Yeah, everyone I've seen exposed to that ad other then my most conservative relatives gets to the "paid for the government of Alberta" part at the end and reflexively does some equivalent of yelling "Oh fuck off".
Trust me, so do all the sane people here.... With the extra kicker that we paid for it.
Province with the highest electricity cost + lowest reliability talking smack is embarrassing.
So the Ford government put out new Greenbelt legislation today that re-protects those parts of the Greenbelt that were handed over to developers. Global news is reporting that the legislation contains blanket immunity for Ford and his government that protects them from being sued by the developers who stood to gain from the corrupt deals.
So the Ford government put out new Greenbelt legislation today that re-protects those parts of the Greenbelt that were handed over to developers. Global news is reporting that the legislation contains blanket immunity for Ford and his government that protects them from being sued by the developers who stood to gain from the corrupt deals.
Totally normal thing to put into law lol
So basically "oh fuck, we got caught, let's reverse it and hope nobody notices"?
So the Ford government put out new Greenbelt legislation today that re-protects those parts of the Greenbelt that were handed over to developers. Global news is reporting that the legislation contains blanket immunity for Ford and his government that protects them from being sued by the developers who stood to gain from the corrupt deals.
Totally normal thing to put into law lol
Devil's advocate: This is not unusual when the government shifts on large projects.
I wanted them to backtrack more then I wanted them to face charges or an inquiry.
But let's have the inquiry and the charges anyway. As a treat.
+9
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Y'all are missing the exciting news of the local PCs trying to ram through a bill that will give the minister of housing, John Lohr, executive power to personally approve any development project he wants, and revise zoning and other guidelines on a whim.
Why do conservative approaches to gouvernement always come to "Trust us with authoritarian power. We promise it'll be swell." 🤔
Y'all are missing the exciting news of the local PCs trying to ram through a bill that will give the minister of housing, John Lohr, executive power to personally approve any development project he wants, and revise zoning and other guidelines on a whim.
Why do conservative approaches to gouvernement always come to "Trust us with authoritarian power. We promise it'll be swell." 🤔
I mean, it's not like developers will delight at being able to just buy off one person's personal fiat as opposed to any kind of sane approval or regulatory process, right?
I love that this is a couple days after Lohr announced that the province is throwing out any housing strategy it had previously been working on, because plans get in the way of things. Blagh.
Zibblsnrt on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Y'all are missing the exciting news of the local PCs trying to ram through a bill that will give the minister of housing, John Lohr, executive power to personally approve any development project he wants, and revise zoning and other guidelines on a whim.
Why do conservative approaches to gouvernement always come to "Trust us with authoritarian power. We promise it'll be swell." 🤔
Incidentally this is a couple weeks after the province announced its solution to the housing crisis, which was to ... order municipalities to, and I quote verbatim, "roll up your sleeves and get to work."
Not sure how either that approach or the current one solves the "insufficient labour pool" and "widespread public opposition to any residential construction that isn't a suburban/exurban detached house" problems, but...
Incidentally this is a couple weeks after the province announced its solution to the housing crisis, which was to ... order municipalities to, and I quote verbatim, "roll up your sleeves and get to work."
Not sure how either that approach or the current one solves the "insufficient labour pool" and "widespread public opposition to any residential construction that isn't a suburban/exurban detached house" problems, but...
Municipal governments control zoning. I'm all in favor of provincial laws forcing dense mixed-used development, and preventing public consultations from stopping development, but it's something municipal government can and should do too.
+3
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Y'all are missing the exciting news of the local PCs trying to ram through a bill that will give the minister of housing, John Lohr, executive power to personally approve any development project he wants, and revise zoning and other guidelines on a whim.
Why do conservative approaches to gouvernement always come to "Trust us with authoritarian power. We promise it'll be swell." 🤔
Incidentally this is a couple weeks after the province announced its solution to the housing crisis, which was to ... order municipalities to, and I quote verbatim, "roll up your sleeves and get to work."
Not sure how either that approach or the current one solves the "insufficient labour pool" and "widespread public opposition to any residential construction that isn't a suburban/exurban detached house" problems, but...
Municipal governments control zoning. I'm all in favor of provincial laws forcing dense mixed-used development, and preventing public consultations from stopping development, but it's something municipal government can and should do too.
A chunk of the issue here is similar to what it is in other provinces, where provincial governments' getterdun mindset is turning into opposition to municipal governance at all. There's no shortage of that around the country, e.g., "strong mayor" policies meant to prevent city councils from representing their citizens, etc.
