previous lemmy acct: @smallpatatas@lemm.ee see also: @patatas@social.patatas.ca
When people ask me what I want for a gift (birthday, Xmas) my only response now is “a gift subscription to [independent journalist-run media outlet]”. I figure if I’m paying for a couple of the ones I like on a rotating basis, that I can go grab archived webpages of the rest.
But it only works if enough people take up that social contract.
OK, and who appoints the Board? And who sets government policy and tables a budget that determines what the CMHC can realistically do?
This is absolutely the responsibility of the federal government, even if they don’t author these reports.
To be fair, from what I can find, their board is appointed by the federal govt and they’re absolutely going to take their cues from government policy.
If the Feds had released a budget with money and a plan for housing construction, or if they were forcing large corporate landlords to start selling, or any number of other possible things, then this report would look a lot different.
Lotta great NDP MPs lost their ridings, really sucks. Matthew Green lost here in Hamilton Centre too, so disappointing
That’s where protest and disruption come in. The LibCons are doing their best right now to piss off the entire public sector; I have no doubt that union leadership are already talking strikes, at least internally. The people always have power.
Honestly I only went and looked for the report because of a post on Bluesky by Peter Julian.
That said, this post seems to have already gotten more reach than a sitting former MP’s did on that platform, so you’re right about the fediverse!
Regardless, I agree it should be much bigger news.
I was eventually able to find the original report. PDF can be downloaded from this page:
Finally tracked down the original report, which can be downloaded from this page:
I’m still surprised, however, that someone who wrote a whole book about the responsibility market participants have to look beyond immediate personal gain (particularly in relation to climate) would be like, gimme an index fund that doesn’t exclude oil & gas corporations
Yes! This is almost exactly my technique. I try to do the naming in a steady rhythm, around one per second, picturing the thing in my mind while mentally saying the word.
My hypothesis is that it syncs up both sides of my brain at a timing that is in the delta wave frequency, same as a deep sleep state
Yes, and apparently they include 35% tariffs across the board now. So the question remains, what did we get for dropping the DST?
Yep. And everyone who defended dropping the DST can start with the mea culpas any time they want
Good thing we dropped the DST, huh
A source for this claim would be great, because I haven’t heard anyone from the government say this. Even Carney, when directly asked if Canada got anything in return for scrapping the DST, got tongue-tied and then deflected, saying it’s ‘part of a larger process’.
Not how you react if you’re confident in your position, imo
deleted by creator
OK, well, it really seemed like you were defending the PM’s policy direction. Even as I re-read what you wrote, I’m struggling to find an alternative explanation.
Anyway if the political game is to pander to what people are demanding, then isn’t it the role of the people to be vocal about what they want?
If you are as worried about Bills C-5 and C-2 as you say, then why defend the PM being nice to Premier Smith, who many Liberals were literally calling a traitor just a couple months ago?
Why defend the PM being nice to Doug Ford, who is trying to ram through anti-democratic “special economic zones” legislation in Ontario’s Bill 5?
This is the LinkedIn post, which makes me even more sure you’re following me around lmao
Ah, I see, you’re OK with it because you like the policy.
My original post didn’t say it was concerning though, so I’m not sure why you responded as though it did.
Edit: also, you seem to be following me around different Lemmy communities with a 3-hour-old account. Any reason for that?
I don’t like that I agree with Poilievre here.
But it’s unclear what the vesting schedule for Carney’s Brookfield stock options is. Meaning that whoever is administering the ‘blind’ trust may not even have the ability to decide whether to exercise those options while Carney is in office.
I can’t see how that’s not a problem tbh