[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

BB, the thing to remember is that the BC Liberal party was in no way a liberal after the collapse of the BC Social Credit party.  What happened is that after the collapse, all the Social Credit supporters essentially raided the BC Liberals and installed a new leader.  It became the new Social Credit party in everything but name. 

You will ask yourself why they did not all just stick with the Social Credit party.  It is because the Liberals (actual Liberals) held the only non NDP seats.  And when the take over with the new leader occurred, they tried to change the Liberal party name back to Social Credit, but they ran into IP rights issues.  And so ever since we had a Liberal party that everyone in BC knew was actually the old Social Credit party.  Well, until recently.  I think people did start to think the Liberal party was actually Liberal and so the name change to United.  I suspect they tried again to change back to Social Credit but probably ran into the same IP problems.

On the issues, unfortunately it is not the CBC mischaracterizing.  If the BC Conservative party have a central defining platform it is anti-SOGI.

Regarding nuclear - as you point out the time it would take to build it out would be prohibitive, even if one ignored the cost.  Large hydro projects like Site C do cause environmental damage due to flooding the area of the reservoir but it also has the benefit being cheap to maintain and operate after the initial cost.  And there are a lot of small run of river projects that have minimal environmental impacts. 

[Barrister]

Yeah the "large cities should build more housing", what does that mean?

Are they going to provide massive amounts of funding to the CMHC to facilitate the building of affordable housing in cities?

Are they going to go all in on providing federal funding for urban transportation and infrastructure upgrades to lower the cost for cities to densify?

Are they going to set housing targets for cities and withhold existing funding if those targets are not met?

Are they simply going to say "cities should build more housing" and consider that good enough?

Why must you try to be cute Jacob?  You know the Conservative plan is not to "provide massive amounts of funding".

This was about 3 seconds worth of googling, and matches the language from the video:

https://www.conservative.ca/building-homes-not-bureaucracy/

So yes - the idea is to link federal funding to municipalities to housing starts.  CC likes to accuse this as an argument that there is a "cabal of gatekeepers"  preventing housing starts, but I really don't think the argument that municipal zoning and other regulations are preventing housing starts is at all controversial.  Just take something as simple as parking regulations - lots of left-wing sources are calling for getting rid of minimum parking requirements.

[Barrister]

Regarding nuclear - as you point out the time it would take to build it out would be prohibitive, even if one ignored the cost.  Large hydro projects like Site C do cause environmental damage due to flooding the area of the reservoir but it also has the benefit being cheap to maintain and operate after the initial cost.  And there are a lot of small run of river projects that have minimal environmental impacts. 

A long time-line does not mean that nuclear is prohibitive.  Nuclear is also fairly cheap to run - the heavy costs are all in construction.

[Jacob]

So the first point is fair - but that doesn't mean that "cutting government spending and lowering taxes" is never the solution either.

Fair.

I mean you can make the same argument about the NDP/Liberals - that their solution is always to increase spending and increase taxes "on the rich".

Hard disagree here. The BC NDP's recent initiatives on housing have not been to increase spending or taxes "on the rich." Trudeau's Liberals have been open handed on spending, but that's not a point of ideology but a practical decision that that would be best at the moment. The Chretien government cut taxes (by $100 billion cumulatively according to wikipedia) and balanced the budget. The Harper government spent more money and maintained a budget deficit.

Even the Fraser Institute agrees.

So I watched the video yesterday, but I thought it answered that question (I mean in as much detail as you can in a youtube video) - to link federal housing spending to actually increasing number of housing starts.  I've certainly read from more non-partisan sources that even though municipal governments are taking some limited steps to try and open up for denser housing, there are still a lot of zoning obstacles which is why we still haven't seen an increase in housing starts.

Interesting. A couple of things on this:

1) Linking money to performance can be effective or counter productive. It very much depends on the details of implementation. If the practical outcome is that municipalities simply get less funding because they're unable to meet the standards, then it's bad policy. If they're actually incentivized and meet those incentives, then it's good policy.

2) Municipalities and zoning are provincial responsibilities - with zoning usually being devolved to municipalities by the province. At least that's my understanding. Right now, the BC NDP is making some fairly solid moves on that front in BC, though we'll have to wait and see about the actual impact. It's certainly more direct and focused than we've seen in the past in this province. I suppose a hypothetical Conservative government could attempt to induce other provincial governments to follow suit.

