Calgary Federal Politics

[lineman]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A school building is not infrastructure?

And the graph was the new incremental infrastructure spending announced in the last budget. When they created a transit pot and a water pot, the old program which was those two things plus roads became just roads plus odds and ends iirc.

I don't know where I said a school wasn't infrastructure. The graph is just different from what I (and probably many) think of when the word infrastructure is tossed out. Roads, transit, waterworks, hospitals, schools, parks, etc.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by lineman

Ah yes, I get where you're coming from now. It's the first time I've seen that graph. I would not have guessed, and I find it odd, that social programs would fall under infrastructure spending.

Where does it say social "programs"?

[lineman]

Rolleyes.

Affordable housing doesn't come into mind when the word infrastructure gets tossed out. When money gets allocated to programs to help those less fortunate out, I think of it as social.

Don't get me wrong. We need more affordable housing. We need to address issues that adversely affect our indigenous communities. Our economic system has evolved to where affordable child care is becoming more of a necessity. These things just don't come to top of mind when I think of the word infrastructure.

It just seems that it's easier to use the word infrastructure as opposed to social programs to reduce push back from the voting public.

[suburbia]

In unrelated news, isn't it interesting how over the last couple decades at least, the average Liberal MP is much more educated than the average Conservative MP? Wonder why?

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Where does it say social "programs"?

By definition, items such as affordable housing, early learning and child care, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and community health care facilities on reserve are social in nature and will come with associated program spending. The Liberals have classified these as "infrastructure" with $3.9 billion allocated over 5 years (29% of new infrastructure spending). While there will certainly be long term economic benefit in these types of programs, they will not deliver the short term growth promised.

The remainder of new infrastructure spending is comprised of public transit (29%) and water, wastewater and green infrastructure projects (42%). Public transit is an excellent investment and will support future growth. Green infrastructure is important but it's not going to provide much more than an immediate stimulus during construction.

I was hoping for more ambitious national projects - perhaps a national highway system that is of a first world standard rather than the poorly maintained patchwork mess that we have now. Obviously the feds are delegating this to lower levels of government but there doesn't appear to be any increase in capital spend over the previous government.

If you'd like to educate yourself further, you can read the budget for yourself here.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by suburbia

In unrelated news, isn't it interesting how over the last couple decades at least, the average Liberal MP is much more educated than the average Conservative MP? Wonder why?

Oh wow, that's really interesting. Can you please cite a source for this groundbreaking analysis?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

By definition, items such as affordable housing, early learning and child care, cultural and recreational infrastructure, and community health care facilities on reserve are social in nature and will come with associated program spending. The Liberals have classified these as "infrastructure" with $3.9 billion allocated over 5 years (29% of new infrastructure spending). While there will certainly be long term economic benefit in these types of programs, they will not deliver the short term growth promised.

The remainder of new infrastructure spending is comprised of public transit (29%) and water, wastewater and green infrastructure projects (42%). Public transit is an excellent investment and will support future growth. Green infrastructure is important but it's not going to provide much more than an immediate stimulus during construction.

I was hoping for more ambitious national projects - perhaps a national highway system that is of a first world standard rather than the poorly maintained patchwork mess that we have now. Obviously the feds are delegating this to lower levels of government but there doesn't appear to be any increase in capital spend over the previous government.

If you'd like to educate yourself further, you can read the budget for yourself here.

Building a building is never a program. Roads are by your definition just a transportation and mobility social program, that requires substantial ongoing maintenance and renewal.

As has been said, this initial phase of the programs are hyper local focused and very short term: what was announced in Ontario today for example wasn't 10 years of money to build new rail lines, but 3 years of funding to design them, amongst a lot of small capital projects.

And really, what national project is there to do? Ambitious Highway funding so we can have a nice road to Revelstoke (I'd love that!) All we have to do to pay for it is to spend many more times as much on highways over the Canadian shield where 3 lanes with alternating passing lanes and down to two to fit on existing bridges is more than adequate.

And you know, isn't fulfilling our treaty obligations to first nations a worth national project.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Building a building is never a program. Roads are by your definition just a transportation and mobility social program, that requires substantial ongoing maintenance and renewal.

As has been said, this initial phase of the programs are hyper local focused and very short term: what was announced in Ontario today for example wasn't 10 years of money to build new rail lines, but 3 years of funding to design them, amongst a lot of small capital projects.

Where did I say a building is not infrastructure? I think you are missing my point here and slipping into a semantic argument.

