As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Pardon my French [Canadian Politics Thread]

16791112100

Posts

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Can anyone with a more level head than I have right now validate this as an idea? Because boy is it giving me strong "Another reason to hate Halifax government" vibes.
    Secondary suites will create more affordable, accessible housing, Halifax councillor says

    More supply with no change in demand should result in lower prices?

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Allowing basement apartments, etc is pretty normal everywhere else that I can think of

    BionicPenguinshrykeGnome-InterruptusAridhol
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    Motion 46 is being debated in Parliament today. What's Motion 46?

    Nationwide basic income. It's just a motion, not legislation, so there's no specifics on things like how much or a timeframe, but it's necessary first step. If they won't even talk about it it'll never happen.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Allowing basement apartments, etc is pretty normal everywhere else that I can think of

    Yeah, backyard buildings you can rent out are pretty common in some jurisdictions and are one of the ways to boost housing supply you see thrown around.

    I mostly just think they are ugly personally. :P

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Moment of silence for Andrew Scheer's last day ahahahaha, just kidding, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out you fucking temp. Security, check his fucking pockets and bags on the way out, he has sticky fingers!

    RichyShadowenGnome-Interruptus
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Allowing basement apartments, etc is pretty normal everywhere else that I can think of
    Basement apartments are already allowed, and I feel are only coming up here because of definition. Are detached homes and over-garage suites normal everywhere else?
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Can anyone with a more level head than I have right now validate this as an idea? Because boy is it giving me strong "Another reason to hate Halifax government" vibes.
    Secondary suites will create more affordable, accessible housing, Halifax councillor says

    More supply with no change in demand should result in lower prices?
    The main problem is that rent is already absurd in Halifax because of the demand we've had for years. It has also been hiked year-over-year to effectively price-gouge tenants. This just seems like the ability to create more sub-standard living spaces (Halifax has a lot of very shitty apartments for the price you pay) and set their prices higher than are warranted. If anything could possibly have an impact here, it would be a reduced number of students at the universities because of COVID (a huge chunk of the south-end is over-priced student housing). But overall I have to say the idea of rent going down seems absurd here ...

    ArcticLancer on
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Moment of silence for Andrew Scheer's last day ahahahaha, just kidding, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out you fucking temp. Security, check his fucking pockets and bags on the way out, he has sticky fingers!

    Apparently within two weeks they will have selected the new leader of the conservatives. Three out of four of them appear to be social conservatives. One of them, to my disgust, is my own MP.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Allowing basement apartments, etc is pretty normal everywhere else that I can think of

    G
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Allowing basement apartments, etc is pretty normal everywhere else that I can think of
    Basement apartments are already allowed, and I feel are only coming up here because of definition. Are detached homes and over-garage suites normal everywhere else?
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Can anyone with a more level head than I have right now validate this as an idea? Because boy is it giving me strong "Another reason to hate Halifax government" vibes.
    Secondary suites will create more affordable, accessible housing, Halifax councillor says

    More supply with no change in demand should result in lower prices?
    The main problem is that rent is already absurd in Halifax because of the demand we've had for years. It has also been hiked year-over-year to effectively price-gouge tenants. This just seems like the ability to create more sub-standard living spaces (Halifax has a lot of very shitty apartments for the price you pay) and set their prices higher than are warranted. If anything could possibly have an impact here, it would be a reduced number of students at the universities because of COVID (a huge chunk of the south-end is over-priced student housing). But overall I have to say the idea of rent going down seems absurd here ...

    I mean.... It's basic economic theory but lately, that does not seem to apply to real estate so who knows. Calgary is full of basement suites of all levels of quality. Lot's of students rent them and small families.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Two of them are SOCON garbage and will never get elected. The other two are mediocre offerings. Last race was 13, this was four. No one apparently wants to lead the party anymore, or doesn't want to waste their time going up against a PM that can't help fucking up but still gets elected. ...and Jagmeet must be over there gnashing his teeth over it, I wonder if the Greens will put up better numbers with May off the ticket.

  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    Can anyone with a more level head than I have right now validate this as an idea? Because boy is it giving me strong "Another reason to hate Halifax government" vibes.
    Secondary suites will create more affordable, accessible housing, Halifax councillor says

    I don't see the issue here? Secondary suites create more housing. Not a lot more, but they are a good thing. Basement suites and laneway houses are totally normal.