It feels like everyone's suddenly remembering that municipal governments, constitutionally speaking, don't actually exist in Canada, and if a province wants to say "actually, no, Halifax doesn't have a say in zoning or development anymore," that's the ballgame. As of this time next week, that's going to be the case here, and I expect we'll see followup in other areas the next time a municipality in the province does something the premier doesn't like, or someone buys off another cabinet minister.
Incidentally this is a couple weeks after the province announced its solution to the housing crisis, which was to ... order municipalities to, and I quote verbatim, "roll up your sleeves and get to work."
Not sure how either that approach or the current one solves the "insufficient labour pool" and "widespread public opposition to any residential construction that isn't a suburban/exurban detached house" problems, but...
Municipal governments control zoning. I'm all in favor of provincial laws forcing dense mixed-used development, and preventing public consultations from stopping development, but it's something municipal government can and should do too.
A chunk of the issue here is similar to what it is in other provinces, where provincial governments' getterdun mindset is turning into opposition to municipal governance at all. There's no shortage of that around the country, e.g., "strong mayor" policies meant to prevent city councils from representing their citizens, etc.
It feels like everyone's suddenly remembering that municipal governments, constitutionally speaking, don't actually exist in Canada, and if a province wants to say "actually, no, Halifax doesn't have a say in zoning or development anymore," that's the ballgame. As of this time next week, that's going to be the case here, and I expect we'll see followup in other areas the next time a municipality in the province does something the premier doesn't like, or someone buys off another cabinet minister.
Being from Toronto I was never under the illusion that municipal governments had any real power.
The hits keep coming for the Ford government. The NDP are claiming that the results of an FOI request on documents relating to Ontario Place indicate the process that awarded a 95 year lease to Therme spa was corrupt (no shit).
Apparently they uncovered plans to build the $500M underground parking lot for Therme's spa 2 years before they announced it to the public, and like 6 months before the public process that selected Therme was completed. This suggests the Ford government knew they were going to give the land to Therme before Therme was selected as the winning bidder for the land.
The hits keep coming for the Ford government. The NDP are claiming that the results of an FOI request on documents relating to Ontario Place indicate the process that awarded a 95 year lease to Therme spa was corrupt (no shit).
Apparently they uncovered plans to build the $500M underground parking lot for Therme's spa 2 years before they announced it to the public, and like 6 months before the public process that selected Therme was completed. This suggests the Ford government knew they were going to give the land to Therme before Therme was selected as the winning bidder for the land.
So the PQ will be releasing its updated Year-One budget of an independent Québec. It's something they've been doing since 1973 to demonstrate that an independent Québec is financially viable, and counter the oft-repeated attack that Québec will collapse financially overnight without Canada. At any rate, in the lead-up to this new budget, the PQ released a new pro-sovereignty ad featuring archive clips of various former politicians arguing that a sovereign Québec makes financial sense. And that includes... a younger François Legault, from back when he was a minister in the PQ government, arguing for the urgency of Québec sovereignty.
The PQ actually featuring François Legault as one of their partisans in their ads just cracks me up
So the PQ will be releasing its updated Year-One budget of an independent Québec. It's something they've been doing since 1973 to demonstrate that an independent Québec is financially viable, and counter the oft-repeated attack that Québec will collapse financially overnight without Canada. At any rate, in the lead-up to this new budget, the PQ released a new pro-sovereignty ad featuring archive clips of various former politicians arguing that a sovereign Québec makes financial sense. And that includes... a younger François Legault, from back when he was a minister in the PQ government, arguing for the urgency of Québec sovereignty.
The PQ actually featuring François Legault as one of their partisans in their ads just cracks me up
Ah, those bring back memories. My grandmother was a PQ party member and hardcore AF about separation. Debating my cousin and I with the reports back in the 90s was a big part of my teen years.
Do they still not include things like funding a military or bringing any part of the national debt with them or have they inched closer to reality?
The budget is coming out next week, so we'll see. But PSPP just said this week that an independent Quebec would have its own military and currency, so if he doesn't have those things in his budget this time he'll be a laughing stock.
As for the national debt, can't we just use whatever logic Alberta used to decide they were entitled to 60% of CPP and make them responsible for 60% of the debt as well?
So the PQ will be releasing its updated Year-One budget of an independent Québec. It's something they've been doing since 1973 to demonstrate that an independent Québec is financially viable, and counter the oft-repeated attack that Québec will collapse financially overnight without Canada. At any rate, in the lead-up to this new budget, the PQ released a new pro-sovereignty ad featuring archive clips of various former politicians arguing that a sovereign Québec makes financial sense. And that includes... a younger François Legault, from back when he was a minister in the PQ government, arguing for the urgency of Québec sovereignty.
