• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

The greatest economic boom in history happened when prices fell to record lows due to industrialization (during the industrial revolution). Prices falling isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is actually a hallmark of successful capitalism. Our current ‘capitalists’ at the top want to avoid it mainly because it hurts their margins and equalizes the playing field. It also might shake up who is sitting at the top.

I’ve been saying for a while now that just because you’re a businessman doesn’t mean you’re a capitalist.
 

New gvt now taking a few things more seriously.
That's an interesting one. I haven't seen any background on this, but I could see why a Chinese manufacturer of surveillance cameras that use the internet for data could be a problem. While you and I will never know, it would be fun to know what specific intelligence informed the Investment Canada Act review that resulted in this national security determination.
 
I’ve been saying for a while now that just because you’re a businessman doesn’t mean you’re a capitalist.
The alternative I think you are referring to is

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
cor·po·rat·ist
/ˈkôrp(ə)rədəst/
often derogatory
noun
a person who advocates for the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
"we knew that they would uphold the ban because they are corporatists"
adjective
relating to or characterized by advocacy for the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.
"they are beholden to corporatist interests and that's why they're making this secret side deal"
 
That's an interesting one. I haven't seen any background on this, but I could see why a Chinese manufacturer of surveillance cameras that use the internet for data could be a problem. While you and I will never know, it would be fun to know what specific intelligence informed the Investment Canada Act review that resulted in this national security determination.

In the early 2000's you could just put a make/model number of a lot of different types cameras into Google and it would bring up pages upon pages of privately owned ones that make you could view, and in some cases control entirely unknown to the owners and that existed for years. So this move makes a lot of sense in my mind. Better safe than sorry.
 
I’ve been saying for a while now that just because you’re a businessman doesn’t mean you’re a capitalist.
Just like there’s different flavours or socialism, as @Kirkhill pointed out, there’s more than one flavour of capitalism/free market approaches.
 
My issue with the housing market is when you look at it, the homes them selves haven't increased a crazy amount over the last 20-30 years. What's primarily inflated in the value of the land those homes sit on. Thats how we end up with 1.3 million dollar slum homes for sale. Its 1.1 million for the land with a 200k shack on it. So truly its land values that need to be reassessed in how we value land to bring down those prices.
 
My issue with the housing market is when you look at it, the homes them selves haven't increased a crazy amount over the last 20-30 years. What's primarily inflated in the value of the land those homes sit on. Thats how we end up with 1.3 million dollar slum homes for sale. Its 1.1 million for the land with a 200k shack on it. So truly its land values that need to be reassessed in how we value land to bring down those prices.
The problem with land is that it is a finite resource. The amount we have that is desirable and available has been shrinking more and move over the past 50 or so years.

Scarcity = value. We aren't creating more desirable and available land due to stuff like the Greenbelt or other environmental things we know aren't the done thing anymore (Ducks Unlimited would have you hung drawn and quartered for suggesting draining a marsh to build a subdivision).

Until we reassess value on density, the problem will just get worse.
 
My issue with the housing market is when you look at it, the homes them selves haven't increased a crazy amount over the last 20-30 years. What's primarily inflated in the value of the land those homes sit on. Thats how we end up with 1.3 million dollar slum homes for sale. Its 1.1 million for the land with a 200k shack on it. So truly its land values that need to be reassessed in how we value land to bring down those prices.
I’m only really familiar with the Ottawa market. That exists here where I live but only in specific desirable locations in and around the city.

Anyone familiar with Alta Vista for example will know that is the case. Some lots with older smaller homes which essentially become tear downs and new bigger houses built on them. Some other areas are similar. But there are more affordable options especially for people starting out.

Maybe land value assessments are the way to go or have more options elsewhere.
 
I’m only really familiar with the Ottawa market. That exists here where I live but only in specific desirable locations in and around the city.

Anyone familiar with Alta Vista for example will know that is the case. Some lots with older smaller homes which essentially become tear downs and new bigger houses built on them. Some other areas are similar. But there are more affordable options especially for people starting out.

Maybe land value assessments are the way to go or have more options elsewhere.
it isn't only the land value. Local governments consider new construction as a cash cow. Development fees from what I have read are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in most of the major cities. It appears to be convenient to blame the developer but those houses that are mostly torn down but leave enough to label it a re-build save the builder a bundle in taxes.
 
Signs of hope?
We'll see how the "fresh look" goes, then. Also on the DoJ front ...
 
Signs of hope?
We'll see how the "fresh look" goes, then. Also on the DoJ front ...
We don’t need new laws, only to enforce the laws on the books. It does cover all protests that block roads or any other place your legally allowed to be. Basically your right to protest doesn’t equal the right to prevent me from legally doing what I am allowed to do.

 
We don’t need new laws, only to enforce the laws on the books. It does cover all protests that block roads or any other place your legally allowed to be. Basically your right to protest doesn’t equal the right to prevent me from legally doing what I am allowed to do.

But by setting it apart he provides an excuse for the government to do nothing about it now. So we will have another summer of vandalized synagogues and burnt catholic churches while they study it.
 
Signs of hope?
We'll see how the "fresh look" goes, then. Also on the DoJ front ...

We don’t need new laws, only to enforce the laws on the books. It does cover all protests that block roads or any other place your legally allowed to be. Basically your right to protest doesn’t equal the right to prevent me from legally doing what I am allowed to do.


But by setting it apart he provides an excuse for the government to do nothing about it now. So we will have another summer of vandalized synagogues and burnt catholic churches while they study it.

I’d need to be able to actually read a bill with proposed wording for any new offence, and compare it to existing criminal offences like Intimidation and Mischief. I’m not sure there’s much problem behaviour that’s not already incidentally captured by existing offences. However, the federal government has zero ability to actually operationally direct police services. Enumerating a new and more specific offence would be a way of signaling Parliament’s intent that specific behaviour with specific motive is specifically criminalized, lest police and prosecutors be reticent to apply existing offences in unconventional situations because it feels like a stretch.

My best guess is we would see a new offence numbered 423.3, mirroring the 423.2 “Intimidation - health services” and “Obstruction or interference with access” offence created in 2021. That offence, in the context of protecting healthcare providers and facilities, both captures ‘intimidation’ more expansively but also plainly and directly criminalizes the impeding of access. the 423.2 offence was created in response to protests during the pandemic that impeded access to hospital, vaccination clinics etc. existing offences were, I guess, found to fall a bit short of need. A new offence that mirrors the ‘health services’ offences but substitutes something like ‘religious or cultural institutions or facilities’ is my best guess for what they’re considering.
 
Back
Top