    :so_raven:
    Gnome-InterruptusAridholApogee
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Two of them are SOCON garbage and will never get elected. The other two are mediocre offerings. Last race was 13, this was four. No one apparently wants to lead the party anymore, or doesn't want to waste their time going up against a PM that can't help fucking up but still gets elected. ...and Jagmeet must be over there gnashing his teeth over it, I wonder if the Greens will put up better numbers with May off the ticket.

    Which is silly cause, as Ford demonstrated, all you have to do is be leading the party when the voting public gets tired of Liberals again after they've been in power long and enough and you get to be PM.

    ShadowhopeImperfectGnome-InterruptusShadowen
  • finnithfinnith TorontoRegistered User regular
    I wonder if they're worried that they would just be seat-warmers for someone like Ford. As bad as he was doing before, I bet perception of him has been improved by his handling of the pandemic (current school openings not included).

    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Two of them are SOCON garbage and will never get elected. The other two are mediocre offerings. Last race was 13, this was four. No one apparently wants to lead the party anymore, or doesn't want to waste their time going up against a PM that can't help fucking up but still gets elected. ...and Jagmeet must be over there gnashing his teeth over it, I wonder if the Greens will put up better numbers with May off the ticket.

    Which is silly cause, as Ford demonstrated, all you have to do is be leading the party when the voting public gets tired of Liberals again after they've been in power long and enough and you get to be PM.

    Also fool the public with the "My MP is different, they will hold Ford accountable" rhetoric.

    sig.gif
    Shadowen
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    On the topic of elections: in the wake of the WE scandal, the Bloc is demanding that Trudeau, Morneau, and Telford step down, at least temporarily until we've dealt with the covid crisis. What's new though is that they are making it an ultimatum: step down or face a censure motion in October when Parliament resumes, in essence a vote of non-confidence that would dissolve Parliament and cause a fall election.

    Now there are a lot of things to consider here.

    1. The Bloc is also saying they don't want an election in the middle of a pandemic, and that most people just want the government to deal with the on-going crisis. Their discourse makes it sounds like they are trying to get some major concessions rather than an election. So a deal is possible, if Trudeau is not too stupid to take it (which, frankly, he might be).

    2. Failing that, I think the Bloc wouldn't mind an election. The party just came back from the dead, and Québec has a less-positive opinion of Ottawa's handling of the covid crisis and a more-positive view of the provincial handling of it than most other provinces in the ROC, so they're riding on a mostly positive national swing. The Bloc is the only Federal party not rocked by scandals since the last election (the Therrien racist vote thing was nicely presented as "look at that brown weirdly-dressed bearded foreigner calling us noble white men racist how dare he" by our racist national MSM, so it's been a scandal on the NDP rather than the Bloc) so they've got that going for them too.

    3. But of course the Bloc cannot win a vote by themselves - they need both the CPC and the NDP to support it to pass. The CPC has been promising to dissolve Parliament and have an election at the first opportunity since the night of the election, I think it may have been in Scheer's defeat speech. But more importantly, being fresh off the coronation of McKay they'll be enjoying a positive swing and can hopefully spend two months without a major scandal staining their new leader, so they'll be at a high point for an election. There's no doubt in my mind they'll vote for it. The NDP however has shown no real interest in having an election. I don't expect they've done much fundraising since the last one, they haven't been abusing covid emergency funding to support their party like the LPC and CPC have done, and their party isn't enjoying an upswing in popularity. So if the Liberals throw them a reasonable bone I expect they'll vote down the motion.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
    mrondeauShadowen
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Richy wrote: »
    Québec has a less-positive opinion of Ottawa's handling of the covid crisis and a more-positive view of the provincial handling of it than most other provinces in the ROC

    Any idea why that is? Québec leads the country in both cases and deaths per capita by a huge margin.

    CorporateGoon on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake OttawaRegistered User regular
    The Liberal budget will lean left this Fall, with lots of juicy spending.

    NDP can't run on a platform the Liberals have largely stolen. The NDP is tottering, old, and completely without interesting ideals and a completely flat leader. They're in the wilderness for another few elections.

