Latest news with #GordonCampbell
Vancouver Sun
30-05-2025
- Business
- Vancouver Sun
B.C.'s minimum wage is going up: Here's everything you need to know
Minimum wage was first established in Canada in the early 20th century as a way to prevent labour exploitation of women and children. B.C., along with Manitoba, were the first provinces to introduce minimum wage legislation in 1918. Minimum wage is the lowest amount an employer can pay an employee per hour of work. In Canada, the rate is set by the provincial governments except for federally regulated businesses, where it is set by the federal government. Read more to find out about B.C.'s minimum wage: Stay on top of the latest real estate news and home design trends. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Westcoast Homes will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Starting June 1, 2025, B.C.'s minimum wage will increase by 2.6 per cent to $17.85 an hour from $17.40, a 45-cent hike. In April, the federal government increased the minimum wage to $17.75 an hour for federally regulated industries, such as banking and telecommunications. If a province or territory has a higher minimum wage, the higher rate applies. In B.C., minimum wage increases are pegged to annual increases in inflation based on the consumer price index. Last spring, the B.C. government made changes to the Employment Standards Act that mandates annual wage increases on June 1 to keep pace with inflation. 'Minimum-wage earners will be able to count on increases every year,' the province said at the time, saying that the scheduled increases will provide certainty and predictability for both workers and employers. B.C.'s minimum wage was frozen at $8 an hour from 2001 to 2011 under the Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government. When Christy Clark took over the helm in 2011, she increased the minimum wage to $8.75 an hour. The rate inched up slowly to $10.85 by 2017, when Clark left office. Starting in 2018, the NDP government implemented a series of annual increases, starting off with recommendations by the Fair Wages Commission to increase the minimum wage over four years with a goal of hitting $15.20 an hour by June 2021. The minimum wage has since climbed steadily from $11.35 in early 2018 to $17.40 in June 2024. Nunavut has the highest minimum wage in the country, at $19 an hour. Yukon is second, at $17.94 an hour after an increase last April. Currently, B.C. is third at $17.85 an hour — topping all provinces — and Ontario fourth at $17.20 an hour. Ontario's minimum wage is scheduled to rise in October to $17.60 an hour. Rounding out the top five is the Northwest Territories, where minimum wage is $16.70 an hour. Among provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island have the next highest minimum wage after Ontario, both at $16 an hour. Raising the minimum wage helps reduce poverty and income inequality for the approximately 150,000 lowest-paid workers in the province, say advocates. The B.C. government said it supports increasing minimum wage as a way to make life more affordable and the annual increases are necessary to keep up with rising costs of living, especially in B.C. where housing affordability is a constant issue. Some economists and business groups warn that wage hikes can be counterproductive if businesses can't keep pace and end up cutting jobs, relying on technology instead of workers, or move to a different jurisdiction with cheaper labour costs. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, recent minimum wage hikes forced 64 per cent of B.C. small businesses to raise wages for other non-minimum wage workers. It also prompted 61 per cent of them to raise prices, contributing to inflation, and about a quarter to cut staff. A living wage is the hourly rate workers need to earn to cover basic expenses like food, clothing, rental housing, child care and transportation for a family. It is not set in law, although some municipalities, non-profits and businesses have committed to paying their employees a living wage. In Metro Vancouver in 2024, the living wage is calculated at $27.05 an hour. chchan@
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
China Goldcorp Ltd. Announces Mailing of Its Management Information Circular and Adoption of New Stock Option Plan
Toronto, Ontario--(Newsfile Corp. - May 26, 2025) - China Goldcorp Ltd. (TSXV: CAU.H) (the "Company"), announces the mailing of its management information circular (the "Circular") for the Company's annual and special meeting of shareholders being held on July 4, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. (Toronto time) (the "Meeting"). The Meeting will be held at 130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 2116, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3P5. Shareholders of record as of May 29, 2025 are entitled to vote at the Meeting. The Company also announces that the Company's board of directors approved an amended and restated stock option plan (the "Amended Plan") which amends and restates the Company's existing stock option plan which has been conditionally approved by the TSX Venture Exchange (the "TSXV"). Pursuant to the requirements of the TSXV, all of the 600,000 outstanding options ("Options") to purchase common shares of the Company shall be subject to the Amended Plan and vesting of such Options is conditional on: (a) shareholders approving the Amended Plan at the Meeting; and (b) disinterested shareholders approving the grant of the Options. About China Goldcorp Ltd. The Company was incorporated under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) on April 28, 2005 and is a Capital Pool Company (as defined in the policies of the TSXV) listed on the TSXV. It is engaged in the identification and evaluation of assets or businesses to complete a qualifying transaction. It has no commercial operations and no assets other than cash. For more information, please contact Gordon Campbell, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Gordon CampbellChief Executive OfficerPhone: 416-301-9198Email: gordon@ Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Forward-Looking Statements This news release contains forward-looking statements or information (collectively referred to herein as "forward-looking statements"). Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results; performance or developments to differ materially from those contained in the statements and are not guarantees of future performance of the Company. No assurance can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements will occur or, if they do occur, what benefits the Company will obtain from them. These forward-looking statements reflect management's current views and are based on certain expectations, estimates and assumptions, which may prove to be incorrect. A number of risks and uncertainties could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including risks and uncertainties relating to the Company's ability to identify, evaluate and complete a Qualifying Transaction and other risks and uncertainties. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should any of the Company's assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary in material respects from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of risks, uncertainties and other factors is not exhaustive. Unpredictable or unknown factors not discussed could also have material adverse effects on forward-looking statements. The impact of any one factor on a particular forward-looking statement is not determinable with certainty as such factors are dependent on other factors, and the Company's course of action would depend on its assessment of the future considering all information then available. All forward-looking statements in this news release are expressly qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements. Except as required by law, the Company assumes no obligation to update forward-looking statements should circumstances or management's estimates or opinions change. To view the source version of this press release, please visit Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Scoop
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
On The Parental Panic Over Young Kids Online
Article – Gordon Campbell Creating a policy group to investigate a R16 ban on social media provides the government with a perfectly designed soapbox. The findings dont have to end up suggesting anything useful, let alone a practical course of action. Creating a policy group to investigate a R16 ban on social media provides the government with a perfectly designed soapbox. The findings don't have to end up suggesting anything useful, let alone a practical course of action. Yet in the meantime, the issue enables the government to connect with anxious parents about a scary threat that's supposedly consuming their kids, and turning their brains to mush. The fact that there is no conclusive research that proves the alleged harms are as widespread or as addictive as claimed – let alone any evidence that a ban would be an effective response – appears to make no difference at all. This issue is all about the stoking of parental anxiety, and political virtue signaling, and how these two things feed upon each other. Across the Tasman, the polls have indicated that 77% of Australians of all political persuasions support the ban. Politically, that's a slam dunk. Sceptics therefore, are pushing it uphill. Yet, for the record: before treating a social media ban on under 16 year olds as our starting point, shouldn't we begin with the kids themselves, and find out who, and how many, feel themselves to be coming under harmful social pressures online that they can't handle? Maybe we could also ask them what they think is the main cause of their concerns. Chances are, most kids do not experience social media as being a predominantly harmful presence in their lives. After all, in the years between 10 and 16, anxiety can exist for any number of other reasons: the onset of puberty, over-parenting or under-parenting, violence, abuse, financial hardship and rental insecurity at home, bullying problems at school, rising academic expectations, gender identity concerns, the existential threat of climate change No doubt, some of these worries can be made worse by social media, but sometimes they can also be alleviated by talking about them with someone else, online. Shouldn't we try to find out beforehand whether social media platforms truly are a prime source of the social anxieties being felt by some kids under 16? Maybe we should do that before we impose a universal age restriction on access to social media, and – along the way – shouldn't we try to figure out the balance between the harms and the benefits? After all, we're proposing to take away a right to communicate online that is protected by our human rights law, and acknowledged by the UN. Surely, we first need to know whether the draconian action being contemplated is at all justified. Will it work? As to whether such a ban could ever be effective…the problem here is not simply to do with tech-savvy kids being able to get around the ban, although that should be kept in mind. (The most 'addicted' kids are the ones most likely to find ways around the online access barriers.) There's an even bigger problem. For the ban to be effective, every user of social media of any age is going to have to verify and re-verify their age, which will probably require a massive transfer of personal data to the social media platforms, thereby enabling the algorithms to target their content even more effectively than they do already. Also, if an R16 ban is instituted…in order to be effective it will also have to carry penalties for those breaching it. How will these punishments be levied, and on whom – the kid, or the platforms? If it is to be the kid, do we really want to criminalise a child – or their parents – for them trying to get access to TikTok? And if it is to be the platform, then – again – this will make it imperative for the age verification process to be extensive, and intrusive. How many adults really want to empower Mark Zuckerberg to get his hands on even more of our personal data, to add to what he has already? In this moral panic, what seems to be going out the window is any sense that kids need to learn how to develop their own critical faculties and discern what is or isn't harmful online, and what is and isn't useful, educational and positive about their use of social media. In Australia, anti-bullying campaingers have called the ban a 'distraction.' Other youth groups have expressed their concern that a ban could prevent at-risk youth from accessing online mental health services. Overall…turning social media into a bogey and making it forbidden fruit until one's 16th birthday hardly seems like a healthy, practical or desirable way to teach kids how to become independent and responsible digital citizens. Lovin' Haidt Personally, I feel a certain level of anxiety about joining any moral crusade launched by Rupert Murdoch. Meaning: in Australia – which has been