The PQ actually featuring François Legault as one of their partisans in their ads just cracks me up
Ah, those bring back memories. My grandmother was a PQ party member and hardcore AF about separation. Debating my cousin and I with the reports back in the 90s was a big part of my teen years.
Do they still not include things like funding a military or bringing any part of the national debt with them or have they inched closer to reality?
We'll find out monday apparently. But I wouldn't be surprised if they are not accounting for all of the effects. It would be like Brexit as they realize they don't automatically inherit our trade agreements or treaties, they have to fund border security at the many crossings, start up their own central bank, etc.
I'm particularly curious as to how they will handle new currencies being largely untrustworthy, paying higher yields and devaluation because of that + uncertainty and how they intend to deal with the $25 billion trade deficit which people outside QC will want to be paid in CAD/USD/EUR for
The budget is coming out next week, so we'll see. But PSPP just said this week that an independent Quebec would have its own military and currency, so if he doesn't have those things in his budget this time he'll be a laughing stock.
As for the national debt, can't we just use whatever logic Alberta used to decide they were entitled to 60% of CPP and make them responsible for 60% of the debt as well?
They are the Anti-Alberta in that respect. They think that 0% of it should be their responsibility since Canada had all that debt and don't you see the flag that says QC? Info is significantly out of date, I don't really have any separatists in my life to talk about it with anymore.
In APP news, on Smith's radio show ( yes, this is a thing that happens) she floated the idea of raising the retirement age to 67 because people " Don't want to stop working" ...... Replace "want" with "cannot afford to live in this dystopian nightmare" and she would be closer to the target.
- "From its first year as an independent country, Quebec would have occupied second place in terms of its budget balance, as a percentage of its GDP."
This actually means that of the G7 Canada has a budget deficit of 0.4%, QC would have one of 1.8% and Germany is next with 3.7%
The G7 are the large, wealthy, stable nations that are able to smoothly run budget deficits almost continuously because in large part every currency represented (USD EUR CAD GBP JPY) are reserve currencies, in fact those are - if you add CNY - the top 6 reserve currencies worldwide. A fully independent quebec is unlikely to reap these benefits
Table 22 "Savings on other federal program costs to be assumed by Quebec independent for 2021-2022"
- A 95% reduction in expenses of the Treasury Board. Presumably this is because QC already has it's own special tax stuff?
- A 50% reduction in federal health spending, I'm not sure what expenses these are referencing
- They're assuming a decrease in national defense spending. There is no real discussion in national defense expenditures other than table 22 so presumably that's it, 3.4 billion. I suppose it's not actually necessary to be very high being completely surrounded by NATO but still
Table 23 budget has $192 billion in expenditures and $140 of that is listed as "Other," a detailed budget this is not
À titre d’exemple, pour 2021-2022 seulement, le Conseil du Trésor du Canada a entraîné pour le Québec des dépenses de 2,5 milliards $, le Conseil privé 75 525 millions $, le Parlement canadien 170 millions $ et le Bureau du secrétaire de la gouverneure générale 5 354 millions $. En 2019-2020, selon les données évaluées par la ligue monarchiste du Canada, la somme que représente la monarchie pour le Québec s’élèverait à plus de 13 millions$
So they are using the comma decimal point as seen by "2,5 millards" but they are missing commas for the privy council (which does not cost 75 thousand million) and the Governor General. That's just sloppy editing
They are assuming they will use CAD for "a while" but not have a monetary union with Canada. This is fine, they can do that and it's probably the more practical route, but I don't see anywhere they discuss debt financing rates. QC provincial debt is issued at a much higher rate, 7-8% vs Canada 10 year @ 4% and that will not change for a national entity with no control over monetary policy. QC wouldn't even be able to devalue their dollar so that makes their net import situation much worse, normally a currency can depreciate/inflate to balance imports/exports but they have to get dollars externally. It's the Eurozone crisis in the making, just without them getting a say and us having any obligation to move policy to help them. This will drive uncertainty and risk and therefore rates, up.
