Side note: You can still get a reliable fridge and washing machine Jen, you just need to buy the most basic bridge, top freezer style. One with a turn dial for the thermostat. Will easily last you 20 years. Also vacuum the coils every year. As for washing machine, get either a Maytag Commercial or a Huebsh washing machine, they still use the same design as the 90s.
Exactly. Expect any appliance with a motherboard to be ridiculously expensive to repair. That motherboard is worth more than the appliance. Therefore it goes off to the landfill. I’ve never needed an appliance to talk to my phone, or to remind me of anything. Those things are all ‘look at me, look at what I have.’
My 12-year old stove stopped working earlier this year and sure enough ... it was the motherboard. The quoted price to replace it was just $200 short of getting a brand new stove.
One of the mistakes governments make with these rail transportation projects is scale back or cancel them in the face of rising costs. The cost of building this infrastructure almost never decreases, and what seems expensive today will seem like a good deal or even a bargain in 20 years. Meanwhile, well-planned routes can deliver huge benefits in reducing traffic congestion, promoting development and densification along the corridor, and making commutes for further away more feasible. It all leads to economic growth and helps with housing affordability.
One big mistake cities keep making is going for grade-level light rail with road crossings instead of systems on a dedicated right of way. The up-front cost looks cheaper, but the system gets saddled with the cost of needing human operators, more complex signaling systems, and inevitably buggers up traffic along the route. Greater Vancouver has consistently gone with the more expensive elevated, automated SkyTrain system and it’s been extremely successful and popular. Meanwhile, traffic problems at LRT crossings are a dismally common occurrence in Calgary and Edmonton, and cars colliding with trains are also a recurring item in the local news.
Governments need to ensure that these projects remain affordable, but not in a penny-wise, pound foolish way. Unfortunately, costs might even double compared to the initial budget in a tight labor market or due to an accumulation of technical issues. The biggest cost escalation seems to result from poor or unrealistic initial planning and budgeting, or scope creep when politicians start adding on new requirements like hiring union workers or paying union rates.
I'll never forget the reaction to the Calgary Airport tunnel under the new North/South runway. At the time, 10 years ago, everyone was bemoaning the huge price tag for a "tunnel to nowhere." Without that tunnel the new areas of NE Calgary would be utterly hooped. The city has grown like gangbusters and where the airport was the edge of town when the tunnel was built, now the city is leapfrogging across the ring road.
I think the most important part is honestly not tunneling, and just stick with elevated rail. Tunneling instantly 2x the cost of a project, compared to an elevated line. And doing bored tunnel is 1.5x the cost of doing cut and cover. But people complain about construction and how ugly trains are. *sigh*
I find the Tenet story quite fascinating. My initial thought is that Rubin, Pool et al would be saying what they are saying regardless of whether they were being paid (knowingly or not) by nefarious Russians. In fact, I think they have held their current positions on the Ukraine issue for a while - not sure of when they became beneficiaries of Russian largesse and how that tracks with their positions?
Now, whether these guys actually believe what they are saying is of course an open question. Some of them are examples of audience capture in action but some of them are true believers. For those who fit the former description, they will follow the money but the audience/money was already pulling them in their current direction. The Russians putting their thumb on the scale may have had some effect but the counterfactuals don’t suggest these guys would be advocating for Ukraine/NATO to march on Moscow in the absence of Russian money.
As for the true believers, the Russians surely chose them for the same reasons the BBC hired that young reporter who had the famous exchange with Chomsky all those years ago - “I like the cut of your jib young fella, keep up the good work!”
Long winded way of saying, this is super interesting (and ought to be super embarrassing for Rubin, Pool et al) but I am not so sure the Russians actually received anything that they wouldn’t have otherwise received absent these payments. I don’t think it warrants much hand-wringing about foreign interference and certainly pales in comparison to the actual election (and policy) interference suspected of being engaged in by the Chinese.
I suspect the Russian motivation was probably more to boost the gain of the signal from these already sympathetic influencers, and at the very least to keep them producing. It’s a bit of an own-goal when they get found out, though: the influencers are revealed either as grifters or incurious morons. Either way, it undermines their credibility. However, their usual audience has never really worried much about anything other than hearing a message they want to hear.