the prime mover on this R16 legislation – the idea of a social media ban was initiated by Murdoch's News Corp chain. It emerged as payback to Meta (which owns Instagram, Facebook and Whatsapp) for ending its news agreements with Australian media, under that country's news media bargaining code. In a timeline tracked by the Crikey website, News Corp went ballistic on losing this cash flow, and ran headlines in March 2024 in News Corp publications, such as 'Tech Tyrant Goes To War With Australia' and ' Facebook Unfriends The Nation.' By mid-May 2024, News Corp had launched its 'Let Them Be Kids' campaign that called on the Australian government to police the scourge of social media, raise the age limit on platform access to 16, and 'give our kids back three years of childhood.' News Corp ran a popular online petition to that effect. South Australia then picked up the idea, and by August 2024 the Albanese government had quickly embraced it nationwide, with bi-partisan support coming from the conservative opposition led by Peter Dutton. Not that South Australia premier Peter Malinauskas told RNZ this week about the Rupert Murdoch origin story. According to Malinauskas, some of the credit was due to his wife, after she read Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation. Much of the popular/political discourse around this issue has been shaped by Haidt's book. Even ACT Party leader David Seymour cited Haidt's work approvingly,while explaining why – on freedom of expression grounds – ACT would oppose an R16 legislative ban. However, the science does not support Haidt's blanket assertions. A panel of four experts who specialise in the effects of digital media on physical and mental health has found fault with Haidt's work, citing his alleged 'cherry picking' of research to fit his premises, and his repeated tendency to treat co-relations as causes. Another research study found 'little evidence of substantial negative associations between digital-screen engagement – measured throughout the day or particularly before bedtime – and adolescent well-being.' Ditto with this research study. It is headlined 'There Is No Evidence That Associations Between Adolescents' Digital Technology Engagement and Mental Health Problems Have Increased': Technology engagement had become less strongly associated with depression in the past decade, but social-media use had become more strongly associated with emotional problems. We detected no changes in five other associations or differential associations by sex. There is therefore little evidence for increases in the associations between adolescents' technology engagement and mental health. Moreover, a clinical researcher in the field has written this extensive, footnoted review in the Nature science journal, and in it, she points out: … The book's repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children's brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science. Worse, the bold proposal that social media is to blame might distract us from effectively responding to the real causes of the current mental-health crisis in young people. Moreover: Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers. And finally: These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally.. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use.. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence. Similar concerns about Haidt's book – and with the digital absolutism that he preaches as the cause and cure of the problems faced by modern adolescents – can be found in this New York Times review, which expresses misgivings about Haidt's readiness to blame smartphones for so many of society's ills: 'I've been struggling to figure out,' Haidt writes, 'what is happening to us? How is technology changing us?' His answer: 'The phone-based life produces spiritual degradation, not just in adolescents, but in all of us.' In other words: choose human purity and sanctity over the repugnant forces of technology. That sounds like a religious conviction, not a scientific conclusion. All up, Haidt's book is not the place to look for reliable evidence to justify a piece of legislation that would deprive young New Zealanders of fundamental rights and freedoms. Yet does this issue give politicians a convenient soapbox from which they can pretend to care about the social ills over which they preside? You bet. Basically, this is another example of performative politics, funded by the taxpayer. Like the Treaty Principles Bill, the R16 social media ban will probably be discarded once its failings become evident – but only after it has served its real purpose, of polishing the image of the politicians promoting it. Ya Got Trouble The best song about moral panics comes from a musical called The Music Man, set in 1912. Listen up, parents! Here's some sound parental advice if your kids are beginning to hang out in smoke-filled pool-rooms, and are starting to re-buckle their knickerbockers below the knee : Needless to say, the cynical 'professor' who performs this song is a professional con man, out to create a moral panic so that he can fleece the worried parents of River City. There's a political parable in there somewhere.
Scoop
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Unexplained Death In Parakao
Police are at the scene of an unexplained death in Parakao this afternoon. The body of a man was found by ambulance staff at a rural property off Mangakahia Road (State Highway 15) just before 4pm. The death is being treated as unexplained and enquiries are underway into the circumstances. The property has been cordoned off and a scene examination will take place. A scene guard is in place with a post mortem to be carried out at a later stage. These enquiries are in the very early stages and no further information is currently available. Anyone with information to assist Police can call 105 using the reference number P062498068. Gordon Campbell: On The New Pope, And The Israeli Attack On Peter Davis The election of any Pope tends to be retro-fitted in ways that make the choice seem inevitable. God's will, no less. If the new Pope had been Italian ('Time for the papacy to return home!) or a staunch conservative ('Time for a balance to the liberalism of Francis!') then much the same process would be taking place. It seems apparent that Cardinal Robert Prevost looks to have been a protege of Francis, who made him a cardinal in 2023. This was in the wake of the 2022 Curia reforms that de-centralised power, and elevated the role of bishops' conferences in particular.
