enkers

That’s just a cat thing. Some of them are intent on displaying their poopers whenever possible, especially if it’s right in your face.

Damn, I was with you until the unnecessary vegan bashing.

That’s… not what anyone is suggesting. They just want streaming services to also have to contribute a % of their revenue to CanCon, just like traditional broadcasters do.

Every tenth episode you have to watch Letterkenny.

But honestly, it says in the article:

Earlier Friday, Canadian media company Corus urged the CRTC to require traditional broadcasters and online players to pay the same amount into the Canadian content system. The broadcaster, which owns Global TV, said both should contribute 20 per cent of their revenue toward Canadian content.

Currently, large English-language broadcasters must contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming, and the CRTC last year ordered streaming services to pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to a fund devoted to producing Canadian content.

The foreign streaming services are fighting that rule in court and Netflix, Paramount and Apple pulled out of the CRTC hearing earlier this week.

That’s last year’s term. We’re now calling them unintended inter-vehicular contact events.

It’s often not just fresher produce, but substantially better tasting as well. I can’t go back to grocery store tomatoes after getting the local ones.

OK, and now that a system is in place, they have a financial incentive to drop that coverage because it A) costs them money, and B) costs their workers money, so it makes no sense to keep it there.

While yes it’s technically a fraction, and universal would’ve been better, the 4 in 5 people that make under 90k is a pretty darn big fraction.

While I agree universal would’ve been better, the cutoff is 90k. That’s something like 80% of the population who qualify, and the top 20% can probably afford it.

In practice, is it really that different than universal with a raise in taxes on the wealthiest 20%?

Did we collectively forget that the NDP brought dental care to those who couldn’t otherwise afford it? Kinda a big difference, no? The Liberals certainly wouldn’t have done it themselves.

It seems more just that the optics of confidence and supply is confusing to some.

Anything* But Conservative (* some conditions apply). 🤪

“He fills my soul. When I watch him on the lives, it’s one crying, we were in tears,” she said. “You feel from the soul of Pierre, just bringing that out to everybody.”

Huh, I thought I was going crazy, but it appears I’m not the only one who thought so. All the sources I can find right now seem to say he’s going to be running a pretty big deficit. Although it seems like the capital expenditures budget is going to be where a significantly higher portion of the budget will be spent.

Maybe the cut was solely to operating expenditures, even though the total to expenditures was increasing?

You know what, I’m going to delete my post, because it was clearly misinformed. I’m certain I recall reading several articles stating that the Liberals intended to attempt to balance the budget by making cuts, but I can’t find any evidence to support that.

I’m not sure why I thought that, but regardless I appreciate the call out.

deleted by creator

I never said that. PP would quite obviously be worse, and that’s why we’ll give the keys to Karney. But this path leads to more wealth inequality which will eventually result in populism taking over.

I mean, he wouldn’t answer the question regarding his investments in Brookfield during the debate, so I think the answer is fairly obvious:

When you want to find the rich people that are profiting from offshore tax havens, here is one right here. He’s literally stealing Canadian tax dollars for personal gain, and were going to give him the keys to the kingdom because he’s not PP. Bloody hell.

So if this chronology is accurate, basically the commission unilaterally decided to not have the green party there, then tried to blame it on a technicality? Not a good look.

It seems that there are facts that are in contention about whether or not the green party was fielding the necessary number of candidates. They said they did, and the commission said they didn’t. Hopefully there’ll be some third party verification going on here to get to the bottom of this.

Looks like they added some additional info and posted it as a new article:

https://www.greenparty.ca/en/news/the-green-party-reveals-its-chronology-of-events-in-its-communications-with-the-leaders-debates-commission-2

Hot damn, that certainly stinks of foul play, and conveniently for the commission, there’s not even a fall guy.