I agree, but a big part of whatever problems there are with this program is that the various agencies aren't actually holding up their end of the bargain.
The program really should be primarily true social housing, not this public-private partnership, but the checks and balances should at least work.
They did eventually get around to mentioning in passing some of the reasons this particular program fails in some ways. It would have been a much better piece if they had started with the objective to compare and contrast programs that actually work (Medicine Hat, last time I looked) and those that don't (this one, apparently).
My (counter) point was that much lesser crimes committed by an individual would have completely destroyed the life of the perpetrator and probably their family. Yet high fives all around when a corporation has to put up with a couple of years of lost growth just because a number is too big for an individual to properly comprehend.
An interesting contrast here. Air Canada is forced to honour an erroneous committment made by its service department. Government of Canada is not forced to honour a committment made by its service department.
I could understand it if the error was discovered and acted upon in a reasonable time, but over 30 years? That's just not acceptable.
Counterpoint: a very large fraction of the population is one unexpected bill away from insolvency. It doesn't seem unreasonable to impose a similar fear on corporations for actual criminal activity.
Yes, that's me saying that a corporation breaking the law should have to legitimately consider closing it's doors. In some cases, forced closure should be part of the actual penalty.
I don't think it's fair to lay current economic landscape squarely at Trudeau's feet.
I agree. There is plenty of blame to go around. Trudeau, the other leaders, the MPs, and the very parties themselves going back to at least 1990 are to blame.
There is virtually nothing that can't be traced back to changes in policy enacted by, supported by, and tacitly accepted by literally everyone involved.
Changes to EI that gutted the power of non-union employees.
Changes to business and labour policies such that "society owes me a business" and "nobody owes you a job" attitudes were fostered, then cemented.
Any subsidy or tax reduction or public funding of anything that generates private profit.
Complete dismantling of a world-leading social housing program.
Gutting civil service in favour of consultants and industry association advisors.
Allowing already weak anti-monopoly legislation to gather dust in a drawer.
The focus on the financial health of the stock market instead of the financial health and stability of the general public.
The idea that industry can self-regulate potentially damaging behaviours. It's never happened. It never will.
And my favourite, running the country like a business. Every employer runs their business as a dictator. Who the hell thinks that's the right model for running a country?
And here's me over in the corner thinking that maybe those with a monopoly on state-sanctioned violence should be held to a higher standard than the general public, not a lower one.
If that had been a gang of thugs (🤔), you can bet that everything would be done to pursue the case. And not just two people, but the whole gang as participants in a criminal activity.
I've read a number of articles claiming to demonstrate how many of the negative things our governments and corporations foist upon us were first used in prisons. They were then rolled out to the general public, starting with disadvantaged and marginalized communities.
It's time for organizations like the John Howard Society to get more support so that they can be more vocal and more active.
It was never sustainable right from the beginning. Food banks are supported and funded mostly by those just a paycheque or two from being a client themselves. If the actually well-off were doing their part, food banks would mostly disappear because wages and social assistance would be up to the task of making sure people can afford to eat.
There is a really easy fix for that. A proper training program instead of just expecting that people are born with the necessary skills. Having worked IT in a variety of capacities, including training and end-user support, I'm pretty sure cluelessness is a function of training and experience, not age.
I haven't really followed that closely in recent years, but pretty much everything to do with guns is handled so badly, no matter who is in power. This is just one more in long line of screw ups.
The last few decades have been just a mess. Way too many emotions on every side. Way too many people with little grasp of guns and their legitimate, harmless uses. Way too many people who think that guns are some god-given totem of freedom as opposed to a tool or recreational skill. Way too many people who see a path to power by inflaming the passions of one side or the other.
Nobody seems interested in conducting actual research into what actually works for the safety of individuals and society. It's all intuition, gut feelings, different versions of "common sense", "just so" stories, and emotional attachment to an immovable opinion.
Too many people have no concept of how great the change is. We got married in the late 1970s. My wife's high school education and receptionist job was enough to get us into a decent 2-bedroom apartment, buy her a brand new motorcycle, and pay for my schooling in a trade. My trade was enough to upgrade our apartment, pay for my hotrodding hobby, let her quit to stay home with our son, buy a camper for weekend trips around the province and vacation trips around Canada and USA, all while saving enough for a down payment on a house with double-digit mortgage rates.
A few financial setbacks (extended layoffs mostly) meant starting almost from scratch (we kept our home but lost all savings and investments) in the early 90s and completely from scratch (lost our home, too) in the early 2000s. It took both of us to barely afford the same apartment of our youth. We finally gave up in 2011, changed careers and moved into a 1968 mobile home on a leased lot in the middle of nowhere. We're back to being able to afford leisure, although on a much, much smaller scale than in our youth.
We're still in that 1968 mobile home on a leased lot. It has apparently quadrupled in value since 2011, so if we were forced to start over again, it would be out of reach. We'd be homeless.
Divorce? Fortunately, that has never been on the table, but it's been at least 2 decades since we'd have been able to contemplate single life from a financial perspective.