[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Sheilbh]

But I'd reverse that. If there are genuine supply side/gatekeeper issues, and in the UK there are (planning, zoning, judicial review), they won't disappear just because the state is building more housing. If anything they'll be more open - particularly to judicial review.

There is similar conversation here except it's been picked up by the Labour party - also it's not just housing here but infrastructure (especially for energy transition). If there are supply side problems, and I believe there are, then fixing them will benefit the private sector but will also make it more possible for the public sector to build housing.

My instinct is you need both, but probably fixing the supply side matters more because it conditions the entire market both private and public.

Obviously if you're centre-right you're strongly supportive of that because it does have the potential to increase building by the private sector which might mitigate the risk of increase social housing.

I've said before but in the UK (and maybe Canada) I think the party that fixes this will have a generational advantage. The young centre-right types here think the Tories have basically given up on this, and if anything made it worse (strengthening the gatekeepers), so, having failed to produce a right wing private sector driven solution to the problem - they're going to get a Labour one.

[Grey Fox]

I agree with CC, the CPC is being misleading and will only remove some inconsequential obstacles and not provide any funding.

The thing is, the real obstacles are from municipalities that ultimately answer to the provincial governments.

[crazy canuck]

But I'd reverse that. If there are genuine supply side/gatekeeper issues, and in the UK there are (planning, zoning, judicial review), they won't disappear just because the state is building more housing. If anything they'll be more open - particularly to judicial review.

There is similar conversation here except it's been picked up by the Labour party - also it's not just housing here but infrastructure (especially for energy transition). If there are supply side problems, and I believe there are, then fixing them will benefit the private sector but will also make it more possible for the public sector to build housing.

My instinct is you need both, but probably fixing the supply side matters more because it conditions the entire market both private and public.

Obviously if you're centre-right you're strongly supportive of that because it does have the potential to increase building by the private sector which might mitigate the risk of increase social housing.

I've said before but in the UK (and maybe Canada) I think the party that fixes this will have a generational advantage. The young centre-right types here think the Tories have basically given up on this, and if anything made it worse (strengthening the gatekeepers), so, having failed to produce a right wing private sector driven solution to the problem - they're going to get a Labour one.

In the Canadian context, I would answer with the laconic "if" and leave it at that. But you are not in Canada and so you will not be familiar with all of the efforts made in many provinces to remove zoning restrictions, and bylaw restrictions, which might inhibit the development of multifamily units to create more density, especially around transportation hubs.


The conservatives are counting on the fact that nobody in Canada actually understands that the whole gatekeeper theory doesn't make much sense at least in our context. But the conservatives have been using this as their slogan since PP was elected as leader, and so it'll be difficult for them to find something else that actually conform with reality.

If you would like to find out more about what is happening on the provincial level, you might want to do some research around what the BC government has been doing for the last two years.

Jacob and I have been talking about it fairly often in this thread and so if you don't want to Google you could simply review what has already been said in this thread multiple times.

[crazy canuck]

I agree with CC, the CPC is being misleading and will only remove some inconsequential obstacles and not provide any funding.

The thing is, the real obstacles are from municipalities that ultimately answer to the provincial governments.

It's a good point. If there was a province in which there was a gatekeeper problem, the federal government withholding funds which should've been paid directly to a municipality makes no sense since what the municipality does is directly governed by the provincial statute created by the provincial government.

It's up to the provinces to make legislative amendments to their local government Acts.

The political problem for the conservatives is that they can't be seen to be forcing provinces to do something that is within provincial jurisdiction. So they go after the cities. It's nonsensical.

[crazy canuck]

Actually, there is a story in today's globe and mail with a brief summary of the initiatives the BC government has made along with the criticisms that they have not gone far enough and predictably have gone too far too fast.

New set of gifted links for this month so you don't have to worry about the pay wall.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/MTHPT62LDFCGTGM3IBS72BKQ44/

[Grey Fox]

Yay! Good on the BC government actually doing something. Will it result in real construction?

[crazy canuck]

Yay! Good on the BC government actually doing something. Will it result in real construction?

There has always been a lot of construction here.  The question is whether it will increase sufficiently to moderate prices.

Too soon to know what will happen, but at least they are taking steps.

[Jacob]

Yay! Good on the BC government actually doing something. Will it result in real construction?

It remains to be seen how big the impact is, but there are some initial positive indications:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mcdonalds-1527-main-street-vancouver-sold-rental-housing-redevelopment

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/523-549-east-10th-avenue-vancouver-mount-pleasant-rental-housing-tower

[Jacob]

There has always been a lot of construction here.  The question is whether it will increase sufficiently to moderate prices.

Too soon to know what will happen, but at least they are taking steps.

Yeah, no doubt Ms. Kirkpatrick from the G&M article will be right one way or the other - either they're going too fast or too slow... or maybe both at the same time

But yeah, at least they're taking action, and the action seems well considered and thorough. No doubt there will be unforeseen consequences that will have to be dealt with. But that's what happens when you do things.

