Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Upper Canada Tory]

I’m sorry, but properly solving the housing crisis requires more than just deregulation. The way I see it, we need huge public investment too, which is an example of where “spend, spend, spend” is necessary. We ought to be spending on expanding training opportunities for skilled trades and construction jobs. We ought to be incentivizing larger, denser projects in cities (if I see another project of three-storey townhomes go up on major roads in Vancouver right next to SkyTrain stations, I’m going to lose it). We ought to be giving tax breaks on building supplies. We ought to be making it possible for every home that can have a laneway to build one.

Maybe it’s nuts, but solving this crisis should be a huge national project, and I still don’t see it. I know change can’t happen overnight, but tax the rich, spend, spend, spend… whatever it takes. This is a major crisis for every single young person who doesn’t want to live in Hicksville but doesn’t also have family wealth. There is zero optimism because we are working harder for so much less.

I believe the Conservatives will help supercharge the private sector in this direction—I do. But with Poillievre in charge, it’s the rich who are going to get richer and we’ll end up with more luxury condos than anything else.

Keep in mind there has already been a great degree of public investment in recent years that hasn't gone anywhere.

I partly agree with you about the first sentence that some degree of public investment is needed, but the kind of investment we need is very different from the investment the Liberals are proposing, which is an attempt to pick winners and losers on the market (the federal government has decided that prefabricated homes are the one-size-fits-all solution for everybody - based on what? Because it makes Trudeau feel good?). Not to mention the Liberals' fixation with giving out low-interest loans to build these things, which will either result in higher inflation and/or higher interest rates over time.

Generally, the market should decide the kind of housing we need, minus some specific categories of housing like social housing that are needed for disadvantaged groups -  those should be funded by the government. However, I agree with you that we should definitely use our tax dollars to create an incentive system to build housing, not one that favours one type of housing over another, but allows housing to be built in general (like waiving the GST on construction, which, to their credit, the Liberals have done). Other things you mentioned, such as building denser projects in cities, can largely be achieved by favourable zoning laws.

The problem with a national housing project with huge amounts of spending is, as laddicus finch said, we are not in a Great Depression where such a thing is warranted - at best, it would result in wasted resources that could have been used in other areas, or at worst, it would cause a giant debt crisis that would slow down the economy by forcing the central bank to raise interest rates.

The argument that 'conservative policies will benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else' doesn't really pan out based on the record of previous conservative governments - Canada's Gini coefficient remained stable and actually fell slightly during the Harper years. Of course, it can be argued Poilievre will govern differently from Harper and no one has tried to properly solve the housing crisis yet, so we don't yet know how the implementation of proposed solutions will affect economic inequality. But I think it is a slightly premature assumption to make.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2006&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2015&referencePeriods=20060101%2C20150101

The market should decide the kind of housing we need? No way—you lost me. The invisible hand has been at work for the last 15 years and it’s what has turned housing into an investment rather than a basic human need. “The market” is perfectly happy with squeezing as much rent out of people as it can so one class stays down and the other buys more houses to rent out and strengthen the squeeze even more. You talk about “specific disadvantaged groups,” but at this rate we’ve got almost an entire generation that is a specific disadvantaged group. You can make $100,000 a year and still never be able to afford a home! I know there are people who are much worse off, but any notion of the Canadian dream is dead. That’s what the “market” has done, and surely you aren’t going to argue that that’s a good thing for our country. We must restore that dream.

What we have now is capitalists weaponizing pain. It appears like people in the market are expressing preferences by “choosing” one type of housing over another, but that’s not what’s happening. People are stuck between a rock and a hard place flocking only to whatever is cheap. It’s a race to the bottom because everything is so expensive. We don’t need tax breaks going to people upgrading their mansions or building $2-million condo units. I want my government targeting what’s best for young people and young families, because right now their power in the market is not strong enough to shift much of anything. By all means, let’s have the government pick the winners and losers if it means we start to make a dent in the problems we’re facing.

You say we are not in a depression so such a massive project is not warranted. What we are in is a silent depression where the up-and-coming generation barely has any wealth. We are witnessing a slow-motion transition back to serfdom here where people can have a job and survive but never get ahead. They work to serve only the expansion of their corporate owners and landlords. Of course that won’t register as a depression, but it’s still not good. Fighting this development by giving people better places to live is not an example of resources wasted; it’s a socialist program that would lift people up. You scare-monger about a debt crisis, but there is most definitely enough wealth in this nation to re-level the playing field. You talk as if government spending is always going to lead to higher inflation, but let’s be clear that it can also raise productivity and increase supply depending on how that spending is targeted. So again, I’m really not on board with a lot of what you’re saying.