Vancouver Sun
07-05-2025
- Business
- Vancouver Sun
Far from cutting red tape, B.C. NDP fast-tracking law hands big overriding powers to cabinet
VICTORIA — The New Democrats have finally introduced their promised legislation to expedite approval of major projects, with much talk of 'streamlining, fast tracking and cutting red tape.' But, on closer examination, the two bills do not actually repeal any of B.C.'s heavy regulatory burden. Rather they give the cabinet arbitrary powers to override existing rules, regulations and procedures on projects favoured by the NDP. Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act consolidates oversight under the B.C. Energy Regulator for nine wind projects and a new electrical transmission line serving the Northwest. Stay on top of the latest real estate news and home design trends. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Westcoast Homes will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. It also allows the cabinet to designate any other 'renewable energy project' as worthy of expedited regulation. Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, allows a minister and the cabinet to designate a broad range of public and private sector projects as worthy of jumping the regulatory queue. Only one existing piece of legislation is repealed: the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, enacted by Premier Gordon Campbell as a deregulatory gesture in 2003, but seldom, if ever, used. Otherwise Bill 15 mostly empowers the government to intervene as it sees fit on behalf of 'provincially significant projects,' public as well as private. Factors to be considered in reaching that determination include whether a project contributes to: 'Public infrastructure, critical minerals supply, food or water security, health and safety, energy security, disaster recovery, trade diversification, access to new markets, supply chain security, replacing U.S. imports, B.C.'s climate goals, and partnerships with First Nations.' Those sweeping powers are intended as mere tools, according to Bowinn Ma, cabinet member for the new Ministry of Infrastructure. 'Right now, we don't actually have very many tools to reach in and take greater responsibility for moving projects along when something goes wrong,' Ma told Simi Sara during an interview on CKNW Monday. Why not just wade in and eliminate the offending regulations altogether? 'Let's make sure we understand what we're referring to when we talk about permitting processes,' said Ma. 'These are literally hundreds, if not thousands, if you include municipal governments across the province, thousands of processes that have been developed not just over years, but over decades and over generations. Although each of them is very well meaning, they end up kind of being spaghetti.' The government is working to untangle the regulatory mess, says Ma. In the interim, communities need schools and hospitals, and the economy needs to diversify and meet the challenge of the Trump tariffs from the U.S. 'When I talk about environmental assessment process, I'm talking about those full blown environmental certificates which take three, four, five, six years for major projects to get through, or even more — lots of uncertainty, really rigorous reviews that basically look at every rock, stick, and stream, and tree in the area and assess its impact on the environment.' How will the province determine whether to 'reach in' to the regulatory process? 'A proponent, which could be a local government, a Crown corporation, First Nation, or a private proponent can flag their project as critical and ask for help,' said Ma. 'Projects would need to create significant economic, social or environmental benefits for people. They would have to significantly contribute to priorities like public infrastructure, critical mineral supply, food and water security, post disaster recovery, or trade diversification.' All of which requires Ma and her ministry to decide whether a project does or does not qualify for a regulatory helping hand. 'If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. You still end up with your big pile of permits to go through. So it's actually required of me as minister, of my ministry, to use these tools wisely so they're actually effective when we need them.' The NDP is departing from a regulatory regime where the same sets of rules and procedures apply to every project. 'Every single project is different and every project uses a different combination or has to obtain a different combination of the hundreds and potentially thousands of different permitting processes that exist,' says Ma. 'Permitting processes are really important, right? They protect environment, protect human health and safety, they ensure that whatever is being built is being built correctly. 'But over time, these processes, because of the way they've been developed over so many years, sometimes they get intertangled, sometimes they interact with each other in ways that were never intended, and yet because of the way the law is written, things get stuck.' So the New Democrats will assess applications for regulatory relief on a case-by-case basis, moving favoured ones to the front of the line and relegating others to the back of the regulatory pack. Which also invites speculation about inside deals, crafted by lobbyists and party insiders, and advanced for political purposes. The old way was the slow way. But at least project proponents could read the legislation and the guidelines and know what they had to navigate with the independent regulator. With the NDP's new way of doing things, proponents could wonder whether it was merit or political connections that determined whether their project got put on the fast track or left on the back burner. vpalmer@
