SamuelRJankis @ SamuelRJankis @lemmy.world

Posts

60

Comments

260

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's amazing that a 7 billion dollar company goes to court to fight someone for $800. Aside from obviously being in the wrong.

...awarding $650.88 in damages for negligent misrepresentation.

$36.14 in pre-judgment interest and $125 in fees

It's pretty interesting that he gave Bell a ton of money with no conditions and they didnt do anything favourable for Canadians.

Then his opposition says we should give them even more money and makes sure they have even less constraints. Truly brilliant tacticians at work.

Is this incompetence or malice?

On the surface you can't really say the Liberals didn't try to regulate some of this stuff and get more local content but the results in this case is Bell getting $40 million break in fees that would usually fund these programs plus another $30 mill from the Google deal. Canadian lose more local news coverage and get to watch the Prime Minister of the country essentially shrugs and says he can't believe Bell only care about maximizing profits.

The Liberals’ update to broadcasting law, the Online Streaming Act, came into effect last April. It abolished certain licensing fees, which St-Onge said will save the company some $40 million a year.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/social-media-creators-podcasts-won-t-be-regulated-under-liberal-online-streaming-law-1.6644499

This marks the end of the government's direct role with the law formerly known as Bill C-11, the Liberal government's second attempt to bring major online-streaming services into Canada's broadcasting system and eventually have them contribute to supporting local music and stories.

"The sector needs to adapt to where the Canadian public is today. And we know Canadians look for their news and content online," Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge said Tuesday in Montreal.

 

I can't believe 80% of Canadian voters were good with these 2 imbeciles running country last election.

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2024/02/08/local-news-cuts-at-bell-come-after-it-was-granted-40m-in-regulatory-relief-st-onge/

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre responded to the cuts on Thursday by placing blame on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

He said high taxes, burdensome red tape and an uncompetitive business environment “is driving our jobs and our money out of the country to foreign nations that are prospering at our expense.”

I don't think that is a accurate portrayal of the motion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-1.7101929

The House of Commons will vote next week on Motion 86. Sponsored by NDP MP Lisa Marie Barron, the motion calls on the federal government to establish a citizens assembly to "determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada, and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy

Just to make a prediction I can point back to.

If these people like this get what they want 20 years from now we'll have the same dream team duo of Liberals\Conservatives run the country like we've had the previous 40 years and continue to trend in the same direction.

The political talking point will also still be how the other guy is the devil reincarnate and 4 years of them and we'll be doomed.

This is the official answer :

> In an email, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) said 2023 data from the Canadian Housing Statistics Program is not yet available to determine the ban's full effect.

 

Personally speaking I don't think it's suppose impact prices much. In fact they were so concerned about it they started adding in exemptions almost right afterwards.

In itself there is a lot of Canadian wealth tied to housing so unless there's some magical situation where affordability happens in a vacuum people will fight hard to against any policy that hits their wallets. My proof for this is that in 2021 when we had a election 80% of people decided that having the two parties that brought us through decades of housing costs going up was who they wanted to run the country.

In case anyone forgot the Liberals rushing to add exemptions almost immediately after it was introduced.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canada-foreign-buyer-ban-housing-affordability-1.7058154

Exemptions watered down ban CMHC data reveals that only two per cent of real estate purchases in 2021 were made by non-Canadians, according to communications obtained by Global News through Access to Information.

A few months after the ban was put into place more exemptions were added. These included students, first-time buyers and properties under $500,000.

For anyone wondering this is at current time Provincially regulated.

Some provinces have regulations that require a person's written consent if an insurance agreement restricts access to their pharmacy of choice, including Ontario. But according to the Ontario College of Pharmacists, when it comes to preferred provider contracts, "consent is given by the [patient] when they opt-in or enrol for benefits."

The only province in Canada where these kinds of exclusivity deals are illegal is in Quebec. The province's Bill 92 prohibits preferred pharmacy arrangements between pharmacies and insurance providers.

In the post yesterday the "experts" said the good side of this must means the system is working at this indicates Loblaws gave them a competitive deal.

Even if you pretend that the saving will be passed consumer on the short term. There's no way this ends up well for us once the competition dies out.

The only way I can view this is it's another occasion where they said they tried and it's just the way things are or he's so delusional that he thought all he had to do was ask to get food prices under control.

As usual regardless of your political affiliation 200k+ is a lot to pay for someone for this quality of work.

For anyone wondering his next game plan is deferring to the Competition Bureau. I feel like somehow the timing of them really wanting to do something will be awful close to the next election cycle.

Champagne wrote that he hopes to discuss the possibility of a follow-up study with the competition commissioner.

Wait till you see what happens with the next election. I swear 80% of people are masochist.

I wonder how much wealth they're really retaining. While I'm sure people with real estate is mostly doing better than those without, as long as they're living in the area they're getting hit with the high cost of living they help create.

In theory people should start realizing the economies don't happen in vacuums and by keeping living costs up for others it means theirs will likely go up as well.

The Liberals and Conservatives love that people believe this country can't survive another election cycle of the other.

We'll survive another 4 years of the Liberals or Conservatives. What this country can't survive is alternating between two bad parties for another few decades.

The Youtube stuff is even worse. Pretty much all the Sport content I've seen in the last couple years has a sponsored segment for gambling and they try to hook people in with free plays and some have even started doing the "I won so much" money crap. This stuff is almost getting to the point ridiculous like health cigarettes.

I would think regulatory wise any content with these ads would be the equivalent of rate R.

The general aspect of the cities essentially creating a pedestrian hazard to clear a path for cars is pretty interesting case law. Especially as we theoretically move towards a less car centric society.

I don't necessarily disagree with the judgement but I do feel logistically speaking the person clearing the side walks would have a lot easier time clearing a lot of those spots.

Plenty Canadians to this day will vote to keep housing prices high thinking they're on going reap the gains but they're somehow isolated from all the bad stuff that come with it.

For the people you're referring it's at least logical if you make enough money to destroy the eco system you live in but you're capable\willing to move somewhere else.

On a somewhat related note people have brought up the window thing a lot for this topic.

This BC article topic goes over a example: https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/burnaby-resident-concerned-about-windowless-bedrooms-in-rental-units-6501435

Tldr: They're required for fire safety, ventilation and natural light but there's alternatives to fulfill those requirements.

I fully acknowledge the intricacy of what went on but also "Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau vowed that the upcoming general election will be the last one using the first-past-the-post voting system."

It's also clear wants a system that favours large parties: Trudeau says, however, that he would not favour proportional representation as an alternative, because it "gives more weight to smaller parties that are perhaps fringe parties."

I know parliamentary procedure is boring, and most people don’t follow it, but I do and I saw what happened here.

I'm not certain you intended for this to sound condescending like you're the only here that pays attentions to what's happening. The person you're replying to has practically single handily held up most of the Lemmy Canadian content for a while.

Even if it had passed the house it wouldn’t have got past the Senate and the committee delayed their report so long nothing could be done before the next election.

And that was 2 elections ago.

True but I would believe the general level of enthusiasm for a conversation about RDT would be substantially higher in a modern espresso group vs filter coffee folk.

Also my previous comment is bit of a inner monologue as someone who posted very randomly detailed things on r/espresso back in the day and rather uncertain if/where I would post that stuff on Lemmy.

As a espresso person I'm here mostly because the most popular espresso community on Lemmy is pretty dead.

I do really feel like we'd probably be better served if we posted espresso content in a espresso specific community.