There is no talk of any of the costs of the plan, only the savings from a government fiscal perspective which are not themselves that fantastic, maybe 0.5% of GDP. Establishing the border is missing, anything on trade is missing, foreign relations is a big question mark. I think they are assuming they are grandfathered into NAFTA at least and that literally everything continues as good or better than before, but it's unclear. They are explicitly intending to remove English as an official language (think of the savings!) and are also assuming nobody will leave because of that. Montreal is the HQ or major branch for a fair number of Canada-wide corporations but chances are (like in Brexit) many firms will abandon QC in whole or part for the bigger ROC market. Gatineau has a lot of federal employees too, who knows what would happen with that, it's unlikely we would keep foreign nationals working there past transition
- They're assuming a decrease in national defense spending. There is no real discussion in national defense expenditures other than table 22 so presumably that's it, 3.4 billion. I suppose it's not actually necessary to be very high being completely surrounded by NATO but still
I'm listening to the analysts on Radio-Canada, and they have an interesting take here... that's on purpose. The next election is in 2026, a very long way away, and PSPP explicitly said there are societal decisions to be made and that he'd put them in front of voters then. So the PQ strategy seems to be to release a fundamental budget now and add in details and answers (such as "how many soldiers and what equipment will this defence force be made of") piece by piece over the next three years to keep the conversation going.
If that's the case, that's actually a pretty smart move. If he released a complete budget right now, it'd be dead, buried and forgotten about in 2026, and PSPP would be stuck either trying to revive this years-old idea before the election or run on whatever issues of the day the CAQ chose. This way, he gets not only to use the budget as an election issue in three years, but he gets a steady stream of positive talking points until then (and the PQ, with only 4 MNAs, desperately need something to stay relevant and in the news). Plus, by releasing a budget outline first, he can gauge public reaction and fill in the blanks accordingly without looking like he's backtracking and bending to popular demands.
The analysts also point out that these numbers shouldn't be taken at face value. Even provincial and federal finance ministers can't make long-term budget predictions, and that's without the uncertainty that comes from making a new country from scratch. This budget is not an economic tool, it's a political tool, and arguing about the exact value of every digit is missing the point. The CAQ has been very successful in side-stepping the whole federalist/sovereignist debate and presenting themselves as nationalists within Canada, thus getting votes from both federalists ("he's against sovereignty and wants to work with Canada") and sovereignists ("he's proudly standing up for Québec against Ottawa!). In particular, the CAQ cannibalized the PQ of its talent and voters, most of whom had lost faith at the PQ's willingness to achieve sovereinty. With this budget, PSPP has clearly and loudly positioned the PQ as a sovereignist party that's serious about sovereignty, and that's going to draw back PQ voters from the CAQ. At the same time, Legault, to fight the budget politically (because he's not going to fight it on the numbers, first of all because no one will understand nor care and second because the PQ shrewdly reused his budget methodology from when he was in the PQ) has been forced to make pro-Canada statements that has people comparing him to Jean Charest and Jean Chrétien, and that's sure to push away the PQ voters in his ranks.
Richy on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
- They're assuming a decrease in national defense spending. There is no real discussion in national defense expenditures other than table 22 so presumably that's it, 3.4 billion. I suppose it's not actually necessary to be very high being completely surrounded by NATO but still
I'm listening to the analysts on Radio-Canada, and they have an interesting take here... that's on purpose. The next election is in 2026, a very long way away, and PSPP explicitly said there are societal decisions to be made and that he'd put them in front of voters then. So the PQ strategy seems to be to release a fundamental budget now and add in details and answers (such as "how many soldiers and what equipment will this defence force be made of") piece by piece over the next three years to keep the conversation going.
If that's the case, that's actually a pretty smart move. If he released a complete budget right now, it'd be dead, buried and forgotten about in 2026, and PSPP would be stuck either trying to revive this years-old idea before the election or run on whatever issues of the day the CAQ chose. This way, he gets not only to use the budget as an election issue in three years, but he gets a steady stream of positive talking points until then (and the PQ, with only 4 MNAs, desperately need something to stay relevant and in the news). Plus, by releasing a budget outline first, he can gauge public reaction and fill in the blanks accordingly without looking like he's backtracking and bending to popular demands.