    Apogee
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    The NDP are broke and the Liberals are riding pretty high in the polls despite the We "scandal" if you can call it that. I can't see them stepping down and PQ buddy doesn't really gain anything by forcing an election.

    I hope McKay arrives his first day in a search and rescue chopper, right onto the front lawn of parliament just to show how little he actually cares. Maybe the greens will elect someone a little better than May, which will just siphon votes off Jagmeet.

    Nosf on
    Gnome-InterruptusApogee
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    even with the Bloc and CPC working together, they still don't have the votes

  • quovadis13quovadis13 Registered User regular
    Despite the current scandal, and pending some unforeseen event, I can’t imagine an election not benefitting the Liberals anytime soon. An election would likely be based on “how well we have handled Covid”, which for the Liberals has been fairly well. Even if things get bad again in the fall, it could always be spun that it was the election that caused everyone to lose focus and I think that could garner some sympathy for the incumbents.

    I also agree that the NDP stands to lose the most so they would do whatever they could to cling to whatever sway they have now. Ironically, this minority has given them a fair amount of influence despite their seemingly weakest overall position.

    Gnome-InterruptusKetBraAegis
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    I can't see the NDP deciding to commit electoral suicide but what do I know

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    ArcticLancer
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Québec has a less-positive opinion of Ottawa's handling of the covid crisis and a more-positive view of the provincial handling of it than most other provinces in the ROC

    Any idea why that is? Québec leads the country in both cases and deaths per capita by a huge margin.

    Montreal is, not Québec. Covid is almost nonexistent in the province outside the island of Montreal.

    Also, these kind of comparisons are not fair since every province counts cases and deaths differently, and Québec has the most "generous" counting standard. We count infections with one positive test instead of two in the ROC, we count covid deaths if someone dies in a place with a confirmed covid case regardless of whether the deceased actually had covid or not (so whenever a case of covid is detected in a retirement home, every death in that retirement home is automatically a covid death), and we count recoveries only with a negative diagnostic confirmed by an MD (so we have very few recoveries because we have very few MDs with time to spare to diagnose healthy people).

    sig.gif
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    I can't see the NDP deciding to commit electoral suicide but what do I know

    Maybe they'll announce that they agree to oust the Liberals unless the Liberals vote with them to do basic income (see Motion 46, above).

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Motion 46 is being debated in Parliament today. What's Motion 46?

    Nationwide basic income. It's just a motion, not legislation, so there's no specifics on things like how much or a timeframe, but it's necessary first step. If they won't even talk about it it'll never happen.

    Nationwide basic income is not economically sustainable. There are 37 million people in Canada. At the current CERB survival-level of $2,000/month, that's $888B. Even if you limit the scope of the program to those above 18, it's still 30 million people and $720B. For reference, the Federal budget revenue in 2018-2019 was $332B. So that's more than twice our national revenue spent just for that one program, on top of $358B spent on all the other Federal government programs in 2018-2019.

    sig.gif
  • ShadowBladeShadowBlade Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Motion 46 is being debated in Parliament today. What's Motion 46?

    Nationwide basic income. It's just a motion, not legislation, so there's no specifics on things like how much or a timeframe, but it's necessary first step. If they won't even talk about it it'll never happen.

    Nationwide basic income is not economically sustainable. There are 37 million people in Canada. At the current CERB survival-level of $2,000/month, that's $888B. Even if you limit the scope of the program to those above 18, it's still 30 million people and $720B. For reference, the Federal budget revenue in 2018-2019 was $332B. So that's more than twice our national revenue spent just for that one program, on top of $358B spent on all the other Federal government programs in 2018-2019.

    Then you fold in a TON or possibly even ever other related program. UBI is the only way we are getting out of this mess without mass homelessness. UBI is the only way to face the automated future that's only artificially being held back right now.
    To be clear, I'm not saying everything can be automated tomorrow, but we are holding back already. Much sooner than later, for all intents and purposes, "Everything" will be automated. How do we deal with that without UBI? How do we deal with this pandemic without it? The next? As a presently unemployed father of 2, I have a natural bent here, it's true, but I was on this while gainfully employed and as a full brick & mortor entrepreneur.
    I mean, is it hyperbolic to say we may as well waive good bye to everything in current capitalism as it burns us all one by one if we don't reign it in at the most dire point we've faced with it?

