Doug Ford: 'Greedy' Investors Should Get Out Of Nursing Home Business

TORONTO — Ontario Premier Doug Ford says investors who are more worried about profit than people’s lives should sell their stakes in nursing home companies. 

The premier made the comments Thursday during his daily COVID-19 pandemic update in Toronto. 

Watch:

 

Click Here: Cheap France Rugby Jersey

BNN Bloomberg reporter David George-Cosh asked Ford what investors in companies like Sienna Senior Living should expect. Sienna owns Altamont Care Community in Scarborough, Ont., one of the homes that the Canadian Armed Forces raised concerns about in its scathing report released Tuesday.

Fifty-two people have died of COVID-19 at Altamont as of Thursday afternoon. The military says it found residents were not being fed or bathed regularly in the home and that one resident alleged in a “disturbing” letter that they were being abused by a staff member.

Sienna made $669.7 million in revenue last year. 

“Should these investors expect these big publicly traded companies to sacrifice profit for quality of care?” George-Cosh asked Ford. 

“What they should be doing is doing their job. Protecting the seniors,” the premier replied. 

“You want to invest in a company? Make sure the company is run well … These homes, specifically the ones that Canadian Armed Forces [are] in, they failed.”

He said shareholders should focus on holding their CEO and chair accountable for what has happened during the pandemic. 

Later in the press conference, another reporter asked Ford what the province can do to improve care in privately operated long-term care homes.

“Number one, we can pull their licence. Then they won’t have to have a home to worry about,” he said.

“We’ll be holding people accountable. Because it’s not about money. It’s about taking care of people … And if they want to be greedy and make money, then get out of the business. Go find something else to do. Don’t put people’s lives in jeopardy.”

Also On HuffPost:

READ MORE…

  • Cockroaches And Force-Feeding: Military Outlines What It Found In Care Homes

  • 2/3 Of Canadians Want Government To Take Over Long-Term Care: Poll

  • Ontario Lets Dentists, Optometrists And Other Health Services Reopen

Sebastian Kurz cautious on Commission’s €750B recovery blueprint

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Sebastian Kurz cautious on Commission’s €750B recovery blueprint

Austrian chancellor, a leader of EU’s frugal faction, tells POLITICO he sees some positives in proposal.

By

5/27/20, 5:59 PM CET

Updated 5/28/20, 3:37 PM CET

BERLIN — Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said that he and the other leaders of the EU’s so-called frugal four group were encouraged by some aspects of the European Commission’s proposal for a coronavirus crisis recovery fund, but cautioned it represents just a “starting point” for negotiations.

“What we find positive — not just myself, but the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark — is that there is a time limit and that the fund will be a one-time emergency measure and not the first step toward a debt union,” Kurz, who has emerged as the unofficial spokesman of the frugal faction, said in a telephone interview with POLITICO on Wednesday.

“Considering that there are many in Europe who want such a debt union, it’s important to us that this be clarified in writing once and for all,” he said, referring to concerns among the frugal group that the fund could morph into a permanent fixture, opening the door to mutualization of members’ debt under the banner of the EU.

“When it comes to the ratio of credits and grants, that’s an area where we really think there needs to be more negotiation,” Kurz added.

Under the proposal put forth by the Commission, the EU would create a €750 billion fund — called Next Generation EU — by selling bonds. About €500 billion would be disbursed as grants to those member countries most in need as a result of the crisis, while the remaining €250 billion would be available as credits, which countries would be obliged to repay.

In effect, the Commission proposal fuses a €500 billion Franco-German plan unveiled earlier this month with a model based on loans put forth by the frugal faction, a group so named due to its members’ purported commitment to budget discipline.

Kurz said that while he wasn’t surprised to see the Commission effectively adopt the Franco-German grant proposal, given those countries are the EU’s biggest members, the coming negotiations will have to be more inclusive.

“We need to take everyone’s interests into account and there are very different interest groups: the southern countries, who fundamentally always want more; the East Europeans, who have an interest in preventing everything from flowing south; and, of course, those who have to pay for it all, the net payers.”

