specifically suggests requiring all companies that deliver "audio, audiovisual, and alphanumeric news content" to Canadians be regulated by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) or another body, through a licence or registration.

If you’re a distributor of content in Canada and obviously if you’re a very small media organization the requirement probably wouldn’t be the same if you’re Facebook, or Google. There would have to be some proportionality embedded into this," said Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault in an interview on CTV’s Question Period airing Sunday.

He said the government will take time to carefully consider the 97 guidelines set out by the expert panel, most of which suggest handing over more powers to the CRTC.
Click to expand...
Another of the panel’s submissions she (Rempel Garner) contends with is the notion that the CRTC would identify news sites that are "accurate, trusted, and reliable" to enhance the "diversity of voices."

"It’s very paternalizing and also very frightening to think that the government would try to impose or say that’s the role of the government to control. That puts us in league with countries that control the media," said Rempel Garner.
Click to expand...
www.ctvnews.ca

Licensing for media companies in Canada would likely be proportionate: Heritage minister

The minister charged with modernizing Canada’s broadcast and telecommunications law says if the government is to adopt recommendations laid out by an expert panel, licensing enforcement likely won’t be applied the same way for small media groups as it will be for global tech giants.
www.ctvnews.ca

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has walked back comments he made in an interview on CTV's Question Period regarding the licensing of media, seeking to clarify that the federal Liberal government "has no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations, nor would we try to regulate news content."

The rookie minister charged with modernizing Canada’s broadcast and telecommunications law appeared on CTV’s Power Play Monday to expand upon his earlier remarks, saying that when it comes to what qualifies as a news organization, “the government is not in the business of deciding that.”
Click to expand...
www.ctvnews.ca

Heritage Minister says no licensing of news, tries to clarify 'media content'

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has walked back comments he made in an interview on CTV's Question Period regarding the licensing of media, seeking to clarify that the federal Liberal government "has no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations, nor would we try to...
www.ctvnews.ca
 
OTTAWA - Statistics Canada says the economy added 34,500 jobs in January as the unemployment rate ticked down a tenth of a percentage point to 5.5 per cent.

Economists on average had expected an increase of 15,000 jobs for January, according to financial markets data firm Refinitiv.

The gain in jobs for the month came as the number of full-time jobs rose by 35,700, while part-time employment fell by 1,200.

Most of the new jobs came in Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick. Alberta lost almost 19,000 jobs. Everywhere else, the job market was essentially flat.

https://www.cp24.com/news/statistic...0-jobs-in-january-unemployment-down-1.4801571
 
Last edited:
Rather that give it its own thread, I thought I'd stick this here, US News and World Report is busy pushing out another rankings report, of countries. All of these, of course, are highly subjective and to be taken with no less than 1kg of salt. LOL

Still, I see news value in this one both because of whose publishing it/their audience and because its a survey of global perceptions (not realities).

What was being pushed this week was the sub-portion about safety; but when one links to that you can see Canada's overall ranking as well.

Here's a screenshot.

1581431583276.png


From this link:


Switzerland was #1 in both the safety and overall rankings.

As a side note, if one was to examine different indexes which look at the safety of international travelers; Canada most often comes in around #6 in the world. Still respectable, if not quite as high.
 
Having lived in other countries that are notoriously more dangerous, people don't understand how good we have it here. People take for granted that they can leave their home and expect to come back. It absolutely makes Canada one of the more livable countries in the world, and if you want to know why the world's wealthy are buying up our housing market, that is in part why.

That's not to say that we do not have other challenges, such as road safety.
 
jje1000 said:
Huh, governments guaranteeing money causes prices to go up? Who would've thought? Existing homeowners should be pretty happy that their property values went up, I suppose.

www.huffingtonpost.ca

Liberals' 'Flop' Homebuyer Incentive May Be Driving Up House Prices

CMHC's program to help first-time buyers has seen little interest.
www.huffingtonpost.ca www.huffingtonpost.ca
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was nonsense from before it was thought up.

We need to get over the ownership fetishisation. It's bullshit.
It's one of the worst financial decisions ever for a lot of people undertaking it.
 
Towered said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Two separate issues here, one is the gov't program specifically, the other is the broader fetish of ownership.

Let's tackle number one shall we?

The program was an incentive for people to buy homes.

Two really obvious problems with that.

First, the market is already tight, with sky-high prices, in which supply and demand are out of balance.

I will guarantee you the solution is not stimulating greater demand. That only drives prices even higher, eliminating any benefit to the prospective owner and achieving nothing.

Second, given that we have problems with poverty and inequality in this country; does it make sense to offer a subsidy of many thousands of dollars to an individual or couple making a healthy, high income (they still have to cover their costs), in order to buy a home they don't need (they aren't currently homeless, to qualify they have to be renting, or living w/their folks I suppose). All the while not providing help to low-income earners for prescription drugs, or dental or childcare etc.

That contrast is poor. Their is no real benefit to the economy either; and in fact, there may well be a detriment in so far as the recipient ties up most of their money and adopts a grueling mortgage payment, thus reducing their disposable income.

*****

More broadly, ownership isn't evil, by any means. But an irrational obsession with it is.

If property values were climbing at historically normative rates, rather than the frenzy of the last decade plus.........property is an ok savings vehicle, but a sub-par investment.

Further, it ties up money, reducing financial flexibility (less easy to move for a promotion, a job, or school)

It also tends to involve taking on more space than you need or can afford to maintain over a lifetime; and in the current market, where property is a commodity, it also makes housing irrationally priced for rent or ownership.

A balanced program would see the government either stay neutral in the market; or if it did intervene, it would do so for those with the greatest need (and least money) and invariably, that would mean investing in rental, be it private or public, subsidized or non-profit.

Subsidizing someone making 100k so they can afford to buy something worth 1M is just bad economics and contemptibly unjust.
 
Towered said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Which part of my multi-pronged assertion are you asking about?

Why do we have to get over it?
Why is it bullshit?
Why is it a bad financial decision for a lot of people?
Or why was the home buyer incentive nonsense from before it was thought up?

Or all of the above?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top