Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well obviously I'm speaking in jest, but I do find it pathetic that we keep funding CBC to the tune of billions when a LOT of what they do is literally worthless programming.

Run a balanced budget or at least don't spend like a maniac and I could be convinced that it has a place in society. But since our government is spending like a bunch of drunken sailors, and seemingly has no interest in actually tackling our real problems, I would burn it all to the ground.

Tackling corporate welfare and the myriad of tax loopholes in this country would go much further than axing the CBC and carbon tax, but we know both PP and JT won't do that to their buddies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

While I'm sure that would drive opinions polls, that has little to do with decriminalization. People used drugs in public before and they still do it in places where it was never decriminalized. Increasing public drug use is primarily a housing issue where addicts are less likely to have stable housing than in the past, leaving them to use drugs on the street more often.

I mean, Alberta's overdose deaths in 2023 increased at about 3x the rate that BC's did, so if decriminalization led to big increases in vulnerable people using hard drugs, wouldn't that show up in that metric?

Don't Alberta's overdose deaths have a lot to do with what is happening in BC?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't Alberta's overdose deaths have a lot to do with what is happening in BC?

Well Danielle Smith claimed it did. As usual, she didn't have a shred of evidence to back up her claim.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't Alberta's overdose deaths have a lot to do with what is happening in BC?

No, street level junkies in BC have nothing to do with street level junkies in Alberta, well other than a lot of junkies in Alberta eventually make their way to Vancouver so technically we are helping to reduce Alberta's overdose rates

[cral12]

must be nice to have a job with zero accountability (and still get paid for getting thrown out of work)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1785385175498592375

[cral12]

fizz-cal/fiscal conservatism...

conservative math...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1784954104411742600

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No, street level junkies in BC have nothing to do with street level junkies in Alberta, well other than a lot of junkies in Alberta eventually make their way to Vancouver so technically we are helping to reduce Alberta's overdose rates

Rampant drug use in province that has port access has nothing to do with supply in province with no port access? How do you think the drugs are getting into Canada? #### into the streets by geese on the way south?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not my understanding based on the data I've seen.

There absolutely was a change in policy. Homeless addicts (including drunks) used to get wasted in alleys, abandoned industrial areas, under bridges, etc. Police drove them out of public transit stops, playgrounds, and public parks, either by charging them or just telling them to move along. But in the last decade, advocates advised jurisdictions across North America to move away from that model and let addicts use in busy public spaces so they first responders could recognize when they were distressed.

Harm-reduction advocates say that drug users are a persecuted minority and should not be compelled to stop doing what their addiction or trauma leads them to do. Their opponents argue that even a caring society must enforce some rules and standards.

Though drug users remain “deeply stigmatized,” says Stanford University professor of psychiatry Keith Humphreys, something has gone wrong when people are injecting drugs openly on buses and subways. “We’ve accepted too much in our public spaces and we’ve all become callous as a result,” says Prof. Humphreys, the author of Addiction: A Very Short Introduction.

But to Nicholas Boyce, a policy analyst with the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, “targeting public drug use is really about targeting poor and underhoused people who use drugs.” For many of them, using in the open “may be the safest thing.” Cracking down on the practice would force them to use alone and in private, with no one around to call 911 or revive them if they suffer an overdose, he said in an e-mail response. He would like to see authorities end the prohibition on drugs and make them legal, but regulated like alcohol and cannabis, with limits on where they can be consumed.

Not so long ago, there was little dispute about how to handle open drug use. It was simple: Possessing and using illicit drugs was forbidden. Those who used them in public could expect to be arrested, or at least told to move along.

But attitudes changed with the onset of the opioid crisis. As pain pills and then the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl flooded Canadian streets, killing thousands, authorities concluded that treating drug use mainly as a criminal matter was not working.

They shifted to a “harm reduction” approach, which meant accepting that, like it or not, some people, especially those with addictions, were going to use prohibited drugs. The focus should then be on helping them to consume those drugs safely, without getting an infection or having a potentially fatal overdose.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ug-use-cities/

And crime rates aren’t the main issues. People - especially women - do not feel safe in places where distressed people are using drugs, out of their heads, and passed out. Because women don’t feel safe in environments that appear to be unpoliced. Polls show it’s women who feel less safe on public transit and public spaces. Those who have a choice avoid using public transit. Those who don’t (the working class and poor) use it in fear. You can call them hysterical, but that won’t change the way they feel.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by cral12

fizz-cal/fiscal conservatism...

conservative math...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1784954104411742600

That 1.7 includes salaries ….. doesn’t it ….