Jen's alternatives would seem to exhaust the set (though there's never any telling what variables the future may introduce), and I can't read Trudeau's mind (wouldn't want to). One pertinent question that can be asked, though, which might lead to some forecasting insight, is 'What would a narcissistic bully who's immune to remedial input do?'
My own guess (and it's only that) is that Trudeau is waiting for something to happen that would enable him to salvage something from the wreck. His priorities in the salvage mission, of course, would be his own career and only incidentally the party's (to the extent he perceives his interests to be tied to the party's), while leaving the fate of "Canadians" out of account entirely.
As an aside, can you imagine having to rub elbows with Trudeau on some corporate board, should he decide this is where he wants to land? The skin crawls.
Who would want him ? I am actually interested in a list of corporations, organizations that you think would want him, if you can create one, please. We can make a sport out of this, follow where he goes on to, and make bets how long it will take for him to get booted out.
History suggests there's no shortage of boards that see prestige in having former high profile politicians in their ranks. Additionally, Me-Firsters like Trudeau often prove adept at landing strange, post-career jobs that involve inflated salaries and paid flights to exotic locales to hobnob with fellow dignitaries. Every once in awhile you see an obit for one of these characters, who's been out of the public eye for twenty years but died a multi-millionaire because of his connections.
You're right, though. It's hard to imagine someone accustomed to wielding dictatorial authority, first in classrooms over high school students who can't push back, and then in cabinet meetings over equally powerless ministers, suddenly transforming himself into a board team player. It's equally hard to imagine someone for whom evasion is the default first reaction to any challenge becoming a model for confronting corporate problems head-on, responsibly and with integrity.
It's tough being a progressive. On the one hand, as someone who completely sympathizes with the idea that Singh is an incompetent and disappointing politician and party leader, I find myself smirking at the prospect that his bluff gets repeatedly called from here until the end of the next election.
It's a nice feeling...until I remember that the CPC is running their entire campaign on petulance and antagonism with nothing constructive on offer.
Also, always enjoy the podcast Matt and Jen! I note that Max Fawcett's name has been dropped quite a few times in the past few months on your show, perhaps a guest spot from him at some point? He seems to skew quite further left and I imagine the conversation would be a lively one!
Axing the carbon tax is not constructive ? That stupid lefto-fanatic carbon tax on the poor has done quite a number to my budget, while creeping cross and damaging the entire economy.
Axing this carbon tax is the single most beneficial act for the entire economy. Do not bring up the climate change bullshit, Canada's contribution to that hokus-pokus is not even a rounding error.
If you think that the CPC having their act together enough to finally outsmart and outmaneuver the slimy MSM and the equally slimy see-pee-see and very slimy Liebranodips is petulance, then I will say you have an awfully lot of learning to do.
"Axe the tax" is actually the most obvious demonstration of the Conservatives' stubborn inability to change policy in response to expert feedback. Some Premiers and the incumbent federal government did not support the tax by instinct but did so only after consultation with economists. Poilievre automatically opposed the tax because every Conservative Leader before him did so for almost two decades, and Poilievre has no mental capacity to ever revisit longstanding popular Conservative policies in response to feedback from any non-partisan source.
Dude, it’s a consumption tax, not a red dawn Russian invasion.
Consumption taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes and so if we’re being capitalist believers in Adam Smith, we generally approve of consumption taxes, including the carbon tax. There’s why the carbon tags proposal came from conservatives initially.
You do raise a good point about consumption taxes being somewhat regressive. That’s a valid point for those concerned about a fair tax system.
Of course we could completely eliminate that problem by increasing the basic deduction on income tax. ie. significantly increase how much you can earn before income tax kicks in. Essentially make income tax more progressive to compensate for a regressive consumption tax.
The poor would find this greatly beneficial, but oddly I have yet to come across a single opponent of the carbon tax who thinks this a good idea. Evan the ones who insist that the problem with the carbon tax is that it hurts the poor object.
I'm with you on the increase of the basic personal amount. Who can live in Canada on $15k/year now? It should be much higher for families with children (and if it were, they might not need the Canada Child Benefit so much). Taxing working people into poverty is gross.
