What do you consider treating people equally?
healthetank
joined 1 year ago
That seems like an odd take. Literally any tax or incentivization would be "punishing" those who can't/don't use it.
Is providing school funding via taxes punishment for parents who want to homeschool their children?
Is providing any kind of child care/child education funding punishment for childfree people?
Is increases in funding for rural internet or road reconstruction punishment for people who choose to live in cities or don't drive?
Article claims about a 75% success rate, though success isn't defined. But that means for a guy with 13 units, he's basically guaranteed at least one failure (98% chance).
If failure means his place gets trashed with minimal support from the original agency due to understaffing or budget problems, then we need to reevaluate the setup, because that's not a level of risk that seems fair.
I know people don't like to see their tax dollars going towards people's salary, but this sounds like a pretty good case for more social workers.
Oh man this guy seems unhinged. I found a few other articles over the years in the peterborough examiner that talk about him, never in a great light.
Sad that he seems so far gone - self-declaring himself chief of his own nation and becoming banned from the local municipalities council chambers and other properties
It should exist for short term, emergency situations, IMO. Not for passing long term laws where it will need to be invoked every 5yrs forever to keep going
It's definitely in his interest to try and portray lobbyists as useless. If/when this becomes a big story for him, he can pivot and say they're not doing their company any good anyway, so it shouldn't matter.
In December, Poilievre expressed disdain for Bay Street executives, saying he "almost never" speaks to crowds in downtown Toronto or "anywhere close to Bay Street."
Fundraising records show Poilievre has headlined three fundraisers for the Conservative Party on Bay Street and at least four others in downtown Toronto since 2023.
Lol, anyone who thinks Pierre is a "for the people" man is more gullible than those who thought Trudeau was.
Edit: as the article mentions, Liberals made it mandatory to post who's attending these events ahead of time (when >200$/person). CPC fought against it on the grounds of, (an actual quote from the debate minutes)
My question for the minister is this: why legalize something that is ethically unacceptable?
And Pierre voted against the bill.
Uhhh, ISG senators show a voting record with more rejections than the partisan system we had before did - even NaPost analysis shows a better result than previous senate/government voting recods (with an enormous number of nominees, which would make it easy for Liberals to consolidate power, if that was their sole goal.)
Conservative Senate leader Don Plett dismissed the ISG’s independence, pointing out that Trudeau appointees never threaten to defeat any government legislation.
Plett said ultimately he also doesn’t believe the Senate should be standing in the way of an elected government’s mandate.
“I don’t think that’s the Senate’s role. I think it’s a senator’s role to give it sober second thought and to try to improve legislation that is flawed when it comes to us.”
He both complains they don't threaten to strike down legislation, then goes on to say he doesn't believe their role is to strike it down, but suggest improvements. The only way they should reject a bill, as agreed by ISG members;
Simons said voting down a bill has to be a measure of last resort, although she has voted against final reading on several government bills. “If we oppose a bill, we have to have a really sound reason for doing so, that isn’t just ‘I could write a better one’.”
Now we have, in name an in voting patterns within the groups, bipartisan groups in the senate, not just "off-broadway house of commons".
Before creating his new Canadian Senators Group caucus, Tannas said taking a partisan approach all the time felt limiting and wasn’t in line with what he wanted to do as a senator.
“That’s the part I hated. I detest the game that we’ve somehow got to be some off-Broadway version of the House of Commons,” he said.
No different than the parent doing the same thing?
Interesting article that goes far more into depth than I was anticipating.
If you're curious about the actual tax rates and burdens (ie when boomers were working age, there was 7 to ever 1 retiree, now we're around 3:1) I'd recommend reading it.
There's definitely going to be some harder times ahead regardless of how taxes are structured just because of how much older people are when they die, and all the extra healthcare burden associated with that.
All of the money collected during the program’s duration, some $472 million, “went into Ontario coffers,” and wasn’t used to compensate market participants, the company states repeatedly.
Notably, Koch Industries says the Ford government is withholding documents related to decision-making around the cancellation. The company’s latest submission notes that freedom of information requests remain outstanding nearly two years after they were filed.
If even Koch Industries can't get their ATIP fulfilled, what hope do we?
I'm not a fan of big companies, but I can't help but feel they have a leg to stand on. Ford has recklessly and repeatedly ignored contracts he doesn't like, and basically said 'damn the consequences, those will be sorted by the next guy in place'. (see, renewables contracts, Bill 124, this cap and trade, the greenbelt changes, the OEB override and legislation)
Typically most grants from the government come with strings attached. Those strings are typically a minimum amount of the money going directly to the people it helps.
In this case, that means going to pay the rent on these houses (or the subsidized amount), and setting some aside for the repairs to the program. I'd guess the way they're worded would likely force the organizations to choose to either pay good wages, and keep good social workers, or skimp on the wages and get more bodies in seats, and in theory, more people helped. But paying poor wages means there are fewer good people to work for you, and you wind up in other troubles. Pay them too much, and a news article about cushy governmental jobs catches peoples eye and the program gets shuttered. Those strings are supposed to prevent massive bloat of admin/staffing costs that eat up all the cash without providing a full benefit for the people it should be helping. Which makes sense - its easy to see how funding without those strings could easily lead to poorer and poorer outcomes for those its supposed to help. The tricky part is finding the balance, and the way the article phrases it, it seems like there isn't enough support for these people available.