    This world needs a new philosophy. No more, "Could be worse..." I say SHOULD BE BETTER!
    CanadianWolverineShadowenApogee
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    What do you mean by "...fold in a TON or possibly even every other related program"?

    Richy
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King a island Registered User regular
    Oh damn mining capital of the world can't provide western life styles for all it's citizens then why are we stealing so much from the global south? For fun?

    icGJy2C.png
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1110019201
    https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110019101
    10M economic families, 5.7M persons not in an economic family. Going to use the combined data to avoid doing this twice

    There is roughly 1.2T after tax income available

    Per-decile income isn't super helpful as-is but it can be tediously restructured like so, breaking down how much income exists in each bracket by all deciles. Since we have progressive taxation each decile earns and will be taxed at all previous decile's rates - eg, the rich's first 50k isn't taxed at a higher rate than anyone else's

    Skip the first 3 deciles (<36.7k), practically no tax is collected on those brackets anyway. Using after-tax income since we effectively want to levy a new tax

    In values are N * (average income - upper income limit)
    >k values are M * N * (upper income limit +1 - upper income limit)
    where N is 1.57 million, M is number of deciles above this one

    1st-3rd: 617B <- this is money that won't be touched, roughly half of all after-tax income

    4th (39.3-49.8)
    in 4th: 8B
    >4th: 98.9B (16.485B per)

    5th (49.8-61.4)
    in 5th: 8.95B
    >5th: 91B (18.212B per)

    6th (61.4-74.8)
    in 6th: 10B
    >6th: 84.15B (21.038B per)

    7th (74.8-90.7)
    in 7th: 11.9B
    >7th: 74.89B (24.963B per)

    8th (90.7-112.2)
    in 8th: 15.85B
    >8th: 67.5B (33.755B per)

    9th (112.2-146)
    in 9th: 23.7B
    >9th: 53B

    10th (146+): 91.69B

    If we want to do a UBI at 720B, each decile will get roughly 72B. 4th-10th* deciles effectively won't get anything, reducing the burden to 216B

    You could do it like so:
    80B from 146k+ band (87% free income captured)
    60B from 112.2-146k band. (79% free income captured)
    45B from the 90.7-112.2 band (54% of free income captured)
    20B from the 74.8-90.7 band (23% of free income captured)
    10B from the 61.4-74.8 band (10% of free income captured)

    You'd have to sell solidly middle class (under-median) families losing 10% of all available after-tax income and that's even with a top marginal rate of around 90ish%

    *Now in an actual implementation you'd gradually drop off benefits starting at 2nd decile (19k) and completely phasing out much later rather than a cliff, but a cliff makes for easier numbers

    It's possible a more in-depth analysis with separate economic family and individual numbers will be more optimistic because economic families will disproportionately be benefited by a per-person distribution. You may be able to recoup more money from large economic families which will push them into the punitive brackets. Maybe you can top out in the 70s for marginal rates then, however there will no doubt be a large "marriage tax" and "child tax" contingent who will probably push for tax-exemption in these cases

    ShadowBladeCanadianWolverineApogeeMeeqe
  • ShadowBladeShadowBlade Registered User regular
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    What do you mean by "...fold in a TON or possibly even every other related program"?
    EI, Welfare, Possibly even Canada Pension. There are a TON of support programs that would be made redundant if done right.

    @Phyphor that's above my pay grade, but did I read that right? That is PRO UBI, right?

    This world needs a new philosophy. No more, "Could be worse..." I say SHOULD BE BETTER!
    Gnome-InterruptusApogee
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    What do you mean by "...fold in a TON or possibly even every other related program"?
    EI, Welfare, Possibly even Canada Pension. There are a TON of support programs that would be made redundant if done right.

    Which is wrong on two counts.

    First, there's the assumption that it would make a difference. The programs you listed account for about $70B in Federal spending. Hell, throw in childcare and you're still below $100B. Eliminating all this doesn't get you anywhere near the $700B to $800B you need to run UBI.

