[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

PRC did not say "completely eliminate medicare" he said "long term goal of a private healthcare system."

That could, for example, include really shitty public medicare for those who can't afford private healthcare.

[viper37]

But prior to becoming Premiere Danielle Smith had suggested that the $300 would be used for non-hospital medical care - that is things that ARE covered by medicare.  So, namely, doctor's visits.  You go to see a doctor at their office or at a walk-in clinic you pay, I dunno, $50 out of your HSA to cover the visit.  The money then for the HSAs would be coming out of the existing AHS budget (Alberta Health Services).

FYI, my private clinic is very cheap.  It's 110$/year and 100$/visit for 20 minutes.

Looking at other clinics, they don't offer by visit fees, instead, they offer plans that includes a fixed number of visits and some services.  Looking at one popular clinic, it's 800$/year (cheapest plan) for 3 visit to the gp, 3 "nurse acts" and either 1 ecg or one spirometry.  "Platine plan" includes 20 visit to the doc for 5000$ a year.  So, it's around 250$ to see the doc, and they give you access to a nurse for "free" in your plan.



At 300$ per year, factoring 50$ per visit for a gp, she is way, way, way below market rates.  I can't imagine Albertan doctors charging less than half than Quebec ones.  I don't even think GP receive 50$ per visit in the public...

[Barrister]

Gah I hate politics sometimes.

With an election looming in six months, and Alberta getting a huge short-term boost in oil revenues (with a projected surplus of $13 billion this year), what do you think our Premier announced last night?

That's right - cash giveaways!

They are re-indexing certain supports to inflation which will be ongoing, but otherwise it's payments of $600 per child, electricity rebates, another gas tax holiday (even though gas prices are down from their heights) and potential rebates for high natural gas projects.  Total cost to be $2.4 billion.

The payments per kid are income limited, which is fair.  What is annoying though is that the limit is fairly high and comes in just barely under what our family makes.   If the limit was well under I wouldn't give it a second thought.

And of course the NDP can't oppose any of this.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-premier-announces-2-4-billion-affordability-package-1.6660928

[Josephus]

Agreed that limit is pretty high.

[PRC]

Danielle Smith comes out yesterday and says she and her ministers are personally calling organizations that still require people to be vaccinated, specifically mentioning sporting events and a film set. She also implied provincial funding was at stake for those organizations if they kept their own mandates in effect. 

[Barrister]

Danielle Smith comes out yesterday and says she and her ministers are personally calling organizations that still require people to be vaccinated, specifically mentioning sporting events and a film set. She also implied provincial funding was at stake for those organizations if they kept their own mandates in effect. 

I mean - it's a pivot of sorts.  This is part of climbing down from her promise to insert "vaccination status" into protected grounds under the Human Rights Act.  That would mean you could never require anyone to be vaccinated for any disease for any reason - which sounds like a bad idea to me.

Using the "bully pulpit" to try and convince companies not to impose Covid vaccine mandates is not illegal.  Withholding funding though gets very tricky very fast.

Again - happy she's finally pivoting, but the fact she took such extreme positions during the leadershp race makes her pivot much more difficult and obvious.  In the end her government may look a lot like a Toews or Jean government would have, but without all the humiliating climb-downs.

[Neil]

I don't trust Danielle Smith.  I see her as a political huckster always looking for the main chance, and whose tactics are primarily inspired by Movement Conservatism.  Even when she agrees with me, I don't trust her.  I think her sovereignty act is unlikely to make it past the courts.  I think that her idea for a provincial police force is utter folly.  I think that her vaccine politics are cringe-worthy.  I think that her HSAs are an attempt to normalize reducing reliance upon single-payer health insurance.  And I think that her attempts to pay in cash for electoral victory during a time where heavy government spending has already caused massive inflationary problems shows her complete lack of good sense. 

But the other party is the NDP. 

It's a hard knock life.

[Jacob]

Hi Neil - hope you're doing well

[Barrister]

I don't trust Danielle Smith.  I see her as a political huckster always looking for the main chance, and whose tactics are primarily inspired by Movement Conservatism.  Even when she agrees with me, I don't trust her.  I think her sovereignty act is unlikely to make it past the courts.  I think that her idea for a provincial police force is utter folly.  I think that her vaccine politics are cringe-worthy.  I think that her HSAs are an attempt to normalize reducing reliance upon single-payer health insurance.  And I think that her attempts to pay in cash for electoral victory during a time where heavy government spending has already caused massive inflationary problems shows her complete lack of good sense. 

But the other party is the NDP. 

It's a hard knock life.

I almost entirely agree with you, except for an Alberta police force.  There's a lot to recommend about an Alberta Police force.  The "only" negative is that it would be incredibly expensive to set up and run.

[viper37]

I almost entirely agree with you, except for an Alberta police force.  There's a lot to recommend about an Alberta Police force.  The "only" negative is that it would be incredibly expensive to set up and run.

Freedom isn't free...

[Neil]

I almost entirely agree with you, except for an Alberta police force.  There's a lot to recommend about an Alberta Police force.  The "only" negative is that it would be incredibly expensive to set up and run.

And that's half my argument, and the more important half.  The other half is that even with the whole RCMP to draw upon, Alberta struggles to maintain appropriate staffing for rural policing.  Drawing from a smaller applicant pool while setting up entirely new and expensive training and headquarters facilities isn't going to improve matters. 

I just can't see a problem with the RCMP that would be solved by having an Alberta Police Force.  Although I suppose that's more your department than mine, so you might be able to provide a counterpoint. 

