News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

UBI is going to be a lot closer to OW-levels of payment than full-time min wage payment. The idea isn't to make it so people don't have to work, it is to make not being able to work more tolerable while preserving incentives to find a job. Current welfare actively penalizes recipients for earned income through dollar for dollar clawback of benefits.
 
UBI is going to be a lot closer to OW-levels of payment than full-time min wage payment. The idea isn't to make it so people don't have to work, it is to make not being able to work more tolerable while preserving incentives to find a job. Current welfare actively penalizes recipients for earned income through dollar for dollar clawback of benefits.

Those are different problems - I am not sure what UBI is meant to be the solution for if it is an OW level payment (you can simply remove the current OW clawback for earned income - below a certain ceiling - if your policy goal is to encourage employment among welfare recipients).

AoD
 
UBI is going to be a lot closer to OW-levels of payment than full-time min wage payment. The idea isn't to make it so people don't have to work, it is to make not being able to work more tolerable while preserving incentives to find a job. Current welfare actively penalizes recipients for earned income through dollar for dollar clawback of benefits.

Agree with the caveat that OW at $733 per month does not make life bearable.

That sum is only workable if someone is living in Rent-Geared-to-Income housing; and even then may see someone using a food bank to get by.

Ontario's Basic Income experiment used the sum of $1,400, in 2018. With subsequent inflation of 6% by next year, we'd be looking at $1,484 per month.

Even that, of course, is really dependent on a subsidized housing arrangement unless you have someone to split the rent with; in which case it would merely be obscenely tight.
 
Remember, back in 2012. When Mayor Rob Ford and Councillor Doug Ford reverses the plastic bag fees?

Toronto City Council kills plastic bag ban

See link.

Faced with lawsuits from the plastics industry, Toronto City Council voted 38-7 Wednesday to forget about banning plastic shopping bags on Jan. 1 as planned.

At the behest of Mayor Rob Ford, council earlier this year scrapped the mandatory 5-cent bag fee introduced in 2009, which supporters said had been successful in slashing the number of bags dispensed.

After the latest move, there are no official restrictions whatever on bags.

“It’s just a sad day,” said Councillor Michelle Berardinetti. “Without a bag fee or a ban — with either one not in place — people will use those bags and it’s unfortunate for the environment.”

Retailers reaped the 5 cents. Berardinetti had hoped to steer some of that revenue into tree planting, in part to offset destruction by the emerald ash borer.

Instead, Mayor Ford suggested, let’s just scrap the fee. When it came to council in June, councillors voted to do away with the fee on July 1 — and in a surprise move adopted a motion to ban plastic bags outright as of Jan. 1, 2013.

The bag industry cried foul, noting the surprise vote meant they had not been consulted.

Recently, members of related industries commenced legal action, and city lawyers warned they had a case. After a closed-door discussion Wednesday morning, councillors emerged with the news that they’d decided not to proceed with a ban.

“We’re very happy,’ plastics industry spokesperson Joe Hruska told reporters. “Council made the right decision today on behalf of all Torontonians. We just believe that the plastic bag has never been a problem for the environment. So this is a good day for Toronto and for consumer choice.”

The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers said council’s original decision was flawed because the city had failed to conduct public hearings before voting.

Wednesday’s move to scrap the ban “validates our view that this bag ban bylaw was probably illegal, and with no prior consultation or deliberations, set a dangerous precedent,” federation president John Scott said in a statement.

The Ontario Convenience Stores Association said it was speaking with city lawyers on steps to resolve the lawsuit it had launched Nov. 15. The Canadian Plastic Bag Association filed suit Nov. 19.

“This is a good day for small businesses in Toronto and we commend Toronto City Council for their thoughtful reconsideration of this bylaw and the impact it would have had on convenience stores,” said Dave Bryans, the association’s chief executive. “By selectively prohibiting merchants from providing certain types of plastic bags, shoppers would have been less likely to make purchases, and that would have hit Toronto’s small, family-run convenience stores the hardest.”

Councillor Gord Perks blamed Mayor Ford for setting the stage for a surprise ban, which had passed on a motion tabled on the fly by Councillor David Shiner.

“Councillor Berardinetti thought she had a way to make the 5 cents work better,” Perks said. “And then, unfortunately, Mayor Ford — who seems only capable of breaking things — stuck his oar in and threatened to take the 5 cents off. Some members of council then decided, if we’re not going to have the 5 cents, let’s have a ban.”

The end result is no controls on bad, Perks lamented. “We’ve wound up in the terrible mess we’re in now where we’re actually not doing anything for the environment.”

The one bright spot, Perks said, was that council voted 31-14 vote to ask staff for a report next June on measures to reduce bag use

Parliament Hill goes further...

Ottawa names grocery bags, cutlery, straws, six-pack rings as ‘harmful’ single-use plastics it wants banned in Canada

See link.

It might be time to say goodbye to plastic grocery bags, cutlery, straws and stir sticks. If the federal government has its way, these single-use plastics will be banned in Canada by the end of 2021.

Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said Wednesday that the government is proposing to ban six commonly used plastic items as “harmful” substances. Wilkinson said the list was made based on evidence that these items are often not recycled and found littering the environment. They also have “readily available alternatives.”

On the list are plastic checkout bags, straws, stir sticks, six-pack rings, cutlery and “food ware made from hard-to-recycle plastics.”

The government will also name “plastic manufactured items” as a “toxic substance” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act — a move that environmentalists have called for as a necessary step for the federal government to regulate plastics in Canada.

The government has been working on plastics restrictions for more than a year, and Wilkinson told the Star in January that Ottawa would “likely” ban the single-use items named on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first promised in June 2019 that his government would ban “harmful” single-use plastics. At the time, Trudeau said the move was necessary to preserve a clean environment for future generations. He also promised the move would create 42,000 jobs by forcing plastics producers to be responsible for funding recycling programs for the products they create, which the prime minister said would range from pop bottles and cellphones.

The government has set a goal to eliminate plastic waste in Canada by 2030.

Earlier this year, the Liberal government took another step toward its promised ban when bureaucrats at Environment Canada produced a draft report on the science of plastics pollution.

Though the report highlighted how the evidence is incomplete, its authors conclude that plastic pollution is “everywhere” — from oceans to lakes to groundwater and soil, and even floats through the air and collects in clumps of household dust. An estimated one per cent of plastic produced in Canada — 29,000 metric tonnes of it — is dumped in the environment, the report said. That’s the equivalent weight of 213 blue whales.

Meanwhile, 86 per cent of it goes to landfills and only 9 per cent gets recycled, the report said.

It also highlighted evidence that “macroplastics” larger than five millimetres are harmful to birds, fish and other animals that ingest them or get tangled up and die; less is known about the environmental impact of tinier bits called “microplastics.”

At the time, Wilkinson said the research was solid enough to proceed with a ban on some single-use plastics.

Industry groups like the Retail Council of Canada and Canadian Federation of Independent Business have warned plastics bans could increase the cost of groceries and packaged goods. The Canadian Plastics Industry Association has also pushed back on the proposal, questioning whether replacing plastics with paper products could have worse environmental impacts.

Wilkinson’s office said in a press release Wednesday that the government will accept comments from stakeholders on its plan to reduce plastics pollution until Dec. 9 of this year.

The federal government also wants to work with provinces and territories to create “pan-Canadian targets” to eliminate plastic waste within the next 10 years, the release said.
 
Ford's government supports a private members bill which may bring an end to the bi-annual time change. It would, subject to conditions, make daylight savings time permanent, year-round. (I support this)


The 'may' part is that the bill sets out the notion of coordinating the move with Quebec and New York State.

Its not clear to me if either are on the move on this issue.
 
Ford's government supports a private members bill which may bring an end to the bi-annual time change. It would, subject to conditions, make daylight savings time permanent, year-round. (I support this)


The 'may' part is that the bill sets out the notion of coordinating the move with Quebec and New York State.

Its not clear to me if either are on the move on this issue.

This is nothing more than a move to distract from any potential problems with the new appointment based testing regime and the continual opening of restaurants.
 
This is nothing more than a move to distract from any potential problems with the new appointment based testing regime and the continual opening of restaurants.

It may well be; though in fairness, it was the media who flagged this; it wasn't a government press release; and it has already passed 1st and 2nd reading quite quietly.

Though I'm sure the government isn't above using it for a distraction.

BC, under the NDP, is moving to do the same mind you; and they've had a much better experience w/Covid.
 
Ford's government supports a private members bill which may bring an end to the bi-annual time change. It would, subject to conditions, make daylight savings time permanent, year-round. (I support this)


The 'may' part is that the bill sets out the notion of coordinating the move with Quebec and New York State.

Its not clear to me if either are on the move on this issue.
A better way of saying this is that Ontario (all but NW), would move into Atlantic time zone.
High noon (when the sun would be at it's highest for the middle of the time zone) would also be at 13:00.
I would rather stay in the Eastern Time Zone.
 
A better way of saying this is that Ontario (all but NW), would move into Atlantic time zone.
High noon (when the sun would be at it's highest for the middle of the time zone) would also be at 13:00.
I would rather stay in the Eastern Time Zone.

We're all allowed our preferences.

Like many, I prefer more daylight in the late afternoon/early evening vs sun at 7am.

To each their own. 🙂
 
Man I tire of these DSL pro/con debates. If nothing else, it will put us out of step with Michigan, folks in the Northwest will be out of step with Manitoba, and kids in Thunder Bay will be standing out for the school bus in the dark (ok, civil twilight).
 
Man I tire of these DSL pro/con debates. If nothing else, it will put us out of step with Michigan, folks in the Northwest will be out of step with Manitoba, and kids in Thunder Bay will be standing out for the school bus in the dark (ok, civil twilight).

I only posted a news report...........don't shoot the messenger! LOL
 
Back to the Ford government..............they seem to be up to something else...........having to do w/lowering standards for child-care providers.

 

Back
Top