The bottom line is this: More and more Canadians are feeling like the tilted playing field in housing is actually an intended feature of the system, not a bug. Because we’ve lived under Trudeau’s government for so long now, people blame him for this system and turn naturally to the Conservatives for answers. That’s fair, of course, but I think it’s quite clear that capitalism-run-amok is mostly to blame here. More of that is not what’s going to help.

The public investment you are referring to is already happening - federal investment in housing has skyrocketed from $2 billion in 2015 to $11 billion in 2023. Housing starts in that time went from 195K to 240K annually. So we are paying 5 times more, for a negligible increase in housing annually, which makes no difference given our population growth now is significantly higher than 8 years ago, and we need to increase it even more? For what?

Part of the issue is that government spending has a delayed effect, since housing that was invested in last year has not necessarily been built yet, but this has been a gradual increase over many years and demand is still expected to outpace supply in the near future, despite the $10+billion spent in recent years.

How is the current situation the fault of the market if we have exponentially increased public investment in housing? The reality is that if you put more money into the economy, but don't allow things to be built due to restrictive regulation, plus increase demand with high levels of immigration, things don't become affordable.

I'm not even against some degree of government spending in housing, like I said, but the spending has to have a purpose. The current massive increase in spending and low-interest loans do not have a purpose - they have not significantly increased the housing supply, they have not raised productivity even in the housing/construction sectors, they have not even helped deal with homelessness, which has increased in recent years. The current levels of spending are just so that Justin Trudeau can pat himself on the back and feel good. In fact, arguably, the situation was better when we were spending only $2 billion a year on housing - housing back then was far more affordable than now!

Now, if we did allow consumers decide through the market which kind of housing they want, changed our zoning regulation to be more favourable for things other than detached single family homes, and used government spending for targeted things like incentives for housing construction and social housing for those who need it, we would be getting a lot more output for a much lower cost.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

To add to the last post: rent control also has the perverse effect of discouraging rental housing.

[lfromnj]

So can anyone actually explain what these new public workers are doing? Is it literally just digging holes with a spoon? Some of it is somewhat required due to population growth I guess.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

So can anyone actually explain what these new public workers are doing? Is it literally just digging holes with a spoon? Some of it is somewhat required due to population growth I guess.

Some of it has gone in to hiring additional police officers. Do you think we should defund the police?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The government increased the percent of a capital gain subject to tax from 50% to 67% for those earning over $250,000 a year.

As a history lesson, this provides another example of the conservative (also meaning cautious here) nature of the first term of the Pierre Trudeau Liberal government. I've mentioned previously the only additional social spending was for the rollout of Medicare passed but not implemented under the Pearson government as well as for increases in social security.

In addition to the Trudeau Liberals shelving the LeDain Commission report that recommended legalizing marijuana, the Trudeau Liberals also shelved a Royal Commission on taxation that recommended taxing all income equally under the slogan 'a buck is a buck.' For those concerned, this would not have effected tax progressivity, only that all forms of income would be subject to the same marginal rate the person was paying.

I agree with that. Different tax treatments for income ultimately distort markets.

Edit to add: One more point on this, there is an argument that the Trudeau Liberals lost their majority in 1972 due to this conservatism, and it seems Justin Trudeau has taken that to heart.

I think the better explanation for the Pierre Trudeau Liberals fortunes is that they focused on issues that weren't of concern for most Canadians, like official bilingualism. I don't necessarily totally agree, but it can be easily argued this was a problem for the Justin Trudeau Liberals as well.

It really is interesting how much of a failure the Pierre Trudeau government was from 1968-1979. Had he not gotten a second chance in 1980 and achieved patriation of the Constitution, Pierre Trudeau would easily go down as one of the worst Prime Ministers in Canada, certainly far worse than Justin Trudeau from 2015-2021.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Many Conservatives who decry the deficit also oppose the tax increases (and want the carbon tax eliminated) and want massive increases in military spending and a massive new social program for forced mandatory treatment of drug addicts (which would obviously also require hiring a lot of new public servants.) It's hard to take these things seriously.

To be sure, Poilievre himself has (wisely) not committed to increase military spending to 2% of GDP and has also lied that this new social program would be financed through the revenue received from suing Perdue Pharma.

One last history lesson: up until the mid 1980s, the official opposition used to put out an alternative budget.