The analysts also point out that these numbers shouldn't be taken at face value. Even provincial and federal finance ministers can't make long-term budget predictions, and that's without the uncertainty that comes from making a new country from scratch. This budget is not an economic tool, it's a political tool, and arguing about the exact value of every digit is missing the point. The CAQ has been very successful in side-stepping the whole federalist/sovereignist debate and presenting themselves as nationalists within Canada, thus getting votes from both federalists ("he's against sovereignty and wants to work with Canada") and sovereignists ("he's proudly standing up for Québec against Ottawa!). In particular, the CAQ cannibalized the PQ of its talent and voters, most of whom had lost faith at the PQ's willingness to achieve sovereinty. With this budget, PSPP has clearly and loudly positioned the PQ as a sovereignist party that's serious about sovereignty, and that's going to draw back PQ voters from the CAQ. At the same time, Legault, to fight the budget politically (because he's not going to fight it on the numbers, first of all because no one will understand nor care and second because the PQ shrewdly reused his budget methodology from when he was in the PQ) has been forced to make pro-Canada statements that has people comparing him to Jean Charest and Jean Chrétien, and that's sure to push away the PQ voters in his ranks.
I'd argue that when someone busts out economic numbers in support of a political point, then the exact value of every digit should at least be argued over a little. The Brexit bus lied about how much money was sent to the EU and how they would send that money to the NHS instead, and we've all seen how great Brext has been for the UK.
PQ putting out budget that gloms well over half the spending into the 'stuff' category, and makes some rather optimistic assumptions about trade, currency, debt, and spending does show that they're serious about using sovereignty to gain power, but pushing BS numbers to make their case makes me think that they're either not really serious about sovereignty, or they're too damn serious and will do it even if it wrecks the economy. Removing English as an official language for a country that will have a number of Canadian multi-national companies headquartered there certainly seems poorly thought out.
The tell will be if someone says that Quebec will hold all the cards in the Quexit negotiations.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
- They're assuming a decrease in national defense spending. There is no real discussion in national defense expenditures other than table 22 so presumably that's it, 3.4 billion. I suppose it's not actually necessary to be very high being completely surrounded by NATO but still
I'm listening to the analysts on Radio-Canada, and they have an interesting take here... that's on purpose. The next election is in 2026, a very long way away, and PSPP explicitly said there are societal decisions to be made and that he'd put them in front of voters then. So the PQ strategy seems to be to release a fundamental budget now and add in details and answers (such as "how many soldiers and what equipment will this defence force be made of") piece by piece over the next three years to keep the conversation going.
If that's the case, that's actually a pretty smart move. If he released a complete budget right now, it'd be dead, buried and forgotten about in 2026, and PSPP would be stuck either trying to revive this years-old idea before the election or run on whatever issues of the day the CAQ chose. This way, he gets not only to use the budget as an election issue in three years, but he gets a steady stream of positive talking points until then (and the PQ, with only 4 MNAs, desperately need something to stay relevant and in the news). Plus, by releasing a budget outline first, he can gauge public reaction and fill in the blanks accordingly without looking like he's backtracking and bending to popular demands.
The analysts also point out that these numbers shouldn't be taken at face value. Even provincial and federal finance ministers can't make long-term budget predictions, and that's without the uncertainty that comes from making a new country from scratch. This budget is not an economic tool, it's a political tool, and arguing about the exact value of every digit is missing the point. The CAQ has been very successful in side-stepping the whole federalist/sovereignist debate and presenting themselves as nationalists within Canada, thus getting votes from both federalists ("he's against sovereignty and wants to work with Canada") and sovereignists ("he's proudly standing up for Québec against Ottawa!). In particular, the CAQ cannibalized the PQ of its talent and voters, most of whom had lost faith at the PQ's willingness to achieve sovereinty. With this budget, PSPP has clearly and loudly positioned the PQ as a sovereignist party that's serious about sovereignty, and that's going to draw back PQ voters from the CAQ. At the same time, Legault, to fight the budget politically (because he's not going to fight it on the numbers, first of all because no one will understand nor care and second because the PQ shrewdly reused his budget methodology from when he was in the PQ) has been forced to make pro-Canada statements that has people comparing him to Jean Charest and Jean Chrétien, and that's sure to push away the PQ voters in his ranks.
I'd argue that when someone busts out economic numbers in support of a political point, then the exact value of every digit should at least be argued over a little. The Brexit bus lied about how much money was sent to the EU and how they would send that money to the NHS instead, and we've all seen how great Brext has been for the UK.
PQ putting out budget that gloms well over half the spending into the 'stuff' category, and makes some rather optimistic assumptions about trade, currency, debt, and spending does show that they're serious about using sovereignty to gain power, but pushing BS numbers to make their case makes me think that they're either not really serious about sovereignty, or they're too damn serious and will do it even if it wrecks the economy. Removing English as an official language for a country that will have a number of Canadian multi-national companies headquartered there certainly seems poorly thought out.
The tell will be if someone says that Quebec will hold all the cards in the Quexit negotiations.
