suds

Less than 10% of the 4800 job losses will be with Bell Media. The vast majority of the layoffs will be in the telecom sector specifically targeting old, outdated, and costly to maintain legacy phone systems. I can't say I blame Bell (which is owned by shareholders), but it must have been a huge gut punch for a lot of those who lost their jobs and didn't see it coming. It's a sad day for all of us when these types of things happen.

It's my understanding that only 'local' television content has been cancelled in some areas, and that the radio stations dropped by Bell have already been sold or are in the process of being sold to much smaller (independent I presume) media outlets. Why is a media giant (monopoly) selling off some of its acquisitions such a bad idea?

I know you're not going to believe this, but doctors even made house calls. 😉

Things were definitely better back then. Lots of good paying jobs. One income family's were the norm. Little government debt. And really, that's about as good as it gets.

Well that is true, but let's not pretend that all Canadians (other than those of British heritage) consider themselves to be 'Canadians' first. Because that is entirely untrue in many cases. Or do you have this belief that Canada hasn't done enough to make those from other countries (and cultures) feel welcome here? I believe most newcomers want the same things everyone else wants, but still want to hold on to their traditions. It's not a crime you know, for them or for anyone else.

Of course not, because everyone knows cigarette smoking is bad for you. But in some cases the use of natural gas to replace coal as a short term solution could benefit the environment and people's health. Section 8 of the Bill makes it illegal for NG producers and retailers to even discuss these possibilities openly with the general public. I have to think that Section 8 goes one step too far.

A sort of two state solution worked reasonably well after Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. Then Egypt and Israel got into a tiff over the Straits of Tiran which led to the 6 day war breaking out and Israel becoming occupiers. David Cameron of the UK says that before any recognition would take place Hamas has got to go. According to the NYT, the Biden administration could possibly recognize a de-militarized Palestinian State once Palestinians had developed a set of defined, credible institutions, and security capabilities that would not threaten Israel. Other Arab states would have to be actively involved in any agreement. Talk is cheap, still a long way to go yet.

They used to have these Revenue Canada tax information centers set up in different places so one could bring in their tax returns, take a number, and discuss any tax issues face to face with one of their tax experts. No charge, only a bit of waiting. My best guess is that they got rid of these things about 10 years ago or so. Of course there's Revenue Canada numbers you can call but in my experience, if it's an actual tax question they'll likely advise you to discuss it with your accountant. As if everyone has their own accountant 😄.

Setting up a CRA (Revenue Canada) online account for the first time can be a bit challenging. Setting up a My Services Canada online account (for such things as OAS) can be just as challenging if not worse. I believe you can link the 2 in some way but I've always kept my CRA account separate from the My Services Canada account to avoid confusion. In other words I treat each account as their own separate entity with their own User ID, passwords, and security questions. Once you're set up the websites themselves are fairly easy to navigate. Not sure what your problems are exactly but I thought this might help.

That could be it... a smokescreen. Canadians are pissed off, they're way down in the polls, and can't run on their record. So they regurgitate 'electoral reform' and make it a central issue in the next election. But you're right... it won't fix a broken system.

Are there problems as to why they're doing this now? Are there some Canadians or parts of Canada that are disenfranchised for whatever reason? Skeptical minds would like to know.

When I posted he hadn't been sentenced yet and I believe it was his lawyer who suggested he was going to get between 8 and 14 months. All I can see is the link by NBC (and posted by sharkman) has automatically updated itself. 5 years sounds more realistic than 8 to 14 months. Now if he was a Trump crony and pulled that off of Pelosi he would have gotten life.

Yeah, process guardians. That'll be the answer all right. And who gets to pick these process guardians?? I get your point though, average Canadians are just too stupid to be making these decisions on their own.

I can think of a better way, have a referendum or whatever, but let the people have the final say on something so vitally important to our country as our elections. These politicians, they don't own this country, we do. WE THE PEOPLE!