I could even support the maintenance of the carbon tax (though I think it might be past rehabilitating in the eyes of many). If the carbon tax were only to be spent on something specific like public transportation and/or energy infrastructure it might take some of the stink off it, but I think the biggest change would have to be an application of carbon tax on imports and refund on exports the way we do with GST, so it's not a mill stone on the necks of Canadian manufacturing and exports.
This is the answer. I wouldn’t have such a problem with it if it weren’t going into “general revenue”. And if it really is meant to curb emissions then why are they rebating that money right back to me. It’s a bureaucratic waste of money. Keep it for industrial emitters but ditch it for the general population and overhaul the tax system.
Removing it will be negligible on affordability at best. Poilievre needs a lot more than "Axe the tax" to improve affordability and I don't see it happening.
Yes. The carbon tax rate is actually very low. It is so low that it does nothing to change people's incentives and so nothing to lower GHG emissions. The other consequence is that it is too low to do much damage, except perhaps for the very extreme cases of intensive usage. It has been used by both sides for its symbolic value, rather than its real-world consequences.
On the next election, I agree it's really hard to predict.
Liberals calling a snap election is probably the best "save the furniture" move for them, but I don't think that's how their mind is working: they probably figure that a year is a long time for something to shift in their favour, even if it's just as likely that things spiral further on them in that time. And I'm not really sure what prorogation would accomplish given the NDP almost certainly don't actually want to bring down the government.
I suspect we still get close to the planned election date next fall since neither Liberals nor NDP want an election. But it is possible that without the CSA there's a strategic miscalculation where both sides play a game of chicken, neither side can find an off-ramp, and we end up with an election neither party wanted.
Jen, a quick point for you as a Calgarian from a Calgarian.
The Green Line was supposed to go from SOUTH to the center, not to the north.
Oh, the original concept involved the north in the sense from the south to the center to the north but the north was dropped in the first cut of the line, way back when. Oh, and the tunneling downtown was - by many folks - deemed to be very, very likely to be very costly, much beyond any expectation simply because of the high water table downtown.
And, by the way, as always - except for the minor miscue mentioned - very good video.
Yeah, originally the Green Line was the combination of two projects; a north line and a south line. As the project was scaled back, it was the North Line that effectively got the cut, and then the South. I didn't really want to get that far into the weeds, but yeah, a fair correction. JG
I picked up on that difference, too. I live in the SE near one of the now “postponed” Green Line stations, so I am particularly disappointed that the SE continues to be the only quadrant with no LRT service. When my wife and I moved to our new house this year, we were thrilled to discover how close we were to an upcoming Green Line station, only to have the rug pulled out from under us.
To answer your question regarding alcohol, I spent the first 18 years of my life in Acton and Collingwood, Ontario, followed by 9 years in Ottawa, and the last 22 years in Alberta (7 years in Edmonton and 15 years in Calgary), and I never thought alcohol was *really* easier to get in Alberta -- although I do like to joke that we could close our eyes, spin around, and still never fail to hit a liquor store with a rock.
I did notice that the hours of operation in Alberta are more consumer-friendly than in Ontario, and that grocery stores are also allowed to sell alcohol (but only if they are in completely separate buildings across the parking lot from the groceries). However, if I wanted alcohol in Ottawa or when I visited Acton as an adult, an LCBO or Beer Store was always just a brief walk away. I just had to make sure I went there when they were open.
For Matt's request on how alcohol sales work in other provinces, I'm in BC and here it's basically all in specialized liquor stores (mix of government run and private). There are the usual exceptions for breweries to sell their own product and "store-within-a-store" wine/beer stores, and grocery stores can get a license to have a "wine aisle", although those seem rare in practice.
I used to live in Washington state where wine and beer could be sold in all sorts of stores (grocery stores, convenience stores, drug stores, etc), and since a referendum in 2011, hard liquor could be sold in stores > 10k square feet. Having come to Washington from Ontario, the idea that all these non-specialized stores had alcohol just sitting there on the shelves seemed crazy to me, but I soon found the system worked great overall - super convenient, I didn't notice crime issues, employees at stores were good at checking id, and stores could get creative with what they carried, pricing, etc.
I think BC and Washington State make a really interesting comparison for people predicting massive impacts on public health and safety due to relaxed liquor regulations. They can basically be considered cousins in terms of their similar demographics, economies, and geography, but being able to buy beer in a convenience store or liquor at Costco has *not* resulted in a Bedford Falls vs Pottersville distinction when you cross the border.