I'd argue that the Brexit bus example is, in fact, a perfect example of why you shouldn't argue about numbers. Yes the Brexit team threw this made-up number they'd save from the EU and put in NHS. But what their followers heard wasn't the number, it was "the EU is stealing from us and we'll get it back and spend it on you". It was a political (and racist) argument. When the Remain side argued about the exact value and broke down the accounting tables to demonstrate the value was off, they not only got tuned out by a lot of voters that just didn't care about accounting, but they left unchallenged and thus implicitly conceded the underlying political (and racist) foundation of the argument. It was a counter-argument that allowed Brexit to win the core of the argument in order to fight about irrelevant window-dressing.
The same thing happened with Trump. When he said "we'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it", what his followers heard was "it's ok to be racist, and we'll be cruel to brown people". What the Democrats and newspapers argued back was "well actually a wall like this would violate Article X of this treaty on wildlife and would be impractical in region Y because of terrain and the financials of it would never work" Again, the wall was window-dressing, and by attacking it they were implicitly conceding Trump's base argument of "we should be more racist and cruel to brown people". And well, you know the rest. No one cared about treaties and practical engineering challenges. The wall never got built. And Trump is set to win the Republican nomination again. Because no one cares about window dressing, it's all about the underlying argument.
It's entirely possible to say "this argument is built on bigotry and malice" and "also your claims are all lies."
There's been too much "gotta cede determinations of basic reality to the extreme right because of decorum or an illusory high road or whatever" as is.
I'm not saying we should cede reality. Quite the opposite, we should fight them.
I'm saying there are winning strategies and losing strategies, and getting bogged down in technical details is a losing strategy.
So reality is a losing strategy?
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into. And if someone's pushing Quebec separatism after seeing the results of Brexit, there's not a lot of reasoning happening.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into. And if someone's pushing Quebec separatism after seeing the results of Brexit, there's not a lot of reasoning happening.
TBF, QC separation has been a big social issue in QC for 50+ years, preceding the creation of the EU. There are some very legitimate reasons behind it, originally at least.
Posts
So I get to see the process from the inside. Sort of. We're both just kind of fumbling through this, haha!
Read the campaign reporting rules twice, maybe three times for good measure.
Trust me, so do all the sane people here.... With the extra kicker that we paid for it.
Province with the highest electricity cost + lowest reliability talking smack is embarrassing.
Also embezzle, embezzle, embezzle.
Totally normal thing to put into law lol
That's just standard procedure.
So basically "oh fuck, we got caught, let's reverse it and hope nobody notices"?
Devil's advocate: This is not unusual when the government shifts on large projects.
Glad to see the PC's squirm
But let's have the inquiry and the charges anyway. As a treat.
Why do conservative approaches to gouvernement always come to "Trust us with authoritarian power. We promise it'll be swell." 🤔
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
I mean, it's not like developers will delight at being able to just buy off one person's personal fiat as opposed to any kind of sane approval or regulatory process, right?
I love that this is a couple days after Lohr announced that the province is throwing out any housing strategy it had previously been working on, because plans get in the way of things. Blagh.
Because they are authoritarians.
Not sure how either that approach or the current one solves the "insufficient labour pool" and "widespread public opposition to any residential construction that isn't a suburban/exurban detached house" problems, but...
Municipal governments control zoning. I'm all in favor of provincial laws forcing dense mixed-used development, and preventing public consultations from stopping development, but it's something municipal government can and should do too.
You'll notice I did not include a question mark~
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
A chunk of the issue here is similar to what it is in other provinces, where provincial governments' getterdun mindset is turning into opposition to municipal governance at all. There's no shortage of that around the country, e.g., "strong mayor" policies meant to prevent city councils from representing their citizens, etc.
It feels like everyone's suddenly remembering that municipal governments, constitutionally speaking, don't actually exist in Canada, and if a province wants to say "actually, no, Halifax doesn't have a say in zoning or development anymore," that's the ballgame. As of this time next week, that's going to be the case here, and I expect we'll see followup in other areas the next time a municipality in the province does something the premier doesn't like, or someone buys off another cabinet minister.
Being from Toronto I was never under the illusion that municipal governments had any real power.
Apparently they uncovered plans to build the $500M underground parking lot for Therme's spa 2 years before they announced it to the public, and like 6 months before the public process that selected Therme was completed. This suggests the Ford government knew they were going to give the land to Therme before Therme was selected as the winning bidder for the land.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/10/16/ndp-claims-evidence-is-mounting-that-process-for-ontario-place-redevelopment-was-rigged/
Sickos.jpg
Why did they think this wouldn't get out? This isn't the states and they're not republicans. The arrogance of it all.