In U.S. elections for Senators and Representatives, the times, place, and manner of such elections are prescribed by each State Legislature. So why is that I wonder? Why isn't it Congress which sets these rules? I believe the idea is that it would avoid the possibility of the same Party controlling House, Senate, and the Executive from going rogue. So the Constitution allows each State Legislature to make the rules for electing their own Congressmen. And if worse comes to worse and one or two State Legislatures do go rogue, it's not really going to hurt anything that much at the national level. I'm not sure if we could do the same thing with our Provinces but it wouldn't hurt. It's not really a good idea giving majority governments too much say with how our elections are conducted.

So this IRS contractor stole thousands of tax records of rich and prominent Americans, released them to the media, plead guilty to 1 charge of disclosure, and is likely going to get 8-14 months in jail. WOW! Did they ever nail this guy!

'Threatening' isn't the right word. Governments as a rule don't arbitrarily try to change election legislation unless it helps them. Just be skeptical is all until we find out more about it.

Changing electoral legislation by a sitting government that applies to the next election is in my view undemocratic in principle. It's time to be skeptical regardless of who's doing it. If it's anything more than a few minor changes to make voting easier then make it an election issue with precise details.

Two people along with two civil rights groups (the 'Canadian Civil Liberties Association' and the 'Canadian Constitution Foundation') were the ones who applied for the judicial review of the proclamation declaring a 'Public Order Emergency'. In turn, they deserve our respect and support because they're the ones who keep watch while we sleep. Great posts by the way!

I thought it would go to the Supreme Court also. But someone here mentioned somewhere the next step would be the Federal Court of Appeals. But whatever, I doubt they're incapable of admitting they may have made a mistake.

Excerpts from the Court summary... 1) Was the proclamation declaring a public order emergency unreasonable? Yes. 1) The proclamation applied to temporary measures in all of Canada's Provinces and Territories, despite the lack of evidence that it was necessary. Apart from the situation in Ottawa, the Police were able to enforce the rule of law by applying the criminal code and other legislation. 2) The CSIS Act defines threats to the security of Canada as "activities... directed towards or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective." The emergency required reasonable grounds to believe that the standard set out in s.2 of the CSIS Act had been met. The evidence in the record before the Court did not support a finding that the impugned activities reached that threshold. 2) Did the special powers created violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if so could they be saved under s.1 of the Charter? The Court found... 1) The regulations infringed the guarantee of freedom of expression under s.2B as they were overblown in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace. 2) Found the economic order infringed s.8 by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank accounts and credit cards. 3) The infringements of s.2B and s.8 of the Charter were found to be not minimally impairing, and could not, therefore, be justified under s.1. *** In my unprofessional opinion, I can't really see how an appeal can change anything. Your thoughts or anything you disagree with?

The Judge was appointed to the court by Chretien. I think he got it right.

Experts are claiming the ruling sets a legal precedent that makes the government accountable for misuse of the act. Not a bad thing really if it makes future governments think twice before using the act for political purposes.

War, more than anything else changes things. The Ottomans were in fact occupiers when they conquered Palestine in 1516. The British became occupiers when they were handed the mandate to rule after WW1. Presently the Israelis have been occupiers since the 1967 war. More importantly, the religion of the occupiers has changed from Islam to Christianity, to Judaism. The Ottomans never treated those living in Palestine fairly (and there were revolts) especially over taxes that made land ownership almost impossible for the average Palestinian, and conscription. They lived under a feudal system where most of the land was owned by rich sheiks who lived in other countries. But the difference was that it was Muslims ruling over other Muslims. When the UN Commission on the Partition of Palestine laid bare their plans they offered something to those in that part of the world never witnessed before... sovereignty, democracy, economic union, and a whole host of civil and religious rights. But instead, war broke out and they let it all slip away.

That's a bit outrageous to say the least. Try reading the actual text of Resolution 181 and then tell me what you think. For example..... 1.Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.