Refer back to my initial comparison of deficit spending to margin investing. Both are extremely risky propositions. If all of this spending does not produce long term growth resulting in additional tax revenue to cover the debt service costs we are going to be in a heap of trouble. There are smart investments and stupid investments - you don't have to be a CFA charterholder to realize that the bulk of spending announced thus far falls into the latter category. It's spending that will produce a short term bump in GDP growth but will eventually prove to be a drag on the economy. Is there anything factually incorrect with this analysis?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

And really, what national project is there to do? Ambitious Highway funding so we can have a nice road to Revelstoke (I'd love that!) All we have to do to pay for it is to spend many more times as much on highways over the Canadian shield where 3 lanes with alternating passing lanes and down to two to fit on existing bridges is more than adequate.

I'd love a nice road to Revelstoke as well! You know who else would? Distribution firms who can get their goods to market more efficiently, consumers in the interior who can take advantage of lower prices thanks to more efficient distribution, tourists who can get to Banff without a massive delay in the summer, resorts in the mountains who have more people coming to spend their dollars there...and I could go on.

Take a look at a zoomed out map of western Canada and the U.S. Do you notice a difference between the two countries? Somehow the U.S. has managed to construct a grid of efficient high-speed freeways connecting population centres even in the most sparsely populated states. We don't even have a modern road between Calgary and Edmonton - the two closest major cities in the west. I'm not advocating freeways across northern Ontario, but we should have at minimum the existing network between major cities (including Fort Mac) upgraded to interstate standard and I'd like to see a dedicated route between Calgary and Saskatoon.

And I'm just brainstorming here, but how about some type of national fibre-optic project? I'm a finance guy admittedly I'm not well versed in the subject but I know Kelowna has been successful in attracting tech investment with their program in this field. How's that for an ambitious national project?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

And you know, isn't fulfilling our treaty obligations to first nations a worth national project.

This is a strawman argument and I don't see much value in responding, but it's obviously an important project and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. It's just not the type of infrastructure spending that's going to make a sustained economic impact in the short to medium term and shouldn't be represented as so by government. I'd love to see our northern reserves become economic powerhouses, but that's only going to happen in the bizzaro world. Given this, places like Tsuu Tina and Stoney Nakoda do have a chance to make a meaningful contribution to the local economy and I hope the best for them.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

Take a look at a zoomed out map of western Canada and the U.S. Do you notice a difference between the two countries? Somehow the U.S. has managed to construct a grid of efficient high-speed freeways connecting population centres even in the most sparsely populated states.

LOL! Here is another map for you. Let me know if you need any explanation.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...s_2032312i.jpg

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by suburbia

LOL! Here is another map for you. Let me know if you need any explanation.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...s_2032312i.jpg

LOL bro - thank you! This aerial image (not a map - precise language has never been your strong suit, though) helps illustrate my point that the western provinces are more densely populated than Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas, yet have significantly poorer transportation infrastructure.

Still waiting for your analysis of MP educational attainment, by the way.

[lineman]

I didn't get the point of that satellite image either. The I-15 goes from the Montana-Alberta border all the way to SLC with nothing major in-between. Also, the I-90/94 goes from Seattle to the Twin Cities with what in-between? Spokane and Fargo (not really major cities in my mind).

Yet Calgary and Vancouver is only served with a partial four laner.

[Riverman]

This is mind blowing...

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...box=1548251325

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Riverman

This is mind blowing...

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...box=1548251325

The only mind-blowing part about it is that Sunshine has been allowed to exist and expand to its current level on Parks Canada land. Its lease is coming up, and frankly, when you have such an unthoughtful and abusive leasee, you should kick them out. The article heading itself is misleading, as Sunshine leases the land. So saying that the "owner gets unfair offer he can't refuse" is fully BS.

History of Sunshine abusing the Canadian tax payer by forcing management of crown control and parking (resulting from its expansions) on the Parks Canada:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...lage-1.4719384

"It's important to make sure that we get it right in terms of how we go forward, that ski areas are operating in a way that the ecological integrity of the park is maintained," Luey told CBC News.

It is also looking at parking challenges. The resort is approved for up to six thousand skiers per day but the lot is designed for less.

Meanwhile, was a pretty sad revelation recently that Jason Kenney as a federal minister listed a retirement home (which has no basement as he claimed) and prior to that a property that was not owned by anyone in his family as permanent residences in Calgary, so as to get a living allowance for his actual permanent residence in Ottawa.

[Riverman]

There are business in parks all across Canada. Lake Louise is another. Should entrepreneurs be excluded from national parks?