    Second, there's the assumption UBI can allow us to get rid of these programs in their entirety. Some portion of it, the easy cases, sure. But a one-size-fits-all program cannot work on 30M+ people. There are special cases, people with special needs, disabilities, care-givers, etc., who do not fit the UBI mould. So you'll still need most of the infrastructure of these departments to remain in place and well-funded to handle these people, otherwise your UBI safety net will have massive cracks that thousands if not millions of needy Canadians will fall through.


    EDIT:
    @Phyphor that's above my pay grade, but did I read that right? That is PRO UBI, right?
    It has 80% to 90% income tax rates in order to support the program. I'd say that's anti-UBI.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • EntriechEntriech Registered User regular
    Don't we get to enjoy some knock-on effect economic activity also helping to offset the cost? My understanding was in general, a dollar in the hands of our nation's worst off gets spent rather than saved. That goes to buying food, essentials, and some small luxuries. It goes to rent and fuel and utilities. Like yes, taxes rise on those more fortunate, but then those are the folks who also benefit the most when economic activity rises.

    BroloImperfectCanadianWolverineGnome-InterruptusApogee
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Short version: if paying for an UBI is not possible, then living in Canada is not possible. The resources are there, they are just badly distributed.
    That does not mean it is politically viable, because people suck.

    ShadowBladeCanadianWolverineThe Cow KingArcticLancerApogeeShadowhope
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Entriech wrote: »
    Don't we get to enjoy some knock-on effect economic activity also helping to offset the cost? My understanding was in general, a dollar in the hands of our nation's worst off gets spent rather than saved. That goes to buying food, essentials, and some small luxuries. It goes to rent and fuel and utilities. Like yes, taxes rise on those more fortunate, but then those are the folks who also benefit the most when economic activity rises.

    You are correct, there will be economic growth, as lower-income people do spend disproportionately more of their income. Even if they spend it on tax-free goods like groceries, that still leads to higher sale volumes for stores and their suppliers, which is definitely taxable.

    But whether taxes collected on that economic growth will triple our Federal income, which again is what is needed to make UBI economically sustainable... I haven't seen simulations, but from the sheer scale of it I'm going to say no.

    sig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Short version: if paying for an UBI is not possible, then living in Canada is not possible. The resources are there, they are just badly distributed.
    That does not mean it is politically viable, because people suck.

    We're living in Canada without UBI right now. It's possible.

    We have one of the best social safety nets in the world as it is. Are there parts that need to be fixed or improved? Yes. Are there gaps, like pharmacare or childcare, that should be filled in? Sure. Should it be better funded? Definitely.

    But should we scrap the whole thing and go with an unproven and financially-disastrous UBI scheme? Hell no.

    sig.gif
    Invectivus
  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake OttawaRegistered User regular
    I'm perfectly fine with exploring UBI options in the future with test-programs.

    We live in absolutely cataclysmic times in nearly every aspect of our lives, so why not explore another fundamental shift?

    BrolomrondeauCanadianWolverineShadowBladeShadowenGnome-InterruptusApogeeShadowhope
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Short version: if paying for an UBI is not possible, then living in Canada is not possible. The resources are there, they are just badly distributed.
    That does not mean it is politically viable, because people suck.

    We're living in Canada without UBI right now. It's possible.

    We have one of the best social safety nets in the world as it is. Are there parts that need to be fixed or improved? Yes. Are there gaps, like pharmacare or childcare, that should be filled in? Sure. Should it be better funded? Definitely.

    But should we scrap the whole thing and go with an unproven and financially-disastrous UBI scheme? Hell no.

    There are two things being discussed: the federal income and the income of all Canadians.

    The assertion is that - using the value for the income of all Canadians - UBI must be possible, or by necessity, not all Canadians will have sufficient money to live. i.e. if you were to evenly split all income in Canada, either it's enough to support everyone (and some form of UBI is possible) or it's not (and some people are dying).

    Now, as to whether you can reasonably convert "All Canadian Income" into "Federal Income" on a scale large enough to fund a UBI, that's entirely up for debate.

    mrondeauShadowBlade
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    While the rest of you folks have been all WE scandal, UBI etc etc those of us who live in the have-not province Alberta, get to steep in hot UCP.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/private-orthopedic-surgical-alberta-health-1.5678883


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/ndp-want-albertas-auditor-general-to-investigate-private-surgical-facility-procurement-process

    So with Bill 30 having been shoved through the doors/floodgates have been opened for private for profit medical facilities.
    A massive surgical facility has been proposed and it looks like backdoor talks have already happened between the UCP and this company.

    Awesome.. thats great.

    Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    While the rest of you folks have been all WE scandal, UBI etc etc those of us who live in the have-not province Alberta, get to steep in hot UCP.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/private-orthopedic-surgical-alberta-health-1.5678883


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/ndp-want-albertas-auditor-general-to-investigate-private-surgical-facility-procurement-process

    So with Bill 30 having been shoved through the doors/floodgates have been opened for private for profit medical facilities.
    A massive surgical facility has been proposed and it looks like backdoor talks have already happened between the UCP and this company.

    Awesome.. thats great.

    I'm sure the MSM will give this close scrutiny and proper reporting ignore this and keep hammering on Trudeau.

    sig.gif
    darkmayoShadowenGnome-InterruptusGiantGeek2020
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    While the rest of you folks have been all WE scandal, UBI etc etc those of us who live in the have-not province Alberta, get to steep in hot UCP.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/private-orthopedic-surgical-alberta-health-1.5678883


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/ndp-want-albertas-auditor-general-to-investigate-private-surgical-facility-procurement-process

    So with Bill 30 having been shoved through the doors/floodgates have been opened for private for profit medical facilities.
    A massive surgical facility has been proposed and it looks like backdoor talks have already happened between the UCP and this company.

    Awesome.. thats great.

    They literally have the health minister on tape chatting up on how they are going to push privatization and no one cares.

    I sell office furniture for a living and I can tell you the economy here that's already pretty beat up is going to go into freefall after the federal subsidies run out. Downtown Calgary already had a <30% commercial vacancy pre-pandemic and it's only gotten worse. When you are in one bigger building and can see 12ish floors abandoned in the building across the street....

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited August 2020
    Richy wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    While the rest of you folks have been all WE scandal, UBI etc etc those of us who live in the have-not province Alberta, get to steep in hot UCP.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/private-orthopedic-surgical-alberta-health-1.5678883


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/ndp-want-albertas-auditor-general-to-investigate-private-surgical-facility-procurement-process

    So with Bill 30 having been shoved through the doors/floodgates have been opened for private for profit medical facilities.
    A massive surgical facility has been proposed and it looks like backdoor talks have already happened between the UCP and this company.

    Awesome.. thats great.

    I'm sure the MSM will give this close scrutiny and proper reporting ignore this and keep hammering on Trudeau.

    That's because our Main Stream Media (print, radio, tv, etc) is mostly conservative owned. By malice or omission, they want a narrative that is friendly to that political ideology.

    If we want that to change, we need to find ways to support Left or at the very least Left leaning centrist media better. So far it seems like a few local FN newspapers, APTN, websites (whose names get poked fun), and podcasts (which are poked even more fun of) are the only things the oligarchs haven't figured out how to take complete dominance of in local regional markets that make up their media empires but its not for lack of trying, if only to build out their copyright / trademarked intellectual property war chests in recent decades.

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    While the rest of you folks have been all WE scandal, UBI etc etc those of us who live in the have-not province Alberta, get to steep in hot UCP.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/private-orthopedic-surgical-alberta-health-1.5678883


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/ndp-want-albertas-auditor-general-to-investigate-private-surgical-facility-procurement-process

    So with Bill 30 having been shoved through the doors/floodgates have been opened for private for profit medical facilities.
    A massive surgical facility has been proposed and it looks like backdoor talks have already happened between the UCP and this company.

    Awesome.. thats great.

    They literally have the health minister on tape chatting up on how they are going to push privatization and no one cares.

    I sell office furniture for a living and I can tell you the economy here that's already pretty beat up is going to go into freefall after the federal subsidies run out. Downtown Calgary already had a <30% commercial vacancy pre-pandemic and it's only gotten worse. When you are in one bigger building and can see 12ish floors abandoned in the building across the street....

    Oh for sure, hell I did I brief stint with a smaller property management company back in I think 2014-15 and I remember walking around with their guy through the buildings they owned and they had soooo many vacancies back then. A plus of that stint was hearing about the Co-op world of whiskey that opened up in the +15 level of one of their buildings way before it was public knowledge.

    Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
This discussion has been closed.