Edit to add: One more point. I'm sure that there is bloat and redundancies in the government. These things tend to be much smaller than people believe (just as the amount actually spent on foreign development is much lower than people believe.)

In the mid 1990s and early 2000s both Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell also campaigned promising 'painless cuts.' Mike Harris' budget cuts led to Walkerton and in British Columbia...

There were, as there always are, a series of problems in the late 1990s for children in care under the protection of the Ministry of Children and Families. As leader of the opposition Campbell promised to not only not cut funding to this ministry, but to increase it. In his first budget as Premier, in order to cut taxes and reduce the deficit, he cut the budget to the Ministry of Children and Families by 50%.

In terms of whether this cut in funding had an impact, in early 2004 Christy Clark was going to be moved from Minister of Education to Minister of Children and Families, and she responded by quitting the government and going to work for radio station CKNW (she didn't have that job lined up before quitting, she did nothing unethical in that.) She knew that being the minister of that department would end her desired political career advancement because the problems in the ministry had gotten so bad.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Not that anybody asked, but a little more (simplified) history on the Pierre Trudeau governments.

Each term seems to be quite discrete.

1968-1972. Pierre Trudeau, although far more of a pragmatist than he had led people to believe (I mentioned the conservative nature) but also in terms of being completely on top of government files, sometimes more so than the relevant minister, this term largely focused on idealistic concerns like official bilingualism and academic pursuits like trying to, I believe, prioritize policy by trying to quantify utility and trying bureaucratic measures to create participatory democracy. Trudeau abandons both of these things even before the end of the term I believe.

1972-1974 The partnership with the Liberals that the NDP are still likeliest to bring up. The Liberals with Trudeau's philosophical disagreement, implement a number of economic nationalist policies favored by the NDP which were a big concern at the time (not dissimilar to now) such as the Foreign Investment Review Agency and Petro Canada. An increasingly savvy Trudeau outwits NDP leader David Lewis into abandoning supporting the Liberals while allowing Lewis to believe that it was his idea.

1974-1979 This was the one term that a now pragmatic Trudeau focused on the issues that actually were of immediate concern to Canadians. However, Trudeau had also become increasingly cynical and he increasingly engages in patronage. Policy wise, he implements wage and price controls to address inflation after campaigning against them in 1974, and, contrary to any belief that this started with the National Energy Program, he implements legislation that lowers the price of domestic oil to benefit Ontario manufacturers of the expense of Alberta oil producers, since there are a lot more ridings in Ontario than in Alberta. Ontario P.C Premier Bill Davis loves Trudeau while Alberta P.C Premier Peter Lougheed hates Trudeau.

However, Trudeau, possibly for the first time, sees dishonest cynicism from (some) Canadians. In answering a question on economics, Trudeau, who has a PPE bachelors (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) gives a long academic response that is critical of free markets in terms of their negative externalities and says that part of the role of governments it to address these negative externalities. To any mainstream economist, there is absolutely nothing controversial about that, but he receives wild over the top attacks from the business community who refer to him as a 'socialist who hates business.'

The mainstream media dutifully respond by pointing out that Trudeau no longer has any representative of big business in the cabinet. (DEI at its finest.)

The political fortunes of the Trudeau Liberals go up and down as does Pierre Trudeau's marriage (there is a lot of reason to believe that his separation caused Liberal poll numbers to significantly improve for around one year) but ultimately despite all of Trudeau's pragmatic and cynical efforts his government falls due to the stagflation experienced in 1979.

1980-1984 Despite the still terrible economy, Trudeau essentially returns to his first term self and focuses (not that he has a choice) first on the Quebec 'sovereignty' referendum and then on finally realizing his dream of patriating the Constitution (although, contrary to what is generally believed, there is no evidence that was Trudeau's dream when he was first recruited as a candidate in 1965) with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians seemingly surprise themselves, at least for a while, with the amount of interest they show in the Constitution (as also happened during Meech Lake and Charlottetown.)

After achieving this, he then focuses on foreign policy with a peace initiative and an initiative to address poverty in the 'global south.' Many people, including my parents, believe that Trudeau was simply looking for taxpayer funded trips around the world. I believe, for instance, then when travelling Europe to get support for his initiatives, that they were very similar routes that he took when travelling Europe in the late 1940s.

It also seems that he spent the last 3 years or so, expecting that John Turner would win the Liberal leadership, poisoning the well of the Liberal Party.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745

Lol. Lmao, even.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745

Lol. Lmao, even.

How likely is it that Jagmeet breaks the confidence and supply agreement and an election is triggered?