Of the various concerns being raised (at least in Vancouver) the "our current infrastructure is not going to be able to keep up with this" seems pretty reasonable. I remain relatively optimistic that that is going to be addressed over the next little while as well though.

[Grey Fox]

Helsinki and Finland is where we need to look for inspiration.

[crazy canuck]

There has always been a lot of construction here.  The question is whether it will increase sufficiently to moderate prices.

Too soon to know what will happen, but at least they are taking steps.

Yeah, no doubt Ms. Kirkpatrick from the G&M article will be right one way or the other - either they're going too fast or too slow... or maybe both at the same time

But yeah, at least they're taking action, and the action seems well considered and thorough. No doubt there will be unforeseen consequences that will have to be dealt with. But that's what happens when you do things.

Of the various concerns being raised (at least in Vancouver) the "our current infrastructure is not going to be able to keep up with this" seems pretty reasonable. I remain relatively optimistic that that is going to be addressed over the next little while as well though.

Yeah, I think that is the biggest issue - as just one example, normally school districts do their planning based in part on an analysis of development approvals in order to gauge the needed class room space into the future.

With the normal development processes being shortened or even removed, that sort of forward planning in a particular area becomes more difficult.  And then there are also the basics of ensuring sewer, water, electricity, local parks, shopping etc etc etc.

The good thing is the government has quickly realized that their amendments removed the ability of municipalities to collect development cost charges in order to pay for that added infrastructure.  But as I understand they have introduced amendments which rejig how that revenue will now be collected.

Which raises another issue with the PP plan - it does not account at all for the extra costs associated with building more housing.  Who is going to pay for all of that if the boogyman gatekeeper is removed?  The PP plan is to remove funding.

[Barrister]

You get worked up about the weirdest topics Beeb...

I think safe, legal and rare should apply to MAID, but that's about it. The analogy with eugenics in AB doesn't really work, as one of the criteria for MAID is patient's own agency.

How is this a weird topic to be concerned about?

Grey Fox stated (and he didn't source it, so I can't confirm) that 6.8% of all deaths in Quebec are from MAID.  That's 1 death in 15.  You mentioned "safe, legal and rare", which is the Bill Clinton phrase about abortion, which I've identified as being my position.  That sounds appropriate to me for MAID as well.

But one death in 15 being assisted suicide is anything but rare.

[Barrister]

Wait, BB claims that eugenics was a progressive policy?  Please tell me you were being deeply sarcastic.

I don't mean this as some kind of "burn" against the left wing, as progressivism from the 1920s is not exactly the same as the 2020s.

But yes, absolutely - Eugenics was promoted back then by people who identified as progressives.  This is not a controversial reading of history.

Just one of the first links I could find in support.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/chapter-19-the-progressive-era-eugenics/

[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.

There is so much wrong with this post. The fact that you think doctors will gladly kill anybody is offensive.

Also, you are conflating chronic diseases with incurable diseases.

So please let me know what's wrong with the post.  I literally copied the criteria from a Government of Canada website.

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

So let's address the two points you did make.

The fact that you think doctors will gladly kill anybody is offensive.

So, I did not mean to imply that doctors get some sort of sick pleasure out of killing people.  But do doctors who perform MAID think they're doing a "social good"?  Absolutely.

you are conflating chronic diseases with incurable diseases

There's a hell of a lot of overlap between those terms?  I mean I guess, yes, there are some chronic disease that might in the long run be curable.  But many, most even, are not - they're just something you have to manage.

Again, from the very link I provided:

You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

(Emphasis in the original)

If you want to die in Canada, you just have to have a disease that can not be reversed, and you have to say that any treatment offered is not tolerable.

LIke I said before, in particular as you get older, how many people have a disease that can not be reversed?  So someone with, say, a spinal injury - who will never, ever be able to walk, but could live a long and healthy life for decades to come, would qualify for MAID if they want it.

Someone with chronic depression, which will never be cured but is eminently treatable with medication, would be eligible for MAID started in March 2024 if they want it.

[Jacob]

Yeah, my understanding is that there was a progressive strand of the eugenics movement. I don't know if it was the only one - and obviously stuff like eugenics focused at "race purity" were not progressive. But there absolutely was a progressive movement to better society by attempting to remove bad and regressive traits in the population by scientific methods.

I'll also agree with BB that 1 in 15 deaths seem a bit high, though much depends on how many of those are "this person is in or will soon be in a vegatative state and/ or in massive untreatable pain with no hope for improvement, and they want to be eased along" versus what Beeb describes as:

... 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.

Though if there is a high proportion of MAID recipients who are at their wits' end due to poverty and lack of financial aid to make their lives comfortable, the obvious answer would be to alleviate their poverty and provide the required financial aid to make death seem less appealing.