That said, I'm pretty pleased to see what could be an emerging cross party consensus on easing up zoning obstacles to densification.

And if Trudeau (or Singh) come out in favour of supporting NIMBY obstacles to densification and Poillievre comes out against, then I'd rate Poillievre higher - especially if Poillievre's hypothetical policies are practical and well thought out.

Honestly, if someone comes out significantly stronger and more credible on taking action on housing costs and general cost of living, they'll be a strong contender for my vote as that's probably my biggest issue right now.

[Barrister]

The Chretien government cut taxes (by $100 billion cumulatively according to wikipedia) and balanced the budget. The Harper government spent more money and maintained a budget deficit.

So full credit to Chretien back in the 90s for doing so.  It was very necessary and he was forced to do so - but sometimes governments refuse to do the difficult things they need to do.  It was also 25-30 years ago at this point.

Harper - there was this little thing called the 2008 global financial crisis that happened under Harper's watch.  He had to spend, and he did.  Worth noting however was that by 2015 the books were balanced again.

And to be fair Trudeau had to deal with the pandemic.  The government deficit in 2020 was MASSIVE - but he had to do it.  So pivoting back to the Poilievre video for a sec it's a bit unfair to just say how much the government debt has increased under Trudeau because a lot of that was due to pandemic spending.  But on the other hand it's now 3, almost 4 years later, with no sign of balanced budgets in sight.

Honestly, if someone comes out significantly stronger and more credible on taking action on housing costs and general cost of living, they'll be a strong contender for my vote as that's probably my biggest issue right now.

I mean it is interesting.  Say what you will about the Conservative plan but you certainly never saw Stephen Harper (or  Scheer, or O'Toole) running on a platform of increasing urban density.

[Jacob]

Why must you try to be cute Jacob?  You know the Conservative plan is not to "provide massive amounts of funding".

I'm not trying to be cute. When I don't know something, I typically like to bracket across the full range of possibilities so I can situate the eventual answer (or possible answers) on that spectrum.

In this particular case I considered increasing funding the the CHMC unlikely, but not impossible. I have my assumptions about what Poillievre wants to do and how, but I'm attempting to keep my mind open.

Also since we're talking again, I'd like to repeat my earlier request that you attempt to read my posts as being made in good faith. It'll make any communication we have significantly easier and more pleasant for both of us.

I promise you that if I want to put words in your mouth or call you names I'll endeavour to do so unmistakably and directly, rather than implicitly.

This was about 3 seconds worth of googling, and matches the language from the video:

https://www.conservative.ca/building-homes-not-bureaucracy/

So yes - the idea is to link federal funding to municipalities to housing starts.  CC likes to accuse this as an argument that there is a "cabal of gatekeepers"  preventing housing starts, but I really don't think the argument that municipal zoning and other regulations are preventing housing starts is at all controversial.  Just take something as simple as parking regulations - lots of left-wing sources are calling for getting rid of minimum parking requirements.

The key question for me here is whether those incentive are positive (here's are attractive things that you can get if you meet these criteria) or negative (if you don't meet these new targets, we're going to take away something you've come to depend on - and worst case, undermine your ability to meet the targets in the future).

[crazy canuck]

Regarding nuclear - as you point out the time it would take to build it out would be prohibitive, even if one ignored the cost.  Large hydro projects like Site C do cause environmental damage due to flooding the area of the reservoir but it also has the benefit being cheap to maintain and operate after the initial cost.  And there are a lot of small run of river projects that have minimal environmental impacts. 

A long time-line does not mean that nuclear is prohibitive.  Nuclear is also fairly cheap to run - the heavy costs are all in construction.

If you compare the cost of nuclear and hydro, there is a big difference in this province.  There are a lot of inexpensive opportunities for run of river.

And so, why incur large costs for capacity that may not be needed because the demand is addressed through other less costly means.

[Jacob]

So full credit to Chretien back in the 90s for doing so.  It was very necessary and he was forced to do so - but sometimes governments refuse to do the difficult things they need to do.  It was also 25-30 years ago at this point.