[Upper Canada Tory]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745
Lol. Lmao, even.

How likely is it that Jagmeet breaks the confidence and supply agreement and an election is triggered?

Many of us have been hoping for this for a while now, but given that Trudeau is more than halfway through his four-year term and broke the pharmacare part of the C&S deal (which the NDP claims is important to them), I'd say Jagmeet Singh withdrawing support is extremely unlikely. He's in it until October 2025, regardless of what happens.

[lfromnj]

Overall I don't get why an NDP would want to break an agreement with one of the most left wing incarnations of the Liberal party when both are facing a pretty bad defeat. Is it possible that the NDP could squeeze out a bit more left wing policy if it somehow was the majority party in 10 years? Yeah of course but at least from my perspective it seems the NDP is still getting most of its policy goals naturally by the LPC shifting left. If say this was a supply and confidence with an equally unpopular Chetrien government then it would probably make sense to break the agreement and call for new elections to position themselves for a future election but as of right now a conservative victory would repeal many of the left wing positions the current government takes.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745
Lol. Lmao, even.

How likely is it that Jagmeet breaks the confidence and supply agreement and an election is triggered?

As others have said, there's nothing for the NDP to gain by doing this. Conservatives have all the momentum right now, Liberals and NDP have none. Notice how Singh doesn't actually threaten to pull the plug - because that would be mutually assured destruction for both parties. The idea seems to be to slander the Liberals as corporate stooges who hate the poor and want them to die hungry and lonely in a gutter. Liberals make concessions, then the NDP claims that as a huge win for the left and votes for it. This is what happens. Every. Single. Time. So the game there is that Canadians still hate the Liberals and want them out regardless, but they might give the NDP enough credit for pushing left-wing policy and reward them with official opposition. This is a very weak strategy with a low chance of working, but at least the NDP will get some favourable policies out of it in whatever time the Liberals have left, whether or not they get credit for it. Triggering an election by contrast risks handing over an easy majority to an orthodox Harperite who's also good at playing the populist game and winning over traditional NDP voters like private sector union workers, who as polls suggest, have gone from being a three-way battleground in the last two elections to a solid Conservative vote bank.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

[Flyersfan232]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745
Lol. Lmao, even.

How likely is it that Jagmeet breaks the confidence and supply agreement and an election is triggered?

As others have said, there's nothing for the NDP to gain by doing this. Conservatives have all the momentum right now, Liberals and NDP have none. Notice how Singh doesn't actually threaten to pull the plug - because that would be mutually assured destruction for both parties. The idea seems to be to slander the Liberals as corporate stooges who hate the poor and want them to die hungry and lonely in a gutter. Liberals make concessions, then the NDP claims that as a huge win for the left and votes for it. This is what happens. Every. Single. Time. So the game there is that Canadians still hate the Liberals and want them out regardless, but they might give the NDP enough credit for pushing left-wing policy and reward them with official opposition. This is a very weak strategy with a low chance of working, but at least the NDP will get some favourable policies out of it in whatever time the Liberals have left, whether or not they get credit for it. Triggering an election by contrast risks handing over an easy majority to an orthodox Harperite who's also good at playing the populist game and winning over traditional NDP voters like private sector union workers, who as polls suggest, have gone from being a three-way battleground in the last two elections to a solid Conservative vote bank.

the ndp are where they are now because of the official deal

[CumbrianLefty]

Well yes - I have certainly been critical of Singh as NDP leader, but they are probably playing the hand they have actually been dealt about as well as you could reasonably expect at the moment.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1780329390666055745
Lol. Lmao, even.

How likely is it that Jagmeet breaks the confidence and supply agreement and an election is triggered?

As others have said, there's nothing for the NDP to gain by doing this. Conservatives have all the momentum right now, Liberals and NDP have none. Notice how Singh doesn't actually threaten to pull the plug - because that would be mutually assured destruction for both parties. The idea seems to be to slander the Liberals as corporate stooges who hate the poor and want them to die hungry and lonely in a gutter. Liberals make concessions, then the NDP claims that as a huge win for the left and votes for it. This is what happens. Every. Single. Time. So the game there is that Canadians still hate the Liberals and want them out regardless, but they might give the NDP enough credit for pushing left-wing policy and reward them with official opposition. This is a very weak strategy with a low chance of working, but at least the NDP will get some favourable policies out of it in whatever time the Liberals have left, whether or not they get credit for it. Triggering an election by contrast risks handing over an easy majority to an orthodox Harperite who's also good at playing the populist game and winning over traditional NDP voters like private sector union workers, who as polls suggest, have gone from being a three-way battleground in the last two elections to a solid Conservative vote bank.

the ndp are where they are now because of the official deal

Idk, I think the NDP would be in a tough position regardless because Singh is just not a good leader. But I guess we will never know if things would have turned out differently if not for the official deal. We will also never know whether Trudeau would have pushed for pharmacare, dental care, childcare etc without the NDP pressuring him. So whatever we can posit hypothetically, in reality the NDP is in the situation they're in, and I think staying in the agreement makes more sense than pulling the plug.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

The left in 2014: "Come on, it's not like we're gonna start handing out opioids or something crazy like that!"