The PQ actually featuring François Legault as one of their partisans in their ads just cracks me up
Ah, those bring back memories. My grandmother was a PQ party member and hardcore AF about separation. Debating my cousin and I with the reports back in the 90s was a big part of my teen years.
Do they still not include things like funding a military or bringing any part of the national debt with them or have they inched closer to reality?
As for the national debt, can't we just use whatever logic Alberta used to decide they were entitled to 60% of CPP and make them responsible for 60% of the debt as well?
We'll find out monday apparently. But I wouldn't be surprised if they are not accounting for all of the effects. It would be like Brexit as they realize they don't automatically inherit our trade agreements or treaties, they have to fund border security at the many crossings, start up their own central bank, etc.
I'm particularly curious as to how they will handle new currencies being largely untrustworthy, paying higher yields and devaluation because of that + uncertainty and how they intend to deal with the $25 billion trade deficit which people outside QC will want to be paid in CAD/USD/EUR for
Bank of Montreal, duh.
They are the Anti-Alberta in that respect. They think that 0% of it should be their responsibility since Canada had all that debt and don't you see the flag that says QC? Info is significantly out of date, I don't really have any separatists in my life to talk about it with anymore.
In APP news, on Smith's radio show ( yes, this is a thing that happens) she floated the idea of raising the retirement age to 67 because people " Don't want to stop working" ...... Replace "want" with "cannot afford to live in this dystopian nightmare" and she would be closer to the target.
Apparently google translate can do PDFs!
Some highlights:
- "From its first year as an independent country, Quebec would have occupied second place in terms of its budget balance, as a percentage of its GDP."
This actually means that of the G7 Canada has a budget deficit of 0.4%, QC would have one of 1.8% and Germany is next with 3.7%
The G7 are the large, wealthy, stable nations that are able to smoothly run budget deficits almost continuously because in large part every currency represented (USD EUR CAD GBP JPY) are reserve currencies, in fact those are - if you add CNY - the top 6 reserve currencies worldwide. A fully independent quebec is unlikely to reap these benefits
Table 22 "Savings on other federal program costs to be assumed by Quebec independent for 2021-2022"
- A 95% reduction in expenses of the Treasury Board. Presumably this is because QC already has it's own special tax stuff?
- A 50% reduction in federal health spending, I'm not sure what expenses these are referencing
- They're assuming a decrease in national defense spending. There is no real discussion in national defense expenditures other than table 22 so presumably that's it, 3.4 billion. I suppose it's not actually necessary to be very high being completely surrounded by NATO but still
Table 23 budget has $192 billion in expenditures and $140 of that is listed as "Other," a detailed budget this is not
So they are using the comma decimal point as seen by "2,5 millards" but they are missing commas for the privy council (which does not cost 75 thousand million) and the Governor General. That's just sloppy editing
They are assuming they will use CAD for "a while" but not have a monetary union with Canada. This is fine, they can do that and it's probably the more practical route, but I don't see anywhere they discuss debt financing rates. QC provincial debt is issued at a much higher rate, 7-8% vs Canada 10 year @ 4% and that will not change for a national entity with no control over monetary policy. QC wouldn't even be able to devalue their dollar so that makes their net import situation much worse, normally a currency can depreciate/inflate to balance imports/exports but they have to get dollars externally. It's the Eurozone crisis in the making, just without them getting a say and us having any obligation to move policy to help them. This will drive uncertainty and risk and therefore rates, up.
There is no talk of any of the costs of the plan, only the savings from a government fiscal perspective which are not themselves that fantastic, maybe 0.5% of GDP. Establishing the border is missing, anything on trade is missing, foreign relations is a big question mark. I think they are assuming they are grandfathered into NAFTA at least and that literally everything continues as good or better than before, but it's unclear. They are explicitly intending to remove English as an official language (think of the savings!) and are also assuming nobody will leave because of that. Montreal is the HQ or major branch for a fair number of Canada-wide corporations but chances are (like in Brexit) many firms will abandon QC in whole or part for the bigger ROC market. Gatineau has a lot of federal employees too, who knows what would happen with that, it's unlikely we would keep foreign nationals working there past transition
genuinely LOLed here so thanks for that
I'm listening to the analysts on Radio-Canada, and they have an interesting take here... that's on purpose. The next election is in 2026, a very long way away, and PSPP explicitly said there are societal decisions to be made and that he'd put them in front of voters then. So the PQ strategy seems to be to release a fundamental budget now and add in details and answers (such as "how many soldiers and what equipment will this defence force be made of") piece by piece over the next three years to keep the conversation going.
