- 18 Posts
- 40 Comments
I’m always look forward to Uytae’s videos but since his last few topics seems to have driven legislative changes I really wonder what he’ll tackle next.
For anyone out of the loop: https://youtube.com/@abouthere
I saw a quite a few comments about how NDP and Green voters were somehow the bad guys in the by election but the Liberals seem more than happy to let the Conservatives run Canada into the ground for 4 years and somehow they’ve done a “good job”.
One of these categories seem very out of place for a conversation about national inflation.
Some of the increase was typical of the season. Prices for cellular services, rent, travel tours and air transportation grew at a faster pace, according to the data agency.
America is ramping up their production again and it will very likely be part of the trade agreements to be supportive their endeavor which leave us once again in a rather awkward position.
I’d like to think a competent government would be able to take advantage from both the American and Chinese subsidies, but I have feeling we lose out on the cheap decent Chinese cars while finding ourselves on the losing end of a North American trade agreement.
Technically speaking we need a lot more infrastructure as whole. Housing being the most dire one.
I’m actually starting to feel like Trudeau actually thought a ahead on this one politically and really setting up Pierre to fail.
It’s my belief that the guy is trying to be so embarrassing that he sweeps this video under the rug.
If you’re referring to combining units I don’t think it’ll really be practical. The 300sqft mark is on the lower end of what is technically okay for people with some heavy consideration into functional design and lifestyle. Essentially a single person who probably spends a lot of time outside.
This is a pretty good video(13:03) on the topic .
At 3:40 in the video of OP he states there are names in the unredacted report but “some names is not also there”.
I think people are reading to much into how alarmed Singh is of the report vs May. As noted in the article there will be a public inquiry with the final report well before an expected election and they’ve made amendments to include concerns found in this report.
Justice Marie-Josée Hogue is currently leading the public inquiry into foreign interference and is expected to deliver a final report at the end of the year.
Earlier this week, the Liberals supported a Bloc Quebecois motion for the foreign interference commissioner’s mandate to include the report’s allegations – though whether or not it will be included in Hogue’s probe is ultimately up to her.
Yes, the number is 66.5% of households in 2021 is occupied by the owner. Any phrasing regarding people is a loose interpretation of the statistic.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220921/mc-b001-eng.htm
Note(s): Proportion of all households that are owner occupied.
30% or 40% if you don’t include people who just live together with a homeowner. Honestly that doesn’t change the story much for the purpose of OP
I don’t think there’s many scenarios where 66.5% to 30-40% isn’t a substantial difference.
65% of the Canadian population are homeowners
This is StatCan’s explanation of the number you’re referring to:
.While people somewhat loosely use that number for home owners I believe it a highly inaccurate phrasing of the statistic. The statistic is owner-occupied homes.
It’s always the homeowner boogeyman when in reality the problem comes from the government spending money wherever and not applying strict foreign home purchasing laws that keep increasing home prices.
And they’re the people who keep advocating for these governments. For the record I don’t think you can find me ever saying that homeowners or even landlords are bad people just because of those characteristic, however it’s clear our interests do not align.
pay their fair share of taxes
The fair portion is what’s up for dispute right now.
Given the backstory behind why doctors structured their assets that way I think it’s fair and also just makes a lot of the stupid talking points go away to give them a exemption. In itself I believe they should have just switched investment properties to income tax which would be a lot more politically digestible although Trudeau commented why he won’t do that a few weeks ago.
Even disregarding political context, I think her straight forward answers with specific references to the report make it hard to dispute her findings.
Most of all I really appreciate her being the only Federal party leader will to constructively progress on this issue instead of circling around the topic ad nauseam as political theater. I believe this type of politics should do well.
Full 70 minute press conference for anyone into that sort of thing Elizabeth May shares her findings of NSICOP foreign interference report – June 11, 2024
As posted yesterday. At this point news outlets is purposely just churning a specific narrative.
The Public Safety Minister insisted that federal law prevents the government from releasing further information about the people at the centre of those allegations, and he urged party leaders to instead get their own classified briefings and said Canadians should have confidence that police can investigate and lay charges when warranted.
So far, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has declined to accept a briefing, saying it would muzzle him. Instead, he says the names should be released by the government.
Looking at the previous article about this that has more quotes: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberal-government-blocking-over-1000-documents
I did find most of the quotes under the section “NSICOP’s access to relevant documents” of the actual National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Annual Report 2023
For anyone looking at which part National Post decided to omit:
- Despite this unprecedented access, obstacles remained in accessing all relevant information. Notwithstanding the four Cabinet documents, federal departments and agencies withheld or refused the disclosure of over a thousand documents, in whole or in part, on the basis that they were Cabinet confidences. Specifically, close to a quarter of these documents were withheld in their entirety. The Committee is concerned that some departments and agencies may be inappropriately using claims of Cabinet confidences to avoid disclosing information to the Committee.
- The Committee was pleased to note that, further to its comment on this issue in its Annual Report 2022, the government has begun to identify which relevant documents are being withheld and on what basis, including claims of Cabinet confidence. This has allowed it to conclude that there are many such claims being exercised for each review. The Committee reiterates the comments made in its Special Report on the National Security and Intelligence Activities of Global Affairs Canada in asking the government to address this issue. It continues to state that while a legislative change to the definition of Cabinet confidence is desirable, in the near term, a clear statement of policy that NSICOP should be barred from receiving only core Cabinet secrets would go some way to addressing the issues being experienced. Specifically, such a statement could outline that information withheld from the Committee under section 14(a) of the NSICOP Act would be limited to that which is provided directly to Cabinet or ministers attending Cabinet committee meetings and which reveals options, Cabinet deliberations or discussions of these meetings.
Really the question would any of these other parties allowed unfettered access to all their document from National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians which does include opposition MP’s.
They didn’t have a majority on the ER committee. So should they have unilaterally ignored the majority report of the other parties and just ram through their own preference for STV?
They had majority in the House. They chose how the committee was constructed.
I’m really amazed how the people with 44 seats is suppose more responsible for something than the people that had 184 seats.
The initial proposed structure of the Special Committee was three voting members allocated based on each official party’s seats in the House (six Liberal members, three Conservative members, and one New Democratic member), with a member of the Bloc Québécois and Green Party leader Elizabeth May given additional non-voting seats.[6]
The structure of the Special Committee was criticized by the opposition party leaders, as the government would have possessed a majority of the committee seats and could unilaterally recommend alterations to the electoral system without the support of any other party. Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, the Leader of the Official Opposition, denounced the plan as “stacking the deck”, while Nathan Cullen, the NDP critic for Democratic Institutions, urged the government to reconsider this plan as well. The Green Party and Bloc Québécois additionally objected to their lack of voting representation on the committee.[7]
On June 2, 2016, Monsef announced that the government would support a motion by Cullen to alter the structure of the committee to have seats allocated based on percentage of the nationwide popular vote in the 2015 election and give the Bloc Québécois and Greens one voting seat each on the committee.[8][9] The Liberal caucus on the committee would have in effect only four voting members, as the chair would not vote unless there was a tie.[10]
Further references.
2015 Election results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Canadian_federal_election
Timeline: https://globalnews.ca/news/3102270/justin-trudeau-liberals-electoral-reform-changing-promises/
Given that the Liberals had majority at that point I think that instance is on them.
Theoretically yes but it also encompasses a number of different design changes.
These are his videos talking about it:
How Breaking Rules Could Create Better Apartments - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=011TOfugais
Why North America Can’t Build Nice Apartments (because of one rule) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM