Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/21/2021 in all areas

  1. At a certain point we all have to transition from lockdown to living with Covid. Transition to dealing with it like every other risk in our lives. Ethically you want everyone to have had an opportunity to have both doses first. But at a certain point people who choose not to vaccinate, can not have the world in lockdown forever. Like smoking. Warn them. Give them free programs to quit. But if they don't want to? They have to live with it. The US thinks along these lines more strongly than Canada. In the fall there will be a small forth wave of those unvaccinated. Nothing will shut down. You can't. If you shut down for a wave of unvaccinated you will never reopen. There will be stories of Joe down the street who didn't vaccinate. The reality of transitioning to risk management will push more to vaccinate when they ask themselves" am I managing this risk appropriately"? In the mean time the Joe's of this world will be a shame. I hope people are taking seriously the choice not to vaccinate and have weighed the risk.
    4 points
  2. Seems that they intend to go ahead with their July return to business. End of the discussions for the acquisition of Transat 21 June 2021Canadian Aviation News MONTRÉAL, June 21, 2021 /CNW Telbec/ – Transat A.T. Inc. (“Transat” or the “Corporation”) announces today that the ongoing discussions with Mr. Pierre Karl Péladeau concerning the potential acquisition of all of the shares of Transat through his company Gestion MTRHP inc. (“MTRHP”) have ended. On April 7, 2021, Mr. Péladeau delivered to Transat a non-binding proposal contemplating a transaction pursuant to which MTRHP would acquire all of the shares of Transat for a consideration of $5.00 per share, payable in cash. Considering the current share price, the price offered no longer provides a reasonable basis to envision receiving the level of shareholder approval required in order to allow the transaction to proceed. Accordingly, MTRHP confirmed to the Corporation that it was withdrawing from the discussions. In light of the foregoing, the work of the special committee charged of reviewing strategic alternatives will cease, and Transat intends to focus its efforts on the implementation of its strategic plan and on the upcoming restart of its operations and flights, on July 30. As contemplated in its strategic plan, the outline of which was revealed publicly on June 10, Transat also intends to examine possibilities to optimize its financing structure, which could include the issuance of shares of its capital or bond financing on more favorable terms than those attached to a portion of the liquidities made available to Transat under the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF).
    1 point
  3. History is not something that is simply disposable We need thoughtful debate, writes Michael Kaczorowski Calgary Herald 21 Jun 2021 Michael Kaczorowski is a retired public servant in Ottawa. Perhaps the first real history books I ever read in high school were historian Donald Creighton's two-volume biography of Sir John A. Macdonald — The Young Politician, The Old Chieftain. These works evoke the great drama behind Confederation and celebrate the life of a remarkable political figure who, more than any other, made Canada possible. There is a significant difference, of course, between history and hagiography. The latter concerns the lives of saints, not imperfect men. It is important to remind ourselves of this distinction in the light of recent events. The discovery of the unmarked graves of children in Kamloops, B.C., along with the enduring tragic legacy of the residential school system, has reignited debate about how we present history and historical figures in this country. Such debate is both healthy and a tribute to our democratic society. Yet even in democracies, thoughtful debate and perspective can become casualties in a time of judgment. The legacy of John A. Macdonald is a case in point. It seemingly matters little that Macdonald led the efforts to create an independent nation in the face of British indifference and American hostility. Or that he did so while battling alcoholism and family tragedy (a mentally incapacitated daughter, the death of his first wife). This more rounded portrait is far different from the caricature. Yes, Macdonald was a man of his time and his views no doubt reflected those of society at that time — for good and for ill. But if the responsibility for the residential school system and its legacy lies solely with Macdonald, does that absolve all of those who followed after him and did not act? If we condemn outright all those of the past who lack our present-day sensibilities, who will be spared? Treating history as something disposable is wrong. Likewise, seeking to address the mistakes of the historical past by erasing that past We live in a time where absolutist positions have replaced reasoned argument teaches us nothing. This is even more true in cases where violence masquerades as “principle,” as in the recent “beheading” of a statue of Egerton Ryerson in Toronto. The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada did not call for the removal of monuments. Indeed, commission chair Justice Murray Sinclair has said genuine reconciliation is not about tearing down statutes or renaming schools, but rather seeking a proper balance in telling the history of this country. This wise and constructive perspective seems to have been lost. Scrawling graffiti on a Roman Catholic Church is an act of intimidation. It is not a pathway to reconciliation. We live in a time where absolutist positions have replaced reasoned argument, where there is no tolerance for seeking common ground. Differing views are as often as not met with outright hostility, and debate replaced by a kind of imposed orthodoxy. The ability to reason is not deemed valuable, nor are context and perspective. This is not a healthy way to build understanding. On his last day in the House of Commons in June 1984, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said no government can rewrite history. Instead, “it is our purpose to be just in our time.” In the wake of the terrible revelations of recent weeks, and the likelihood of more to come, I genuinely hope that amid the pain and sorrow, there is an opportunity for all us — Indigenous and non-indigenous — to commit ourselves to an approach to reconciliation based on being “just in our time,” as citizens and as peoples.
    1 point
  4. The far-left and the elites hate Canada By Candice Malcolm - June 20, 2021 Sir Winston Churchill has become the latest victim of the deranged woke mob in Canada. Churchill joins the esteemed club of historical figures who have had their statues defaced or torn down in recent weeks and months in a fit of criminal rage by a nameless, faceless mob. Canada’s founding Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald, early advocate for universal education Egerton Ryerson, and Canada’s founding monarch Queen Victoria have all become the target of cancel culture and woke leftist vandals. And while there is feigned condemnation from left-wing leaders over the illegal destruction of property, there is a growing political and intellectual movement that seeks to legitimize the woke worldview. When news broke that Churchill’s statue in Edmonton had been doused with red paint, Edmonton’s wannabe woke mayor Don Iveson failed to condemn the mob. Instead, he promoted the idea that we should apply today’s hyper-politicized speech standards to historical figures. Iveson said he welcomed discussions of “addressing historical wrongdoings and inequities like systemic racism,” but simply noted there are better ways to do this than “vandalizing city property.” Nisha Patel, the City of Edmonton’s Poet Laureate, a taxpayer-funded government position, openly voiced support to the vandals and their political tactics. She told Global News that the vandalism simply shows that “any attempt at dialogue or outreach has truly failed,” and that “there are angry people with valid feelings who want to express their frustration.” According to Global, “she added it’s important to note the people who vandalized the statue did not harm anyone.” You get that? If you’re on the far-left, it’s perfectly reasonable to be angry and express your frustration through the destruction of property. Patel goes on to say: “I think if this is what it takes to reach a critical point, where opposition is taken seriously by people who are bigoted, then this is what we have to do.” In other words, if you oppose the woke mob tearing down statues and erasing our history, you are a bigot and that only further justifies the woke mob tearing down statues and erasing our history. Must be nice to be a Poet Laureate. And of course, Patel is far from the only public figure that seems to hate Canada so much that she wants to destroy every institution in our country. Last week, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh told us what he really thinks of Canada. “The reality is that our Canada is a place of racism, of violence, of genocide of indigenous people, and our Canada is a place where Muslims are not safe. They are not. They are not safe. Muslims are not safe in this country.” That would be news to my husband’s family, who escaped tyranny in Iran and found a peaceful, welcoming home filled with opportunity and freedom in North Toronto. I guess they didn’t get the memo that one politicized tragedy in London, Ontario means that Canada’s one million Muslims are no longer safe in the world’s most diverse, tolerant and open society. A 27-year-old MP in Singh’s caucus echoed this hatred for Canada in her farewell speech to the House of Commons on Tuesday. Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, NDP member for Nunavut, blasted Canada as a colonialist hellhole built on the oppression of Indigenous people and whose history is stained with blood. Her angry rant, filled with baseless accusations and fanatical hyperbole, was applauded and promoted by the legacy media. I’ve yet to see a single public figure counter her radical claims or refute his fever-dream excoriation of our country. That’s because defending Canada is now passé. It’s much more fashionable to condemn Canada as a uniquely terrible, systemically compromised failed state built by irredeemably horrendous leaders who committed unspeakable atrocities and crimes against humanity. If that’s your worldview — and it seems that is the view held by cultural leftist elites these days — then it’s no wonder why they want Churchill’s head on a platter. Sure, he beat Hitler and stopped the Nazis. But Canada, and indeed all of Western Civilization, is just as bad.
    1 point
  5. I am surprised the mayor didn’t pull the race card and state it was a far right white extremist : https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/20/florida-pride-parade-death/ Turns out, the terrorist was a 77 yr old gay man that was supposed to lead the parade…. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/06/20/fort-lauderdale-florida-pride-parade-truck-crash-accident/7764013002/
    1 point
  6. In addition to the examples of the current government to ignore the rules of parliament in the previous post, here is another one that isn’t getting much publicity. It involves a challenge to the Order in Council that banned “assault weapons”: https://ipolitics.ca/2021/06/18/government-refuses-to-comply-with-court-order-for-cabinet-docs/ Is it because there are no documents and Trudeau did it on a whim for political purposes?? Who the f@#k does this guy think he is?? When he said he admires the Chinese dictatorship, people didn’t realize this would become the norm for government here.
    1 point
  7. Canada has become irrelevant under Trudeau. No one wants to listen to him spew his LGBT and Gender Identity propaganda.
    1 point
  8. LOLOLOLOL CBC to turn off Facebook comments, citing reporters' 'fragile' mental health Editor-in-chief for the CBC, Brodie Felton, posted that the disabling of the comments feature was going to be an "experiment." The CBC will turn off Facebook comments for articles after "social media attacks" on journalists. Editor-in-chief for the CBC, Brodie Felton, posted that the disabling of the comments feature was going to be an "experiment." Felton's reasoning is that the mental health of journalists is just too fragile to allow public commentary. He writes: "Compounding the stress and anxiety of journalists is the vitriol and harassment many of them face on social media platforms and, increasingly, in the field." Jonathan Kay, Quillette editor, author and National Post columnist, shared his take on the "experiment," saying that among the "plenty of good reasons to turn of comments... journalistic anxiety isn't one of them." Felton notes that "The president of CBC/Radio-Canada, Catherine Tait, has also written about the increased abuse of journalists on social media, especially women and journalists of colour, and the threat such attacks pose to free speech and democracy." Tait wrote that journalists are "being targeted online, especially on social media. Some cite the right to free speech as a defence for online abuse, but the reality is that in intimidating and obstructing journalists, they are themselves suppressing free speech and subverting democracy. "For journalists," Tait went on, "there is no more important issue than the ability to report without fear of reprisal. This is as true for reporters working in newsrooms as it is for those operating in conflict zones, other hostile environments or under repressive regimes." Felton blames readers who comment for a decline in public discourse, saying that "the conversation on social media suggests we have a problem." "It's one thing for our journalists to deal with toxicity on these platforms," he writes. "It's another for our audience members who try to engage with and discuss our journalism to encounter it on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, where they are almost guaranteed to be confronted by hate, racism and abuse." Felton cites an article by former Daily Beast reporter Olivia Messer, who said she had to quit her job because she was struggling with the constant stress, though she speaks about the support she received on Twitter, and not abuse. Messer writes that she "interviewed a dozen local and national journalists. Many of them," she wrote, said "they do not feel supported by newsroom leaders; that they do not have the tools they need to handle the trauma they are absorbing; and that most of their bosses don't seem to care about how bad it has gotten. Some said they are still finding themselves sobbing after meetings, between meetings, on calls during work, or when the day ends." Felton clearly doesn't want to be that kind of boss, so he's turning off comments to be more supportive. The comments will be disabled as of Wednesday, and readers will still be able to comment directly on the CBC website itself.
    1 point
  9. Actually, I'm glad to see this is now recognized for the absurdity that it is and always was. Perhaps in the fullness of time, the buffoonery that passes as current events will suffer the same fate. Future generations will reflect on the fact that advanced math was considered racist and not permitted prior to grade 11, and that sheet music, milk and even trees were the domain of racists. Essays will be titled "The age of Hysterical Buffoonery."
    1 point
  10. Rex Murphy: CBC loses farcical lawsuit against the Conservatives, but secular moralizing will continue Rex Murphy 16 hrs ago CBC lost a court case yesterday. But, apart from possibly having to pay costs, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. For the few who have happily forgotten about the affair, its key points were that CBC management and their chief correspondent (named in the suit originally, but after very predictable embarrassments, her name was removed) sued one of Canada’s two main parties. To end your suspense, it was the Conservatives. Startling, I know. They sued, even more startling, and this time I’m not being sarcastic, during a federal election. Pause on that one. In the middle of an election campaign, Canada’s main broadcaster (cue laugh track) launched a public lawsuit against one of the two main contending parties. And inserted the name of their chief correspondent into the suit. This was farcical on the face of it. You do not send out your reporters in the morning to cover a politician, and then send out your lawyers in the afternoon to harass him in court. It goes against — what is that term? — the doctrine of impartiality in news coverage. They sued because the Conservatives used a fragment of a news item in one of their election ads. Political parties have been using quotes and film clips almost as long as they have been making promises and breaking them. CBC could have saved themselves a lot of mockery by consulting one of the many splendid technicians, any camera operator, editor or even the security staff. For it is my experience that there is a lot more wisdom, or if not wisdom, common sense in the people off-camera than there is in any of the higher offices and endless meeting rooms where the putative “big brains” plot the next version of CBC news — its various reimaginings, restructurings or reinventions. Reimagining the CBC is close to a hobby with this crowd. If they actually tried to make the one they already have, the CBC that is already there, really do its job, push its reporters to get out of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto more, engage with the whole country it is mandated to report on, perhaps there wouldn’t be time for useless and dumb lawsuits. Or dragging its current president in all the way from New York for yet another “Plotting a New Course for CBC News” seminar. The main argument CBC put up, and argument in this context is a charity word, was that they launched the suit “to protect the trust Canadians have in the independence of their public broadcaster?” Well, that’s a whole lot of icing for very little cake. If trust can be measured by ratings, Canadians are not nearly as saturated by trust in the independence of their public broadcaster as that statement presupposes. Indeed, to choose a neutral term, very many Canadians see the CBC as tendentious, absorbed in social justice issues to the exclusion of other equal concerns, as too focussed on the centre of the country, and in particular Toronto-centric to an unfathomable degree. In particular, I would argue the CBC in these latter days seems to think its “mission” is not to report on Canada, but to improve it. There is a high degree of what I’ll call secular moralizing that drives their news selection, and that moralizing enters the reporting itself. Rather than hiving off to the courts when the sensibilities of management are dented, they might try to strip off a layer of the righteousness of their attitude to what news is and should be, stop supporting causes and instead report on them in depth. And while they are at it leave all the American political stories, from judicial nominations, to the “insurrection” in Washington, and anything wildly anti-Trump (recall the interviews with the one-time, Trump-slayer Michael Avenatti’) — leave all those stories to the Americans. Will Thursday’s judgement change anything? No. Not a chance. The organism in question here has grown too sluggish and self-absorbed. And the evidence for that is in the news that they may appeal the decision. Before they actually make that choice, have someone upstairs in their great building talk to someone, anyone — sound engineer, cameraman — it doesn’t matter, working in the offices below. He or she will, in full exasperation, advise against it.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...