You left out a vital point about the wine, isles and grocery stores
They sell BC wine only. They are not allowed to sell any other wine. (They also sell cider)
But here’s where it gets dirty.
The BC liberals made this change after Ben Stewart, a west Kelowna MLA, who happens to own a large BC winery, resigned his seat and saved Premier Clark’s career by letting her have a safe seat.
I’m not privy to any private discussions but those facts suggest the possibility of what is effectively bribery of an MLA.
After resigning his seat and saving the premier, Mr. Stewart’s business was given a great boost because he could now sell his products in grocery stores and that his overseas competitors would not be allowed to.
The claim at the time by the BC Liberals was that this was done to help and important and growing BC industry
But do you know what else is an important and growing industry in BC? Craft beer.
Craft beer cannot be sold in grocery stores.
Another fact which may or may not be related as that Ben Stewart doesn’t own a craft beer brewery.
In fairness to Mr. Stewart, he is very quick at responding the constituents emails. But that’s not relevant to why the law changed.
"Supply management". I want the cheese badly too, Jen!
I think that the problem for the NDP has less been the CASA by itself than the fact that the CASA exists alongside a general lack of policy distinctiveness between the NDP and Liberals. The NDP used to be hawks on behalf of civil liberties - where are they on the ideological censorship in the Online Harms Act?
I also think Jen that you should have acknowledged that Doug Ford excited such massive criticism for the Toronto Council move because it destructively happened *in the middle of the municipal election* and because he was musing about using the *Notwithstanding Clause* to do so. He's shown himself to be an impulsive leader, although he has cooled that down in recent years and it's getting increasingly hard for to despise him.
" think that the problem for the NDP has less been the CASA by itself than the fact that the CASA exists alongside a general lack of policy distinctiveness between the NDP and Liberals. " ->
Agreed. While the CASA was probably a poor strategic choice vs supporting budgets on a one-off basis, the bigger issue IMO is the messaging itself that didn't really say what the NDP would do differently - just vague notions of fighting corporate greed and not liking luxury condos and stuff.
Were I in Singh's shoes, I would have let Liberals outflank them on all the "woke" stuff and present a real pragmatic agenda that would appeal to working and middle-class Canadians. That would have involved criticizing the Liberal's anti-worker immigration policy, their slow delivery of programs, our productivity problems, excessive red-tape, poor record on crime, etc. It would look a lot like the Conservative criticism, but without the anti-media and axe-the-tax stuff, and with more social programs and less talk of tax cuts, And they could frame a lot of this stuff from a left-wing lens (e.g. less subway crime/disorder should increase transit usage, etc).
Regarding the Tenet Media indictment, we are deep in, as Tim Pool has been saying for the past 4 years, 5th Generation warfare. There are no clear battle lines and it seems there casualties, some of which don't realize they were. Fortunately, Tim Pool's channel, Timcast, is not part of Tenet Media. Only his Culture War show, which Tenet licensed, is presented by Tenet Media. Timcast has been largely funded through member subscribers, like The Line, and YouTube monetization.
In NL you've been able to buy beer in convenience stores for decades. Not sure about pre-mixed. Wine & liquor at NLC (our LCBO) retail stores. In many supermarkets there is a small NLC outlet attached where u can get beer, wine & liquor. In rural areas a village store is often licensed to operate as a full NLC outlet selling beer, wine, liquor. This has been common for at least a decade or more. Few people have to drive very far to get the alcohol of their choice, even in the boonies.
The funniest thing would be for the Cons to table a No Confidence motion using classic NDP talking points and watching them vote it down.
They could quote Singh's speech word for word.
Side note: You can still get a reliable fridge and washing machine Jen, you just need to buy the most basic bridge, top freezer style. One with a turn dial for the thermostat. Will easily last you 20 years. Also vacuum the coils every year. As for washing machine, get either a Maytag Commercial or a Huebsh washing machine, they still use the same design as the 90s.
Exactly. Expect any appliance with a motherboard to be ridiculously expensive to repair. That motherboard is worth more than the appliance. Therefore it goes off to the landfill. I’ve never needed an appliance to talk to my phone, or to remind me of anything. Those things are all ‘look at me, look at what I have.’