Harper - there was this little thing called the 2008 global financial crisis that happened under Harper's watch.  He had to spend, and he did.  Worth noting however was that by 2015 the books were balanced again.

And to be fair Trudeau had to deal with the pandemic.  The government deficit in 2020 was MASSIVE - but he had to do it.  So pivoting back to the Poilievre video for a sec it's a bit unfair to just say how much the government debt has increased under Trudeau because a lot of that was due to pandemic spending.  But on the other hand it's now 3, almost 4 years later, with no sign of balanced budgets in sight.

No argument from me here.

I mean it is interesting.  Say what you will about the Conservative plan but you certainly never saw Stephen Harper (or  Scheer, or O'Toole) running on a platform of increasing urban density.

Also true.

As you know, I'm sceptical of the Conservatives but if they come out with a credible plan here and the other parties do not then that will carry significant weight with me.

Basically if "support for densification" translates into "we're setting criteria that are hard to meet, so when a number of cities fail we'll reduce the funding available to cities and save money that way" that may be clever politics, but I'll be unimpressed. On the other hand, if it actually facilitates increasing the rate of builds and densification then that's cool.

[Grey Fox]

Québec Stats institute release the stats on Medical aid in dying. It represented 6.8% of 2022 death in Quebec, highest in Canada. In 2nd place, BC with 5.5%.

Interestingly, Alberta overs around 2%.

[Barrister]

Québec Stats institute release the stats on Medical aid in dying. It represented 6.8% of 2022 death in Quebec, highest in Canada. In 2nd place, BC with 5.5%.

Interestingly, Alberta overs around 2%.

I swear - in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off.

[Grey Fox]

Probably not. Faithless people see no reason to prolong their own suffering and I don't see Québec returning to a religious society so fast.

[Admiral Yi]

I swear - in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off.

I think the opposite.

Do any of you guys know what the criteria are in Canada?  Terminal illness like in the US, or ready to go like in Switzerland?

[Sheilbh]

I swear - in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off.

I think you're right. It's made me far more sceptical for similar in the UK especially around some of the cases that have attracted international attention around people with disabilities or lacking social capital or unable to access services. Which has always been my fear in the UK - there's lots of people who are still very much doctor knows best/don't want to cause any trouble that I think would be quite vulnerable.

On the housing thing - that video is exactly why young centre-right types here are very jealous of Poilievre as the right here has basically gone all in on NIMBYism/the old.

[Barrister]

I swear - in 20 or 50 years people are going to be shocked and appalled at how casually we're just killing our own citizens off.

I think the opposite.

Do any of you guys know what the criteria are in Canada?  Terminal illness like in the US, or ready to go like in Switzerland?

So here are the criteria, right from the government of Canada website:

-be 18 years of age or older and have decision-making capacity
-be eligible for publicly funded health care services
-make a voluntary request that is not the result of external pressure
-give informed consent to receive MAID, meaning that the person has consented to receiving MAID after they have received all information needed to make this decision
-have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2024)
-be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability
-have enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated under conditions the person considers acceptable

Please note how completely subjective all of these are.  You have to have a "serious and incurable illness, disease or disability".  Tell me - who over the age of, I dunno, 50, doesn't have some kind of incurable disability or illness.  Similarly someone who has "enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering" - but it explicitly states that is 100% subjective.

And what's worse is next year it applies to purely mental suffering as well.

So let's take my mother.  She's in her 70s.  She has arthritis.  Our health care system has put her on a 2 year pls waiting list for possible surgery.  But because it is an incurable disability, if she said that her suffering is intolerable they'd gladly kill her in a few months.

Or if you're in your 20s and you suffer from depression.  It's not something that it is curable, but it can be treated.  But all you have to do is say the treatment is intolerable and again, come next year, they'll gladly kill you.

[Barrister]

I didn't expect to go off on MAID tonight.  But there have also been a few news stories of people who have long-term and permanent disabilities who have received MAID - but who have stated that it's more because they're just poor and can't receive the financial help they need - that if they had more money they wouldn't otherwise ask for MAID.

Here's just the first story I could find on the Google machine:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/10/13/medical-assistance-death-maid-canada/