Federal Government & Politics II

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What's wrong with this idea? Doctors don't deserve a raise?

No not really to be honest.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Lots wrong with it. She is the one that has brought in the capitol gains tax which is going to hit them right in the wallet but then turns around and says the provinces should pay for the wage to make up the difference.

This is akin to someone stealing your groceries and then that same someone telling the store they have to pay for it.

Yes but if the sob story is the problem with the policy and we know that province are seeing a huge windfall why not take a tiny fraction of this and spend in on the so called under paid doctors.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There is an argument that AI and electric vehicles will obsolete HSR. But barring that there is no way with $2 2024 dollars a litre guess we don't need a huge increase in other infrastruture.

How would AI and electric vehicles obsolete HSR? Flooding more cars on the road just means our road capacity becomes more overloaded, and intra/inter regional mobility continues to suffer. Solving tailpipe emissions won't resolve this capacity problem. Your comment reminds me of Elon's Vegas loop, an extremely inefficient way to move people around the Strip.

Also, with our road capacity becoming more and more overloaded, it's impossible for highway speeds to increase from the congestion, so again car travel is unattractive timewise relative to a well built HSR like the Shinkansen or French TGV.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Good God, I used to think this woman had a shred of intelligence but no longer:

Freeland says provinces should use capital gains windfall to give doctors a raise

How many of the 10 provincial premiers do you think will offer to increase the rate paid for doctors billings in order to make up for JTs punitive changes to capital gains exemption limits???

She knows the answer to this herself. She is just being disingenuous and provocative.

There is no way this woman deserves to become PM once JT takes his walk on the sands of Tofino.......

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Good God, I used to think this woman had a shred of intelligence but no longer:

Freeland says provinces should use capital gains windfall to give doctors a raise

Seriously. Maybe the doctors can cancel their Disney plus.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Part of the problem with rail infrastructure in Canada is how narrowly it is considered. If you solely go with economic determinants to deciding to spend on it, nothing gets built or gets built so slowly to not be considered ever built out. A major component of European defence spending is maintaining their rail infrastructure because it is a key component of their military logistics. I don't think Quebec-Windsor corridor will ever get built out because the main argument that is being put forward for it is almost strictly business.

The only country that uses rail for military logistics in any significant way is Russia. Europeans move most troops and equipment by road.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The only country that uses rail for military logistics in any significant way is Russia. Europeans move most troops and equipment by road.

For smaller movements, yes. For larger movements, there is designs for massive employment by rail. For example, much of the shells moving around the EU towards Ukraine is being shipped by boat and rail. After which, breakbulk occurs and is shipped by truck to the units.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The only country that uses rail for military logistics in any significant way is Russia. Europeans move most troops and equipment by road.

Umm no.

There's a ton of NATO standards for fitting vehicles on rail. And they are there for a reason. Even the US and Canada routinely use rail movement for large movements to an exercise or to get kit to a port. It's both inefficient and expensive to send a full armoured brigade across the country, by road, for example. As this article points out, more than two thirds of US Army kit is moved by rail to a port, with concerns about the unit that runs and organizes rail operations. Post-Ukraine this is now a capacity that everyone acknowledges needs to be invested in (across NATO).

The difference with Russia is that we don't need rail to move personnel or last mile delivery. The kit goes by rail. The people go by air or road. And NATO has enough road and air transport capacity that it doesn't need a rail network to be within 50 km of the front, like the Russians. But domestic movement would be very difficult and expensive without rail.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Part of the problem with rail infrastructure in Canada is how narrowly it is considered. If you solely go with economic determinants to deciding to spend on it, nothing gets built or gets built so slowly to not be considered ever built out. A major component of European defence spending is maintaining their rail infrastructure because it is a key component of their military logistics. I don't think Quebec-Windsor corridor will ever get built out because the main argument that is being put forward for it is almost strictly business.

Indeed. Interesting how the positive externalities of highway construction is automatically assumed but somehow we just can't wrap our heads around the same with rail.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

If HSR is seen as a "pet project" this country is going to the dumps. Serious countries like France, Japan or China would not view having HSR in the Toronto-Quebec corridor as an frivolous nice to have, but rather an existential project to permanently increase the country's lagging productivity and transform intercity mobility. Its long-term value far exceeds entitlement programs like increasing OAS that Trudeau loves to fund.

I don't disagree - but HSR is an extremely, extremely expensive project with dubious short term benefits for it's cost. It's discussed as some sort of panacea of modern infrastructure that will make Canada a "real country" if it's built. It's been politicized for the very way you are discussing it outside of any real cost-benefit analysis.

Infrastructure under construction in Canada right now, even without HSR, will completely transform mobility and the economy. Toronto's RER and Ontario Line, Montreal's REM, the Gordie Howe Bridge, Broadway subway, etc. are all big, important projects which will make big differences in mobility.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I don't disagree - but HSR is an extremely, extremely expensive project with dubious short term benefits for it's cost. It's discussed as some sort of panacea of modern infrastructure that will make Canada a "real country" if it's built. It's been politicized for the very way you are discussing it outside of any real cost-benefit analysis.

Infrastructure under construction in Canada right now, even without HSR, will completely transform mobility and the economy. Toronto's RER and Ontario Line, Montreal's REM, the Gordie Howe Bridge, Broadway subway, etc. are all big, important projects which will make big differences in mobility.

The issue I have with Canadian politics is that there appears to be infinite budget to keep increasing entitlement programs like OAS and other Trudeau pet projects, and yet fundamental infrastructure like HSR is written off as a frill with dubious benefits. There is no long-term vision in this country, that's why we end up doing the basics like RER now, rather than decades ago when it was already needed, and HSR gets shunted to the side with excuses like AI and EVs will make rail obsolete.

