Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lucy Goosey

Lucy Goosey's Journal
Lucy Goosey's Journal
June 22, 2012

Canada tightens mortgage rules to adjust to worsening world economic threat

http://www.thestar.com/business/mortgages/article/1214776--flaherty-set-to-announce-tighter-mortgage-rules?bn=1

OTTAWA—Hemmed in by a deteriorating world economy, the federal government and the Bank of Canada are recalibrating their strategies in hopes of preserving growth in Canada without inciting a dangerous housing price bubble.

...snip...

“We just came back from the G20 meeting of leaders and finance ministers and the reality is that the European situation is very challenging, to put it mildly,” Flaherty said. “So my job is to look at our own country and look at the residential real estate market and make the best judgment that we can.”

In a speech in Halifax, Carney chimed in, “Federal authorities have taken additional prudent and timely measures to support the long-term stability of the Canadian housing market, and mitigate the risk of financial excesses.

“Our economy cannot depend indefinitely on debt-fuelled household expenditures, particularly in an environment of modest income growth,” the bank governor pointed out.

Flaherty said he acted to toughen mortgage rules for the fourth time in six years to slow the growth of a real estate bubble. He noted that the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble caused long-term damage to the American economy.

The government is tightening mortgages by reducing the maximum amortization for a government-insured mortgage to 25 years from 30 years.

It is also lowering the maximum amount Canadians can borrow when refinancing a property to 80 per cent from 85 per cent of the value of their homes. Flaherty has complained in the past about people using their homes at ATM machines.

And government-backed mortgage insurance will no longer be available for homes with a purchase price of more than $1 million.


So this is good, right? I mean, I rarely support anything the HarperCons do, but at least this seems to be a conservative move in a good way - prudent, promoting stability - as opposed to being "conservative" in a libertarian, corporatist way. Honestly, and maybe I'm deluding myself a bit here, this is the type of story that makes me feel a bit smug about Canada, like, "Sure we have our Conservatives, and they are generally mean, entitled douchebags, but at least they aren't quite Republicans." (I felt this same kind of Canadian smugness listening to Conservative Whip Gordon O'Connor's unapologetic defence of abortion rights.)
June 14, 2012

Canadian researcher thwarts Ebola virus, Conservative gov't to cut his funding

Conservative idiots are conservative idiots, whether north or south of the 49th parallel.

The good news:

In an article published Wednesday in Science and Translational Medicine, Gary Kobinger and several others outline the cocktail of antibodies they used to treat macaque monkeys infected with the most lethal strain of Ebola virus. All the macaques treated 24 hours after infection recovered, as did half of those treated after 48 hours.
It’s big news for a notorious virus, which can kill up to nine of every 10 humans infected (the most virulent strains of flu, by comparison, kill about five of every hundred infected). Up until now, the best treatment was only good for less than an hour after exposure.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-researchers-thwart-ebola-virus/article4258104/

And the (probably) bad news:
The Department of National Defence has funded much of his research so far, but has indicated in this year’s budget it may cut back on anything except but Arctic security and cybersecurity.

June 12, 2012

Conservatives Repealing the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act (Canada)

Critics see pro-business bias in budget measures that chip away at labour power:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/critics-see-pro-business-bias-in-budget-measures-that-chip-away-at-labour-power-153272745.html

But critics say the government's true colours are coming through more clearly and with a more systemic impact in a controversial budget bill they argue fundamentally changes the power balance between employers and employees — all to the detriment of workers.

One of the measures is so sneaky, says NDP MP Pat Martin, nobody seemed to notice the line buried deep in the 452-page Bill C-38 that simply states, "The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is repealed," giving no explanation.

With those 10 words, Ottawa intends to wipe out a 1985 law compelling contractors bidding on federal contracts to pay "fair wages" and overtime.

"I would have missed it and I'm from that industry. It was number 68 of 70 bills that they changed," said Martin, a former journeyman carpenter and construction worker.

Martin notes that unlike most measures in the budget bill, there was no prior discussion of the measure or even a signal such a change was contemplated.

"It's a solution without a problem. The only conclusion I can come up with is that it's a war on labour and the left. It's what the Americans did with the right-to-work states and the end result is $8 or $9 an hour is now the average wage in places like North Carolina."


I love how the linked article begins with the question, "Is the Harper government fundamentally anti-labour?"

Seriously, do you have to ask?
June 8, 2012

Canada: Anti-abortion protester loses appeal at Supreme Court

This is good news, I think. I hope it won't have bad implications for restricting/limiting other types of protests, though. Of course the right to protest abortion clinics still exists, but the defendant here regularly gets too close to clinics and attempts to "counsel" women who are entering.

A dogged anti-abortion protester has lost a big step in her legal battle to defy an 18-year-old injunction against picketing Toronto abortion clinics.

In an 8-1 decision The Supreme Court of Canada upheld Friday two lower appeal rulings that underlined criminal powers to enforce injunctions in the absence of any other law on the books.

It means if the Crown decides to proceed yet again, Linda Gibbons, 63, will face a new criminal trial for breaching an injunction issued on Aug. 30, 1994.

That order was meant to keep protesters at least 18 metres away from clinics, in the wake of a wave of tension-filled protests, and the firebombing of Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s Toronto clinic in the years after the country’s top court struck out Canada’s abortion law.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1208134--anti-abortion-protester-loses-bid-to-defy-1994-injunction-supreme-court-rules

Gibbons has spent about 10 of the last 20 years in jail for repeatedly and knowingly breaking the injunction against protesting within 18 metres of a clinic. She even refused to post $500 bail, because staying away from clinics was a condition of the bail. She has no one to blame but herself for facing criminal charges yet again. But with this happening in the wake of Quebec trying to shut down student protests, it has me a bit concerned that this good Supreme Court ruling could now be used for nefarious purposes.

To me, the difference between big protests against governments and Gibbons's protests against abortion clinics is that she (and others like her) targets individual women for unsolicited "counselling" - I think this targeting of individuals, as opposed to legislative bodies, is what makes the safe zone injunctions appropriate for abortion clinics. I've never received unsolicited counselling from a stranger while heading in to a doctor's office, but I don't think one has to experience it personally to know that it would feel like straight-up harassment, even if the perpetrator wasn't doing anything physically violent or aggressive.

I'm rambling a bit here - this is just the first time I've thought of clinic safe-zones as potentially being used as precedent for limiting other types of protest.

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: Canada
Member since: Thu Jan 17, 2008, 01:27 PM
Number of posts: 2,940
Latest Discussions»Lucy Goosey's Journal