At first glance, the Commission plan appears to be an attempt to placate the frugal four by tacking the credit component to the Franco-German plan. Whether the €250 billion in credits would ever be tapped however, is questionable, in part because the eurozone recently established an emergency loan facility under the aegis of its bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

The ESM was conceived to help cash-strapped countries combat debt crises like the one that bankrupted Greece. It’s now been retooled to make it easier for countries struggling with the coronavirus crisis to borrow money — up to the equivalent of 2 percent of their national income, or €240 billion in total.

Why countries such as Italy, which are already drowning in debt, would need access to an additional credit facility is far from clear and prompted a degree of consternation in some quarters.

Kurz said the frugal four had yet to fully evaluate the Commission’s proposal in detail and settle on a common negotiating position, but would do so in the coming days.

Want more analysis from POLITICO? POLITICO Pro is our premium intelligence service for professionals. From financial services to trade, technology, cybersecurity and more, Pro delivers real time intelligence, deep insight and breaking scoops you need to keep one step ahead. Email [email protected] to request a complimentary trial.

Authors:
Matthew Karnitschnig 

Air Canada CEO Sees Compensation Cut In Half As Share Price Stalls

MONTREAL — Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu was on track to receive around $12.9 million in total compensation last year, but the value fell by more than half as the airline’s shares stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As of May 4, when the company’s share price closed at $17.63 on the Toronto Stock Exchange, the total compensation of its president and chief executive officer was estimated at $5.8 million. Air Canada’s shares closed at $16.76 on Monday.

Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks

Remuneration of top executives and board members were included in a proxy circular sent to Air Canada shareholders prior to its virtual meeting scheduled for June 25.

READ MORE

  • Air Canada Lays Off 20,000 As COVID-19 Upheaval Continues

  • Mandatory Face Masks Becoming Normal Part Of How Canadians Shop, Travel

  • Air Canada Loses $1 Billion In A Single Quarter Due To Pandemic

Rovinescu, 64, was entitled last year to a base salary of $1.4 million. The value of his share-based awards fell to $1.89 million from $3.55 million, and $3.5 million in options were worthless due to a big drop in the share price. His bonus was also cut by more than half, to $1.6 million from $3.5 million while his pension value was $875,000.

The CEO gave up his base salary until June 30. His total compensation was $11.6 million in 2018.

In 2019, Air Canada earned $1.4 billion in profits on $19.1 billion in revenues. COVID-19 turned everything upside down with the airline losing $1.05 billion in the first quarter ended March 31, in addition to forecasts that it would take more than three years to recover from the current crisis.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 25, 2020

Earlier on HuffPost:

Founder Guy Laliberte Wants To Buy Back Cirque Du Soleil

MONTREAL — Cirque du soleil founder Guy Laliberte says he wants to buy back the internationally celebrated circus company he created more than 35 years ago.

Laliberte, who sold his remaining shares in the famed circus last February, told a popular television show Sunday night he wants to put an ownership team together and buy the company back.

Click Here: Cheap FIJI Rugby Jersey

“Today, I took the decision to embark on the purchasing process,” he said on Radio-Canada’s Tout le monde en parle. The circus, however, owes more than $1.25 billion to creditors and has been shut down since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Laliberte said the circus company he created in 1984 “gave me so much and if I can help, we’ll be there.”

He sold the 10 per cent he had remaining in the company to Quebec’s pension fund, Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, last February. The amount wasn’t made public but the value of that block of shares has been estimated at more than $100 million.

Theatre directors Franco Dragone of Italy, and Robert Lepage of Quebec have both shown interest, Laliberte said, in relaunching the Cirque du soleil.

The Quebec government has signalled it was ready to help the circus financially. Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon confirmed last week the provincial government was in talks with potential investors.

RELATED

  • Quebec Company Ready To Spend Millions To Save Cirque Du Soleil
  • Even The Toddler Is Very Bendy And Strong In This Cirque Du Soleil Family
  • Air Canada, Vancouver Airport Among Latest Mass Layoffs

Montreal-based media giant Quebecor has also voiced a desire to buy a stake in the company.

Laliberte said his intention was to keep the headquarters of the celebrated circus in Montreal and to hire mainly Quebecers to run the company.

The Cirque du soleil recently received an urgent injection of funds to help bridge the company through the crisis and pay back creditors. Its three principal shareholders — TPG Capital, Chinese company Fosun and the Caisse — gave it about $70 million.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 25, 2020.