My 12-year old stove stopped working earlier this year and sure enough ... it was the motherboard. The quoted price to replace it was just $200 short of getting a brand new stove.
You need to go onto eBay or some of the more specialist sites like Future Electronics for parts. Once you have the parts it's easy to swap them out.
But yes, Huebsch (Speed Queen in the US) or Maytag's Commercial line is the way to go.
Thanks for the practical tips. I used the same logic for the purchases a couple of years back.
One of the mistakes governments make with these rail transportation projects is scale back or cancel them in the face of rising costs. The cost of building this infrastructure almost never decreases, and what seems expensive today will seem like a good deal or even a bargain in 20 years. Meanwhile, well-planned routes can deliver huge benefits in reducing traffic congestion, promoting development and densification along the corridor, and making commutes for further away more feasible. It all leads to economic growth and helps with housing affordability.
One big mistake cities keep making is going for grade-level light rail with road crossings instead of systems on a dedicated right of way. The up-front cost looks cheaper, but the system gets saddled with the cost of needing human operators, more complex signaling systems, and inevitably buggers up traffic along the route. Greater Vancouver has consistently gone with the more expensive elevated, automated SkyTrain system and it’s been extremely successful and popular. Meanwhile, traffic problems at LRT crossings are a dismally common occurrence in Calgary and Edmonton, and cars colliding with trains are also a recurring item in the local news.
Governments need to ensure that these projects remain affordable, but not in a penny-wise, pound foolish way. Unfortunately, costs might even double compared to the initial budget in a tight labor market or due to an accumulation of technical issues. The biggest cost escalation seems to result from poor or unrealistic initial planning and budgeting, or scope creep when politicians start adding on new requirements like hiring union workers or paying union rates.
I'll never forget the reaction to the Calgary Airport tunnel under the new North/South runway. At the time, 10 years ago, everyone was bemoaning the huge price tag for a "tunnel to nowhere." Without that tunnel the new areas of NE Calgary would be utterly hooped. The city has grown like gangbusters and where the airport was the edge of town when the tunnel was built, now the city is leapfrogging across the ring road.
I think the most important part is honestly not tunneling, and just stick with elevated rail. Tunneling instantly 2x the cost of a project, compared to an elevated line. And doing bored tunnel is 1.5x the cost of doing cut and cover. But people complain about construction and how ugly trains are. *sigh*
I find the Tenet story quite fascinating. My initial thought is that Rubin, Pool et al would be saying what they are saying regardless of whether they were being paid (knowingly or not) by nefarious Russians. In fact, I think they have held their current positions on the Ukraine issue for a while - not sure of when they became beneficiaries of Russian largesse and how that tracks with their positions?
Now, whether these guys actually believe what they are saying is of course an open question. Some of them are examples of audience capture in action but some of them are true believers. For those who fit the former description, they will follow the money but the audience/money was already pulling them in their current direction. The Russians putting their thumb on the scale may have had some effect but the counterfactuals don’t suggest these guys would be advocating for Ukraine/NATO to march on Moscow in the absence of Russian money.
As for the true believers, the Russians surely chose them for the same reasons the BBC hired that young reporter who had the famous exchange with Chomsky all those years ago - “I like the cut of your jib young fella, keep up the good work!”
Long winded way of saying, this is super interesting (and ought to be super embarrassing for Rubin, Pool et al) but I am not so sure the Russians actually received anything that they wouldn’t have otherwise received absent these payments. I don’t think it warrants much hand-wringing about foreign interference and certainly pales in comparison to the actual election (and policy) interference suspected of being engaged in by the Chinese.
I suspect the Russian motivation was probably more to boost the gain of the signal from these already sympathetic influencers, and at the very least to keep them producing. It’s a bit of an own-goal when they get found out, though: the influencers are revealed either as grifters or incurious morons. Either way, it undermines their credibility. However, their usual audience has never really worried much about anything other than hearing a message they want to hear.
Jen's alternatives would seem to exhaust the set (though there's never any telling what variables the future may introduce), and I can't read Trudeau's mind (wouldn't want to). One pertinent question that can be asked, though, which might lead to some forecasting insight, is 'What would a narcissistic bully who's immune to remedial input do?'
