True. It's a complicated issue:

-are these good jobs for the temporary workers? I think yes

-it doesn't benefit Canadians to have the food grown elsewhere

-on whole food standards in Canada are amongst the best in the world

-labour standards are generally very high in Canada, but I suspect these types of jobs would be near the bottom in Canada (but certainly not globally)

My opinion is that it would it would be beneficial to have more Canadians in these jobs (youth are looking for part time employment for example). But mostly to keep the employers honest.

*edit more thoughts

-it's probably economically beneficial for Canada to subsidize wages for Canadians to do these critical jobs. (Money doesn't exit the county)

-for the same reason TFW are more beneficial to donor countries than immigration.

I expect the federal government to be responsible for defense, foreign policy, representing Canada on the world stage, national projects.

Why wouldn't defense be one of its largest expenditures?

Provinces are responsible for health care, education, a lot of infrastructure.

Municipalities for infrastructure, social services.

Go for it!

The heat pump retrofits are good policy.

Loving the supports for Canadian cultural institutions.

Major projects I would give a B grade, a mixed bag.

I like the homelessness targets, this needs to come from Federal government - executed by municipal and non profit agencies. Disappointed that dollars don't start until next year. (Although something in Winnipeg is kicking off soon I understand)

True. But tech companies do out source support.

Cool article. The "quotes" around Canadians is obnoxious. *edit, more accurately, distracting.

I get what you are saying, completely fair.

Not 30 percent!

That's a pretty big limitation! They shouldnt have bothered plotting that, it's basically just a plot of time.

Kind of the same thing. But it does sound nicer.

I'm all for credit card charges. Without them people not using credit cards are subsidizing credit card users.

And it happens to be.. that poorer people use credit cards less, it's a bit perverse.

This is backwards. It's confusing because the article has two statement related to value.

The value of the company went up in the first half of the year (so the notes held by lenders go up, and company books as loss)

Separately, the article reports on the expected hopeful IPO value from investors, and that went down. That's more forward looking.

They do a raise and give an investor 10% of the company (or more accurately a claim), the company receives 10 billion dollars (valuing the company at 100 billion)

A year later the company is worth 1 trillion dollars. That investor's claim is now worth 100 billion dollars. And then the 90 billion is booked as a liability and so a loss. If they IPO, that 10% gets converted to shares. The liability is gone.

Good for the investor. The startup needed the cash, so good for them. I'm sure they aren't crying that their company is valued at a trillion dollars.

Should it be worth that much? That's different.