SVS SB13-Ultra powered subwoofer

As an audiophile, I’ve come to associate the size, weight, and price of a subwoofer as quick’n’dirty indicators of its quality. The subwoofers that have worked best in my large listening room—the Velodyne ULD-18 and DD-18+, Muse Model 18, REL Studio III, JL Audio Fathom f113, and Revel Sub30—each weigh more than 130 lbs and cost more than $2500. With some of my reference recordings, all of them have achieved what Robert Harley described in the April 1991 issue of Stereophile as the goals of a quality subwoofer: “seamless integration, quickness, no bloat, and unbelievable bass extension.” Yet are back-busting weight, unmanageable size, and nosebleed cost essential to achieving those goals?


SV Sound doesn’t think so. Their sealed, self-powered SB13-Ultra subwoofer weighs less than 100 lbs, yet boasts a 3600W peak amplifier. SVS sells this model directly via their website and offers buyers a 45-day, in-home trial period, with money returned in full if the sub doesn’t work out. SVS’s website has chat features, and provides Merlin, a subwoofer-setup wizard. Type in the name of your main speakers, and Merlin recommends the “SVS subwoofer that provides the best match, including the exact settings needed to optimize the sub’s sound.”


Intrigued by SVS’s approach, I jumped at an offer by Nicholas Brown, SVS’s PR representative, to review the SB13-Ultra.


The SB13-Ultra . . .
. . . is an impressively compact, sealed-box subwoofer. A 17.4″ cube, it’s 3.6″ shorter, 3.1″ narrower, 10.4″ shallower, 63 lbs lighter, and $400 less expensive than the ported version, the PB13-Ultra, which I reviewed in the August 2008 issue.


Measurements show the ported PB13-Ultra has the more extented deep bass response, but SVS’s Mark Mason noted that the sealed SB13-Ultra can take better advantage of room reinforcement of the very low frequencies; the ported version must use a steep subsonic filter to avoid overdriving its woofer below the port tuning frequency.


The SB13-Ultra has a single, front-firing 13.5″ drive-unit. A custom-tooled, die-cast aluminum basket that holds the light, rigid Rohacell-composite cone with dual linear-roll spiders and a stitched, parabolic surround with large excursion. The motor, optimized with finite element analysis (FEA), consists of a bifilar-wound, flat-wire, eight-layer aluminum voice coil 3″ in diameter, and a polyimide-impregnated fiberglass former with a custom gap-extension plate to increase its linear stroke, for lower distortion. The magnetic field is created by dual Genox 8H/Y-35 ferrite magnets, and the pole vent is oversized, for greater cooling. All of these components are configured in an “overhung” design that extends the voice-coil past the gap on either side of the pole-piece, to optimize its efficiency in a midsize sealed alignment. When played without limiters, filters, or equalization, the driver’s low inductance extends its frequency response to 300Hz. Its manual states that it uses a “highly advanced and sophisticated Digital Signal Processor (DSP) . . . to achieve the target frequency response,” and “features a frequency-dependent limiter/compressor algorithm with adjustable attack/release and compression parameters.”


The SB13-Ultra is powered by a built-in Sledge STA-1000D class-D amplifier with an output of 1000W RMS (3600W peak dynamic). Featuring MOSFET output devices and a switch-mode power supply, the Sledge is smaller, more powerful, and more efficient than the 750W Switched Hybrid (class-A/B, class-D) amp used in the PB13-Ultra. Autostart and Green standby modes switch the amp on quickly when a signal appears at the input terminals.


Mark Mason told me that, using the CEA 2010 standard 31Hz signal in a 2pi environment with a microphone placed at 2m, at sound-pressure levels (SPLs) with less than 10% total harmonic distortion (THD), the SB13-Ultra’s maximum peak acoustic output was 111.4dB, as compared with the 118.9dB claimed for the PB13-Ultra.