My own guess (and it's only that) is that Trudeau is waiting for something to happen that would enable him to salvage something from the wreck. His priorities in the salvage mission, of course, would be his own career and only incidentally the party's (to the extent he perceives his interests to be tied to the party's), while leaving the fate of "Canadians" out of account entirely.
As an aside, can you imagine having to rub elbows with Trudeau on some corporate board, should he decide this is where he wants to land? The skin crawls.
Who would want him ? I am actually interested in a list of corporations, organizations that you think would want him, if you can create one, please. We can make a sport out of this, follow where he goes on to, and make bets how long it will take for him to get booted out.
History suggests there's no shortage of boards that see prestige in having former high profile politicians in their ranks. Additionally, Me-Firsters like Trudeau often prove adept at landing strange, post-career jobs that involve inflated salaries and paid flights to exotic locales to hobnob with fellow dignitaries. Every once in awhile you see an obit for one of these characters, who's been out of the public eye for twenty years but died a multi-millionaire because of his connections.
You're right, though. It's hard to imagine someone accustomed to wielding dictatorial authority, first in classrooms over high school students who can't push back, and then in cabinet meetings over equally powerless ministers, suddenly transforming himself into a board team player. It's equally hard to imagine someone for whom evasion is the default first reaction to any challenge becoming a model for confronting corporate problems head-on, responsibly and with integrity.
Look to see him at the same law firm as Jean Chrétien to grease palms in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Think Power Corp & you have your answers.
It's tough being a progressive. On the one hand, as someone who completely sympathizes with the idea that Singh is an incompetent and disappointing politician and party leader, I find myself smirking at the prospect that his bluff gets repeatedly called from here until the end of the next election.
It's a nice feeling...until I remember that the CPC is running their entire campaign on petulance and antagonism with nothing constructive on offer.
Also, always enjoy the podcast Matt and Jen! I note that Max Fawcett's name has been dropped quite a few times in the past few months on your show, perhaps a guest spot from him at some point? He seems to skew quite further left and I imagine the conversation would be a lively one!
Axing the carbon tax is not constructive ? That stupid lefto-fanatic carbon tax on the poor has done quite a number to my budget, while creeping cross and damaging the entire economy.
Axing this carbon tax is the single most beneficial act for the entire economy. Do not bring up the climate change bullshit, Canada's contribution to that hokus-pokus is not even a rounding error.
If you think that the CPC having their act together enough to finally outsmart and outmaneuver the slimy MSM and the equally slimy see-pee-see and very slimy Liebranodips is petulance, then I will say you have an awfully lot of learning to do.
"Axe the tax" is actually the most obvious demonstration of the Conservatives' stubborn inability to change policy in response to expert feedback. Some Premiers and the incumbent federal government did not support the tax by instinct but did so only after consultation with economists. Poilievre automatically opposed the tax because every Conservative Leader before him did so for almost two decades, and Poilievre has no mental capacity to ever revisit longstanding popular Conservative policies in response to feedback from any non-partisan source.
Dude, it’s a consumption tax, not a red dawn Russian invasion.
Consumption taxes are among the most economically efficient taxes and so if we’re being capitalist believers in Adam Smith, we generally approve of consumption taxes, including the carbon tax. There’s why the carbon tags proposal came from conservatives initially.
You do raise a good point about consumption taxes being somewhat regressive. That’s a valid point for those concerned about a fair tax system.
Of course we could completely eliminate that problem by increasing the basic deduction on income tax. ie. significantly increase how much you can earn before income tax kicks in. Essentially make income tax more progressive to compensate for a regressive consumption tax.
The poor would find this greatly beneficial, but oddly I have yet to come across a single opponent of the carbon tax who thinks this a good idea. Evan the ones who insist that the problem with the carbon tax is that it hurts the poor object.
It’s interesting.
I'm with you on the increase of the basic personal amount. Who can live in Canada on $15k/year now? It should be much higher for families with children (and if it were, they might not need the Canada Child Benefit so much). Taxing working people into poverty is gross.
I could even support the maintenance of the carbon tax (though I think it might be past rehabilitating in the eyes of many). If the carbon tax were only to be spent on something specific like public transportation and/or energy infrastructure it might take some of the stink off it, but I think the biggest change would have to be an application of carbon tax on imports and refund on exports the way we do with GST, so it's not a mill stone on the necks of Canadian manufacturing and exports.