[cral12]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

That 1.7 includes salaries ….. doesn’t it ….

in the thread on Xitter: "@cdnpoli101
·
Apr 29
It’s important to note that this isn’t PP’s Salary. (That is on a different report) The salaries indicated here are for his staff and aides.

The travel on the other hand includes PP’s travel."

[Jason14h]

I know

But those 3 categories don’t add up to anything close to 1.7 million

I even went to the website . What am I missing (or is the Twitter guys math wrong )

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well obviously I'm speaking in jest, but I do find it pathetic that we keep funding CBC to the tune of billions when a LOT of what they do is literally worthless programming.

Run a balanced budget or at least don't spend like a maniac and I could be convinced that it has a place in society. But since our government is spending like a bunch of drunken sailors, and seemingly has no interest in actually tackling our real problems, I would burn it all to the ground.

Do they? I have no idea. What does it cost to run a public broadcaster like the CBC? on what basis do you judge if they are managing costs well or not? Running a balanced budget doesn't make much sense, given their roll.


It works out to about 9 cents a day for every Canadian, or $32.50 per year. That'd be pretty awesome value in my eyes, if we could just get the people who need to watch it the most to remove their heads from their asses and actually watch it so they could perhaps be a tiny bit more informed abut the world around them.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I know

But those 3 categories don’t add up to anything close to 1.7 million

I even went to the website . What am I missing (or is the Twitter guys math wrong )

There are 3 rows listing Poilivere. If you download the CSV you can sum them and get close. It's not exact for some reason, but $1.712 million.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There are 3 rows listing Poilivere. If you download the CSV you can sum them and get close. It's not exact for some reason, but $1.712 million.

I have been to the website and downloaded the CSV

The 3 rows for PP for TRAVEL, HOSPITALITY, and CONTRACT equals....

$380,000

Now if you include SALARIES it is ~1.7 million. But thats not the Twitter post.

@PierrePoilievre has spent $1,709,237.03 of taxpayer money in three months on Travel, Hospitality, and Contracts.

He has not. He has spent $380,000

Soooo... Am i missing something? I don't want to mock non conservatives math.. Yet.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And crime rates aren’t the main issues. People - especially women - do not feel safe in places where distressed people are using drugs, out of their heads, and passed out. Because women don’t feel safe in environments that appear to be unpoliced. Polls show it’s women who feel less safe on public transit and public spaces. Those who have a choice avoid using public transit. Those who don’t (the working class and poor) use it in fear. You can call them hysterical, but that won’t change the way they feel.

Looking at overall crime rates is misleading anyway.
We aren't talking about violent crime between people who know each other, domestic violence etc.

It's random attacks on the street that has people concerned and we were seeing about 4 per day in Vancouver in 2021 at peak.
It's the guy stabbing a random guy in a Tim Hortons, random Asian women getting punched during covid, or the 2 random stabbing incidents at Whiterock beach last week (one man died).

I'm not saying these are all due to drug policy (only), but the concerns people have are not hysterics. That's falsely dismissive.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And in fact, they're usually the opposite by design. Populism is generally based on playing to peoples fears and basest instincts while offering simplistic solutions.

Originally Posted by cral12

must be nice to have a job with zero accountability (and still get paid for getting thrown out of work)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1785385175498592375

Seems like the Speaker kind of lost control, and also let his political bias show. But anyways, it would have been nice if Trudeau had even attempted to answer the question about decriminalizing hard drugs in B.C. it seems to be a very important issue right now.

[Mr.Coffee]

Trudeau doesn’t answer questions.

[Mightyfire89]

Nm

[#-3]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Tackling corporate welfare and the myriad of tax loopholes in this country would go much further than axing the CBC and carbon tax, but we know both PP and JT won't do that to their buddies.

This has really become an international problem. you'd really need a substantial economic alliance to make it happen. I think I remember Biden nodding to the problem at the start of his term, tabling something like a 15% min corporate tax on profits at the G20. but it was DOA with a few of the countries and his own house. Even if they wanted to, which I don't really believe they do, PP and JT couldn't really make this happen without a lot of help.

[Azure]

Remember everyone, the CPC and their corporate cronies are the issue.

Not the years of foreign worker programs supported by the Liberal / NDP coalition.
Or the corrupt grocery sector that operates free from competition and supported by the Liberal / NDP coalition.
Or the corrupt telecom sector operating free from competition and supported by the Liberal / NDP coalition.

Its the devil BEHIND the tree that we're scared of, and not the one actually calling the shots.