If that's the case, that's actually a pretty smart move. If he released a complete budget right now, it'd be dead, buried and forgotten about in 2026, and PSPP would be stuck either trying to revive this years-old idea before the election or run on whatever issues of the day the CAQ chose. This way, he gets not only to use the budget as an election issue in three years, but he gets a steady stream of positive talking points until then (and the PQ, with only 4 MNAs, desperately need something to stay relevant and in the news). Plus, by releasing a budget outline first, he can gauge public reaction and fill in the blanks accordingly without looking like he's backtracking and bending to popular demands.
The analysts also point out that these numbers shouldn't be taken at face value. Even provincial and federal finance ministers can't make long-term budget predictions, and that's without the uncertainty that comes from making a new country from scratch. This budget is not an economic tool, it's a political tool, and arguing about the exact value of every digit is missing the point. The CAQ has been very successful in side-stepping the whole federalist/sovereignist debate and presenting themselves as nationalists within Canada, thus getting votes from both federalists ("he's against sovereignty and wants to work with Canada") and sovereignists ("he's proudly standing up for Québec against Ottawa!). In particular, the CAQ cannibalized the PQ of its talent and voters, most of whom had lost faith at the PQ's willingness to achieve sovereinty. With this budget, PSPP has clearly and loudly positioned the PQ as a sovereignist party that's serious about sovereignty, and that's going to draw back PQ voters from the CAQ. At the same time, Legault, to fight the budget politically (because he's not going to fight it on the numbers, first of all because no one will understand nor care and second because the PQ shrewdly reused his budget methodology from when he was in the PQ) has been forced to make pro-Canada statements that has people comparing him to Jean Charest and Jean Chrétien, and that's sure to push away the PQ voters in his ranks.
I'd argue that when someone busts out economic numbers in support of a political point, then the exact value of every digit should at least be argued over a little. The Brexit bus lied about how much money was sent to the EU and how they would send that money to the NHS instead, and we've all seen how great Brext has been for the UK.
PQ putting out budget that gloms well over half the spending into the 'stuff' category, and makes some rather optimistic assumptions about trade, currency, debt, and spending does show that they're serious about using sovereignty to gain power, but pushing BS numbers to make their case makes me think that they're either not really serious about sovereignty, or they're too damn serious and will do it even if it wrecks the economy. Removing English as an official language for a country that will have a number of Canadian multi-national companies headquartered there certainly seems poorly thought out.
The tell will be if someone says that Quebec will hold all the cards in the Quexit negotiations.
I'd argue that the Brexit bus example is, in fact, a perfect example of why you shouldn't argue about numbers. Yes the Brexit team threw this made-up number they'd save from the EU and put in NHS. But what their followers heard wasn't the number, it was "the EU is stealing from us and we'll get it back and spend it on you". It was a political (and racist) argument. When the Remain side argued about the exact value and broke down the accounting tables to demonstrate the value was off, they not only got tuned out by a lot of voters that just didn't care about accounting, but they left unchallenged and thus implicitly conceded the underlying political (and racist) foundation of the argument. It was a counter-argument that allowed Brexit to win the core of the argument in order to fight about irrelevant window-dressing.
The same thing happened with Trump. When he said "we'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it", what his followers heard was "it's ok to be racist, and we'll be cruel to brown people". What the Democrats and newspapers argued back was "well actually a wall like this would violate Article X of this treaty on wildlife and would be impractical in region Y because of terrain and the financials of it would never work" Again, the wall was window-dressing, and by attacking it they were implicitly conceding Trump's base argument of "we should be more racist and cruel to brown people". And well, you know the rest. No one cared about treaties and practical engineering challenges. The wall never got built. And Trump is set to win the Republican nomination again. Because no one cares about window dressing, it's all about the underlying argument.
Quebec separation is 100% just xenophobia at this point, as Brexit was.
There's been too much "gotta cede determinations of basic reality to the extreme right because of decorum or an illusory high road or whatever" as is.
I'm not saying we should cede reality. Quite the opposite, we should fight them.
I'm saying there are winning strategies and losing strategies, and getting bogged down in technical details is a losing strategy.
So reality is a losing strategy?
TBF, QC separation has been a big social issue in QC for 50+ years, preceding the creation of the EU. There are some very legitimate reasons behind it, originally at least.