This is the answer. I wouldn’t have such a problem with it if it weren’t going into “general revenue”. And if it really is meant to curb emissions then why are they rebating that money right back to me. It’s a bureaucratic waste of money. Keep it for industrial emitters but ditch it for the general population and overhaul the tax system.
Removing it will be negligible on affordability at best. Poilievre needs a lot more than "Axe the tax" to improve affordability and I don't see it happening.
Yes. The carbon tax rate is actually very low. It is so low that it does nothing to change people's incentives and so nothing to lower GHG emissions. The other consequence is that it is too low to do much damage, except perhaps for the very extreme cases of intensive usage. It has been used by both sides for its symbolic value, rather than its real-world consequences.
Agreed. It's good policy but bad politics.
On the next election, I agree it's really hard to predict.
Liberals calling a snap election is probably the best "save the furniture" move for them, but I don't think that's how their mind is working: they probably figure that a year is a long time for something to shift in their favour, even if it's just as likely that things spiral further on them in that time. And I'm not really sure what prorogation would accomplish given the NDP almost certainly don't actually want to bring down the government.
I suspect we still get close to the planned election date next fall since neither Liberals nor NDP want an election. But it is possible that without the CSA there's a strategic miscalculation where both sides play a game of chicken, neither side can find an off-ramp, and we end up with an election neither party wanted.
Jen, a quick point for you as a Calgarian from a Calgarian.
The Green Line was supposed to go from SOUTH to the center, not to the north.
Oh, the original concept involved the north in the sense from the south to the center to the north but the north was dropped in the first cut of the line, way back when. Oh, and the tunneling downtown was - by many folks - deemed to be very, very likely to be very costly, much beyond any expectation simply because of the high water table downtown.
And, by the way, as always - except for the minor miscue mentioned - very good video.
Yeah, originally the Green Line was the combination of two projects; a north line and a south line. As the project was scaled back, it was the North Line that effectively got the cut, and then the South. I didn't really want to get that far into the weeds, but yeah, a fair correction. JG
I picked up on that difference, too. I live in the SE near one of the now “postponed” Green Line stations, so I am particularly disappointed that the SE continues to be the only quadrant with no LRT service. When my wife and I moved to our new house this year, we were thrilled to discover how close we were to an upcoming Green Line station, only to have the rug pulled out from under us.
To answer your question regarding alcohol, I spent the first 18 years of my life in Acton and Collingwood, Ontario, followed by 9 years in Ottawa, and the last 22 years in Alberta (7 years in Edmonton and 15 years in Calgary), and I never thought alcohol was *really* easier to get in Alberta -- although I do like to joke that we could close our eyes, spin around, and still never fail to hit a liquor store with a rock.
I did notice that the hours of operation in Alberta are more consumer-friendly than in Ontario, and that grocery stores are also allowed to sell alcohol (but only if they are in completely separate buildings across the parking lot from the groceries). However, if I wanted alcohol in Ottawa or when I visited Acton as an adult, an LCBO or Beer Store was always just a brief walk away. I just had to make sure I went there when they were open.
Also in Quebec, its basically the same as Ontario right now.
Same
“ Also, so THAT'S why some random dude keeps sending us all these rubles.”
Haha, you thought those were the ‘tips’ you were looking for
also, my real name is Olek
Guess I'll be busy being that mysterious investor in some movie studio that will cast Matt as a role in the next Star Trek film.
For Matt's request on how alcohol sales work in other provinces, I'm in BC and here it's basically all in specialized liquor stores (mix of government run and private). There are the usual exceptions for breweries to sell their own product and "store-within-a-store" wine/beer stores, and grocery stores can get a license to have a "wine aisle", although those seem rare in practice.
I used to live in Washington state where wine and beer could be sold in all sorts of stores (grocery stores, convenience stores, drug stores, etc), and since a referendum in 2011, hard liquor could be sold in stores > 10k square feet. Having come to Washington from Ontario, the idea that all these non-specialized stores had alcohol just sitting there on the shelves seemed crazy to me, but I soon found the system worked great overall - super convenient, I didn't notice crime issues, employees at stores were good at checking id, and stores could get creative with what they carried, pricing, etc.