[Barrister]

I almost entirely agree with you, except for an Alberta police force.  There's a lot to recommend about an Alberta Police force.  The "only" negative is that it would be incredibly expensive to set up and run.

And that's half my argument, and the more important half.  The other half is that even with the whole RCMP to draw upon, Alberta struggles to maintain appropriate staffing for rural policing.  Drawing from a smaller applicant pool while setting up entirely new and expensive training and headquarters facilities isn't going to improve matters. 

I just can't see a problem with the RCMP that would be solved by having an Alberta Police Force.  Although I suppose that's more your department than mine, so you might be able to provide a counterpoint. 

Staffing?  Part (though only part) of the problem with the RCMP is that if you're an Alberta kid who wants to join the RCMP, you first have to go to Regina for six months, and then afterwards you could be sent anywhere in Canada.  If an Alberta kid wants to join the APP though they know they'll get to stay within Alberta.  That's got to be worth something.

Plus, and this is more general, back when I worked regularly with RCMP they would always be grumbling about the RCMP itself - morale was not high.  With a new force you at least have the chance to correct that.

[Barrister]

So: the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-sovereignty-act-1.6668175

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_30/session_4/20221129_bill-001.pdf
(text of the bill itself)

So the worst of what was promised has not come to pass.  Smith threatened that the Sovereignty Act would allow Alberta to ignore any contrary SCC decisions.  That would indeed have been pure constitutional crisis, but is not to be found in the actual bill.  Instead the bill specifically says that nothing in the Act is to be construed as being contrary to the Constitution.

So instead the Sovereignty Act acts like this.  The Legislature can make a declaration by vote stating that a specific federal bill or policy is either unconstitutional, or will harm Alberta (woah - big difference between those two categories).  Upon doing so it then gives cabinet the power to modify existing Alberta laws, and can direct all sorts of provincial agencies to ignore the federal law.

So it's an odd bill.  Let's take the first part - modifying existing laws.  It's kind-of undemocratic, but remember any majority government can pass whatever laws it feels like anyways.  With the restrictions the bill puts on such modifications of existing laws (such modifications expire in 2 years unless extended, and you can only extend once) this provision might be a bad idea, but it's not as bad as critics are saying (that it's dictatorial, fascistic, that kind of thing).

So then the second part - that they can direct various provincial entities to ignore federal law.  So here's the thing - they already could kind-of do that.  Or at least they could always do that for straight-up government employees.  This bill just extends that power to various agencies and boards that are more arms-length from the government, like health authorities or post-secondary schools.

So a little history lesson from my own experience: there's always been a bit of tension under the constitution since criminal law itself is a federal power, but criminal prosecutions are a provincial power.  Back in the 90s when Chretien brought in the long gun registry Alberta swore it would not prosecute people for not registering their guns. It's always been a bit uncertain whether the province could do that or not. The province is certainly allowed to set priorities and policies for criminal prosecutions.  I have a whole guidebook on when I should or should not prosecute.  But the idea that the province would just flat-out refuse to prosecute an offence under any circumstance would be highly unusual.*

But so what happened about the gun registry?  The Feds and Alberta quietly came to an understanding.  Violations of the long gun registry would be prosecuted by Federal prosecutors, notwithstanding the fact that under the Constitution that would technically be handled by provincial prosecutors.  This allowed both parties to save face while avoiding a messy constitutional showdown.

So what will happen if this bill is passed and Smith's UCP is re-elected?  Good question.  I'm struggling to think of an example on how this would work in practice.

Mostly this just feels like a political slogan (Alberta Sovereignty) in search of a bill, rather than a carefully thought-out public policy.

[Barrister]

Still trying to think how this would work in practice.

Let's take the carbon tax (although the SCC has already ruled on this).  Since the carbon tax is already collected by the Feds not sure how the province could enforce any order against it.

Environmental regulations might also come up.  Problem is most environmental legislation is provincial, and to the extent it is federal it is because it crosses provincial boundaries so Alberta can't unilaterally do anything about it.  Maybe any environmental legislation dealing with navigable waters contained solely within Alberta?  But even then is an oil company going to go ahead and start building a very expensive oil facility knowing the Federal government hasn't authorized it?

Or I guess guns.  I guess the province could order police forces not to charge anyone for violating the most recent gun bans, and order prosecutors not to prosecute such charges if they are laid.  As mentioned in my post above there is at least some precedent for this.  But on the police side the province can't order the RCMP to do anything.

[Barrister]

Okay, last post in this thread, and on a completely different topic: medically assisted suicide.

Starting on Match 17, 2023, you are eligible to receive medically assisted suicide by reason of a mental illness.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html

Here are the requirements:

-have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2023)
-be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
-experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable

That theoretically covers a fucking lot of mental illness!  Most mental illnesses are serious.  Many/most can not be reversed - you can't cure schizophrenia or bipolar.  And can't be relieved "under conditions that you consider acceptable" means almost anything goes.  We have lots of medications for various mental illnesses, and some of them are remarkably effective - but they do have side effects.

So what happens when someone suffers from clinical depression?  Depression can be very serious.  It can not be cured.  It can definitely cause unbearable mental suffering if left untreated.  So what happens when someone goes to a doctor after March 17, 2023 suffering from depression, requests suicide and says counselling and/or medication aren't acceptable?  I guess we just kill them.

We're already getting stories of people who, by reason of a permanent disability, have a very difficult time earning a living and because of their poverty requesting physician assisted suicide.  They do have a disability, it can not be treated or cured - but their primary complaint is their poverty.