From a global perspective, travel times between Canadian metropolises especially in the Corridor are embarrassingly long compared to most highly developed countries (and expensive!!), and it acts as another substantial inter-provincial trade barrier that kills our national competitiveness. There's no other mode of transportation we can tap aside from high-speed rail to drastically improve travel times and bring it up to global standards.

The lack of time-competitive intercity connectivity is also why the housing crisis in the GTA is so amplified, because the commuter shed in the GTA is too small, our overloaded highway infrastructure with low speed limits and unreliable rail infrastructure simply can't cope.

[Innsertnamehere]

oh absolutely. Trudeau's spending on social programs which add nothing to the economy but require new taxes (therefor drawing on the economy) is out of control. Certain programs he's implemented have been good (daycare for example increases labour participation, CCB simplifies payments from a complex web of benefits that existed before), while others like OAS enhancements have been nothing but ridiculous ploys throwing money down a hole.

My point was that his infrastructure spending has been a better record than the preceding government. And that's true. A lot of it, particularly in the GTA, is just sitting half-built still and hasn't been implemented. Come the mid-2030's the infrastructure picture in the country should be a lot better, particularly if HFR actually sees itself through.

Ultimately infrastructure is primarily a provincial responsibility anyway. All the Feds do is front the cash to help out outside of a few specific projects which fall within provincial jurisdiction (Gordie Howe Bridge, Champlain Bridge, HFR, etc.).

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

oh absolutely. Trudeau's spending on social programs which add nothing to the economy but require new taxes (therefor drawing on the economy) is out of control. Certain programs he's implemented have been good (daycare for example increases labour participation, CCB simplifies payments from a complex web of benefits that existed before), while others like OAS enhancements have been nothing but ridiculous ploys throwing money down a hole.

My point was that his infrastructure spending has been a better record than the preceding government. And that's true. A lot of it, particularly in the GTA, is just sitting half-built still and hasn't been implemented. Come the mid-2030's the infrastructure picture in the country should be a lot better, particularly if HFR actually sees itself through.

Ultimately infrastructure is primarily a provincial responsibility anyway. All the Feds do is front the cash to help out outside of a few specific projects which fall within provincial jurisdiction (Gordie Howe Bridge, Champlain Bridge, HFR, etc.).

Throwing money down a hole isn't really an accurate description. CCB is more than a simplification it is a massive increase in funds. But it is money going to familes. OAS is going to people who lived their lives in Canada. They are all voters who get to decide do they want a high speed train they won't use or a $200 a month check. We will see how much things improve when the half built stuff gets done.

That said if we are going to flush money down the toilet to virtue signal we are green I'd prefer we get infrastructure over a few thousand jobs for a battery factory or just destroy our oil industry for shits and giggles imagining those we sell oil to won't just find it elsewhere for a few pennies more.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

No not really to be honest.



Yes but if the sob story is the problem with the policy and we know that province are seeing a huge windfall why not take a tiny fraction of this and spend in on the so called under paid doctors.

Yeah, seems like a reasonable idea in fact.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yeah, seems like a reasonable idea in fact.

The reason it's not going to happen is we aren't underpaying doctors and this change that granted does cost them money in their tax sheletered coprorations. We do have a shortage of family doctors but last numbers I saw showed US Family doctors were more likely to move to Canada than vice versa. Specialists moving to the US just free up a spot for someone doing their second fellowship and mostly it's not about pay anyway for those moving.

Politically it's a somewhat effective strategy to argue against this tax change but the Conservatives seem to see it as a loser so they must know something.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yeah, seems like a reasonable idea in fact.

LOL, so the windfall Chrystia says she is giving the provinces to give to doctors is taken from doctors. Makes perfect Soviet sense.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, so the windfall Chrystia says she is giving the provinces to give to doctors is taken from doctors. Makes perfect Soviet sense.

I would guess that the additional tax that will be paid by Doctors is a small portion of the overall tax collected. You understand how this all works, right?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The reason it's not going to happen is we aren't underpaying doctors and this change that granted does cost them money in their tax sheletered coprorations. We do have a shortage of family doctors but last numbers I saw showed US Family doctors were more likely to move to Canada than vice versa. Specialists moving to the US just free up a spot for someone doing their second fellowship and mostly it's not about pay anyway for those moving.

Politically it's a somewhat effective strategy to argue against this tax change but the Conservatives seem to see it as a loser so they must know something.

I've seen highly specialized Doctors move to the US too. Don't forget about their market size. There are literally specialists in Vancouver that are the only one in Western Canada that does their work. And there really isn't space for a 2nd one. Meanwhile there's probably a handful or more in California.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I've seen highly specialized Doctors move to the US too. Don't forget about their market size. There are literally specialists in Vancouver that are the only one in Western Canada that does their work. And there really isn't space for a 2nd one. Meanwhile there's probably a handful or more in California.

Isn't space? As in literal physical space?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Isn't space? As in literal physical space?

Space in the medical community. Enough patients, etc.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Surely it's going to be leaked before the election anyway? There must be Conservatives on the list as well or they'd be louder demanding a release.

I've taken a brief skim through what's available publicly of NSICOP report. From what's been published, it seems that nomination and leadership races are particularly susceptible to foreign meddling. As such, I would expect that the major players have at least tried to exert influence on all of the larger parties in one form or another.

While the report mentions India and China by name, I do wonder what other countries have been involved. Based on some fairly credible rumours I've heard over the years, there's an elephant in the room here that hasn't been mentioned aloud yet, which might cause at least some of our key allies embarrassment, particularly in the current climate.