I think BC and Washington State make a really interesting comparison for people predicting massive impacts on public health and safety due to relaxed liquor regulations. They can basically be considered cousins in terms of their similar demographics, economies, and geography, but being able to buy beer in a convenience store or liquor at Costco has *not* resulted in a Bedford Falls vs Pottersville distinction when you cross the border.
You left out a vital point about the wine, isles and grocery stores
They sell BC wine only. They are not allowed to sell any other wine. (They also sell cider)
But here’s where it gets dirty.
The BC liberals made this change after Ben Stewart, a west Kelowna MLA, who happens to own a large BC winery, resigned his seat and saved Premier Clark’s career by letting her have a safe seat.
I’m not privy to any private discussions but those facts suggest the possibility of what is effectively bribery of an MLA.
After resigning his seat and saving the premier, Mr. Stewart’s business was given a great boost because he could now sell his products in grocery stores and that his overseas competitors would not be allowed to.
The claim at the time by the BC Liberals was that this was done to help and important and growing BC industry
But do you know what else is an important and growing industry in BC? Craft beer.
Craft beer cannot be sold in grocery stores.
Another fact which may or may not be related as that Ben Stewart doesn’t own a craft beer brewery.
In fairness to Mr. Stewart, he is very quick at responding the constituents emails. But that’s not relevant to why the law changed.
"Supply management". I want the cheese badly too, Jen!
I think that the problem for the NDP has less been the CASA by itself than the fact that the CASA exists alongside a general lack of policy distinctiveness between the NDP and Liberals. The NDP used to be hawks on behalf of civil liberties - where are they on the ideological censorship in the Online Harms Act?
I know a former leftist friend of mine who really went off the rails in cynically spreading misinformation on behalf of Putin's Russia, although I doubt that he has taken a cent of Russian money. I wrote a lengthy critique of him here: https://medium.com/@stefan_klietsch/self-described-peace-activist-dubiously-promotes-listening-to-the-putin-regime-18f98dc61061
I also think Jen that you should have acknowledged that Doug Ford excited such massive criticism for the Toronto Council move because it destructively happened *in the middle of the municipal election* and because he was musing about using the *Notwithstanding Clause* to do so. He's shown himself to be an impulsive leader, although he has cooled that down in recent years and it's getting increasingly hard for to despise him.
" think that the problem for the NDP has less been the CASA by itself than the fact that the CASA exists alongside a general lack of policy distinctiveness between the NDP and Liberals. " ->
Agreed. While the CASA was probably a poor strategic choice vs supporting budgets on a one-off basis, the bigger issue IMO is the messaging itself that didn't really say what the NDP would do differently - just vague notions of fighting corporate greed and not liking luxury condos and stuff.
Were I in Singh's shoes, I would have let Liberals outflank them on all the "woke" stuff and present a real pragmatic agenda that would appeal to working and middle-class Canadians. That would have involved criticizing the Liberal's anti-worker immigration policy, their slow delivery of programs, our productivity problems, excessive red-tape, poor record on crime, etc. It would look a lot like the Conservative criticism, but without the anti-media and axe-the-tax stuff, and with more social programs and less talk of tax cuts, And they could frame a lot of this stuff from a left-wing lens (e.g. less subway crime/disorder should increase transit usage, etc).
Douggie for PM? I mean, it sounds like a terrible idea until you look at all the other options...🤦♂️
Regarding the Tenet Media indictment, we are deep in, as Tim Pool has been saying for the past 4 years, 5th Generation warfare. There are no clear battle lines and it seems there casualties, some of which don't realize they were. Fortunately, Tim Pool's channel, Timcast, is not part of Tenet Media. Only his Culture War show, which Tenet licensed, is presented by Tenet Media. Timcast has been largely funded through member subscribers, like The Line, and YouTube monetization.
In NL you've been able to buy beer in convenience stores for decades. Not sure about pre-mixed. Wine & liquor at NLC (our LCBO) retail stores. In many supermarkets there is a small NLC outlet attached where u can get beer, wine & liquor. In rural areas a village store is often licensed to operate as a full NLC outlet selling beer, wine, liquor. This has been common for at least a decade or more. Few people have to drive very far to get the alcohol of their choice, even in the boonies.