So what all we can do is trybto be better we can’t fix the past.

Looks like you could do some googling about the meaning of truth and reconciliation. No one is arguing we have to fix the past, it’s the “try to be better” we’re all aiming for.

Not attacking the declaration of indigenous rights is a part of “try to be better”

Like the story highlights that the NDP backed off because they couldn’t get the support from one of their members, who happens to be the wife of a First Nation chief

That’s not really true though.

Joan Phillip is not just “a wife of a First Nations Chief”; that’s kind of insulting. She’s First Nation and a long time activist at that, not just someone’s wife.

She’s voting the way she was elected to vote. It’s absolutely how democracies are supposed to work.

And she was not the only on the NDP caucus opposing the bill; though since it’s a slim majority it only takes one to say “I will nay” to put the bill at risk. It’s Eby who would put the government at risk by making a risky bill a confidence vote, not Joan. She doesn’t decide what is a confidence vote, she just votes.

It’s interesting that the article frames this as an issue that could topple the NDP, and that the NDP is basically backing out to appease a minority group at the potential expense of the majority’s interests.

Same could be said for trying to undo DRIPA in the first place. Risk a confidence vote to go backwards on a landmark reconciliation legislation that will affect generations just to appease a few landowners who eat rightwing fearmongering propaganda.

Wab rocks

Most people would not mind that, especially if transit got better. What’s your point?

Yes but also we need proportional representation so that the NDP isn’t there just to re-calibrate what left/right means

This 100%. So many people rely on those food banks that were basically relying on non-profit grocery stores already. GVFB seems to be better run than an average small store, they deserve more support.

For sure. A great medium to educate the average viewer about issues most people would never encounter themselves.

I learned a bunch and I’m excited for this getting a bunch of seasons.

I think this is known everywhere, except that

1. selling land brings politicians short term gains;
2. high density is unpopular with large swaths of constituents;

So 3 and 4 is what we’re getting in practice, but for 1 and 2 we need a proper government running by decent people, which has been hard to come by. We can’t even do the bare minimum of 1 and 2 to build supportive housing for the homeless…

I think we agree on 99% of the issue; we do need non-market housing and we need a diverse range of sizes; we do need to reduce the attractiveness of housing as an investment class.

But I disagree that we have excess 1bd units directly because of housing is seen as an investment. Small time investors bought these like hot cake because those investors, in large part having no idea about what they’re doing, were hyped about just getting into the market purely due to speculation, and of course the lowest entry into the market is the smallest unit possible. Pre-sale marketing treated these people like a Ponzi scheme: let’s sell as many as possible while it’s still profitable, these suckers will eat the price drop when it inevitably lands.

The reason why I’m nitpicking the root cause is that the main problem is not the investing, but that this investment is a badly regulated market, with a lot of silly myths going around (housing will never be a bad investment, rent is throwing money away etc). Basically Millennial’s covered call ETFs but for boomers. Or Gen Z’s shitcoints, but for boomers. A properly regulated market should mandate diversity of unit sizes, land use, non-market housing etc. Even if we spend zero energy on de-incentivizing buying homes for investment, at least a regulated market would prevent a bunch of idiots betting their retirement on “housing only go up” to cause the market to get distorted. Of course I do also agree we should work to not treat housing as investment, count me in for a 5000% increase on property taxes for non-primary residences.

For sure one of my best watches of 2025, the good kind of silly and cheesy

I feel like my comment has upset a few people.

Doesn’t seem that way to me at all

so taxes were raised on things like parking

That’s a great thing, though. So kudos for being very targeted in the budgeting gymnastics

People really don’t like feeling responsible for the things we’re all responsible

Snowboarding, gotta make the most of snow while I still have access to it

So far, for this kind of debt, 100%

If you’re choosing between two reasonable options, which I think it’s the case with most NDP internal votes, I’d say you should vote with your heart. I only defend strategic voting if you need to take extreme results into consideration, like rising fascism

I understand that, but thrashing the economy is very different from thrashing the credit rating of the whole country. But I can see how perhaps I’m still in denial, looking back it is true that this regime has been worsen than my wildest imagination in all aspects

Thank you for your mercy, even though you eventually ran out of it

My bad, I jumped to conclusions since a lot of the case discussions are indigenous. I hope someday you and their other loved ones impacted by this negligence get some closure, even if it doesn’t come from the institutions that should have helped.

If USD is devalued over time we’ll make bank in other ways, so not concerned about that. What’s more likely is higher inflation would demand higher bond yields, which means bonds are cheaper and Canada should buy even more of them. It does mean that current bonds lose value but if we hold them to term doesn’t matter much