Simplified Controls
While the SB13-Ultra doesn’t come with a remote control, the user interface consists of a small, rear-panel LCD screen and a single control knob, which SVS calls the Integrated Function Controller (IFC). Turning the knob scrolls through eight setup and control functions, each in turn displayed on the LCD. Push the IFC once to select a function, then turn it to scroll through the submenus. Quickly push it twice (double-clicked) to return to the top-level menu. The submenus include: multiple high- and low-pass crossover corner-frequency settings between 31 and 125Hz, plus two different filter slopes (12 or 24dB/octave); phase adjustable from 0° to 180° in increments of 15°; high-pass delay continuously variable from 1 to 10 milliseconds, to align in time the outputs of the satellite speakers and sub; three room-compensation filters (40Hz for rooms of less than 1400 cubic feet, 31Hz for rooms of 1400–2400ft3, and 25Hz for rooms greater than 2400ft3 (6 or 12dB/octave); two parametric equalizer (PEQ) bands offering 13 different center frequencies between 31 and 125Hz; and nine different Q values, from 2.0 to 14.4, for reducing the largest and widest room-mode peaks.


The IFC unclutters the SB13-Ultra’s rear panel, leaving only: the unbalanced (RCA) and balanced (XLR) inputs and outputs for the right and left channels; a switch for selecting line or high voltage level; a power switch; and an IEC jack for the detachable power cord.


Room, Setup, Measurement
I’ve used the same listening room for over 20 years. Measuring 25′ long by 13′ wide by 12′ high, it encloses a volume of 3900 cubic feet. The left wall has a large bay window covered by Hunter Douglas fabric shades. Under the solid-oak floor is an unfinished basement. Two area rugs cover most of the floor, including the space between the listening chair and my Quad ESL-989 speakers. Although large, the room’s sparse furnishings allow these electrostatic panels to produce peaks of 90dB SPL at my listening chair. Through an 8′ by 4′ doorway, the rear of the room opens into a 25′ by 15′ kitchen.


The very first subwoofer I reviewed using this room was Velodyne’s ULD-18, for the October 1989 issue. Accompanying a pair of Quad ESL-63 electrostatics, the ULD-18 did best when placed in a corner, and I used the same positions for this review. My Quad ESL-989s stood 6′ 8″ apart at their inner edges, the left speaker 18″ from the left wall, the right speaker 18″ from the built-in wall unit on the right, and both of them 5′ 5″ from the front wall. The SB13-Ultra was in a front corner, 3′ behind the right-channel Quad. My listening chair was 7′ 8″ from the Quads’ front baffles, and 10′ 8″ from the front of the SB13-Ultra.


Setting up, calibrating, and integrating an SB13-Ultra into an audio system is well described in the clearly written, 34-page manual, which recommends that the sub’s room response be optimized either a RadioShack Sound Level Meter and Microsoft Excel, or the Avia II: Guide to Home Theater test DVD (Ovation B19485, $44).


Because I didn’t have a A/V receiver though which to play Avia II, I used my Studio Six iTestMic, a professional-grade test and measurement microphone for the iPhone 4 and iPad. The mike plugs directly into the iPhone’s 30-pin connector, and auto-calibrates while drawing very little power from the phone. It’s far more precise than the iPhone’s own mike for accurately testing and setting up subwoofers, as well as for measuring noise levels, and sound levels up to 120dB. Studio Six’s AudioTools app runs the iTestMic, stores the data on the iPhone, and analyzes and graphs its measurements. For test tones, I played, on my Bryston BCD-1 CD player, a digital file of uncorrelated pink noise supplied by Kevin Voecks, of Revel speakers.


First, I ran the preamplifier output cables directly to a pair of Theta Digital Prometheus monoblocks, to run the Quads full range. Using AudioTools’ Real Time Analyzer (RTA), their in-room frequency response measured 25Hz–20kHz (fig.1). This graph showed room-mode peaks at 80 and 40Hz, but the response fell off below 40Hz by 15dB at 25Hz.


Fig.1 Quad ESL989s, 1/3-octave response in LG’s listening room (5dB/vertical div.).


I disconnected the Quads, attached the preamplifier’s output cables to the SVS’s inputs, and set the sub’s output playing pink noise by turning the IFC knob until AudioTools’ SPL module registered 75dB at my listening chair. I then ran balanced interconnects from the sub’s high-pass outputs to the Theta amplifiers, and set the high- and low-pass filter corner frequencies to the recommended 63Hz with 24dB/octave slopes. I turned the Quads back on and adjusted the sub’s output to match the Quads’ acoustic output until the iTestMic RTA histogram bars were level at 100 and 40Hz. That completed the initial calibration and adjustment of the system.