The left in 2024: *hands out opioids*

[Upper Canada Tory]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

The left in 2014: "Come on, it's not like we're gonna start handing out opioids or something crazy like that!"

The left in 2024: *hands out opioids*

Universal health care? More like universal opioids!

[CumbrianLefty]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

[Upper Canada Tory]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

How do you define decriminalization? In North America it has basically been sold as relaxed illegality - you can get a citation and fine for it as a civil offence but not a criminal one. (The reality is somewhat different, however)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

Conservative opposition to legalization with all the other things Conservatives normally argue should be legal and their reasoning for that is a clear case of 'freedom for me but not for thee.' An obvious example of that is guns. "You can't ban guns, you can only ban people from owning guns legally.' Uhh, drugs are a lot easier to hide than guns.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian, paternalistic and murderous.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Another example of a provincial government in Canada backtracking on a policy they previously defended religiously.

B.C. Premier says changes could come to decriminalization project amid backlash

How badly do you have to screw up a country to then backtrack massively on literally all your policies just to stay in power?

BREAKING: Policy that sounds ridiculous turns out to be ridiculous. More news at 6.

Btw, "decriminalization" is such a weird thing to focus on. Here in Ontario, you tell me simple possession is still a criminal act. I'm not talking about the Criminal Code of Canada, I'm talking about whether that so-called crime actually gets enforced. All of the harm reduction policies that BC has been pursuing has been tried in virtually every major city in Canada, and I'm tired of people telling me that decriminalization is a thing we NEED to do in drug policy when in actuality, the government already massively subsidizes the use of hard drugs, which they don't do for ACTUAL crimes. I'm not saying we need to start locking up homeless addicts, that's not the right approach either, so I guess in principle I have no problem with decriminalization. I actually think some of the harm reduction policies are good, like providing clean needles so we don't have to deal with an AIDS epidemic on top of an opioid epidemic. But presenting "decriminalization" to the people and actually implementing policies that result in people being allowed to shoot up in children's playgrounds is a genuinely evil approach to drug use that is fundamentally dishonest to the people of Canada. Yes, I know that particular case was a decision of the almighty courts and not Eby or Trudeau, but they certainly opened the door to the courts even considering drug use in children's playgrounds as a genuine Charter rights issue by trying to destigmatize something that clearly should be stigmatized. Not to mention the other things that have happened, like flooding the streets with even MORE opioids (but you know, the "safe" stuff), which has made its way into the black market and will inevitably create MORE addicts, not less. And here again, Trudeau has given up the Liberal Party's traditional commitment to pragmatism and dove head-first into whatever nonsense the activist class is jerking themselves off over. Eby has allowed his province to become a human experiment in this nonsense, and ordinary people suffer as a result.

It's insane how the definition of 'decriminalization' went from simply not arresting people for simple possession to the government handing out free drugs within a couple of years.

Though in actual facts neither of those things is *actually* decriminalisation.

The first is merely more relaxed illegality, the second legalisation (and maybe then some)

Yeah, that's exactly the point. "Decriminalization" is a very small and honestly trivial part of what's happening with drug policy in Canada. That's what Eby and Trudeau have put on the shop window, but most of the problems people have with modern drug policy isn't with decriminalization, it's destigmatization and so-called harm reduction

And prohibition has been a success for the last previous 90 or so years? Prohibition was, is and always will be a failure. There is no magical solution but the best policy by far that doesn't corrode society or lead to the deaths of thousands of people a year and that is consistent with freedom is to legalize and regulate illicit drugs.

The 'war on drugs' is authoritarian and murderous.

Yes, you're right, there are only two conceivable approaches to dealing with drug use. Either you're going full-on Reagan-era DEA and busting down crackhouses, or you have an unchecked proliferation of legal drug use beyond what even the likes of Portugal and Netherlands have allowed. There couldn't possibly be anything in between.