Canadian politics thread

[twitchyzero]

sounds a lot like BC NDP saving the taxis

[welfare]

https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/13836...0/?jwsource=cl

[welfare]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/business...yrocketing/amp

Boosted by Premier Rachel Notley’s announcement that Alberta would be cutting crude production by 325,000 barrels per day, Canadian oil prices rallied after reaching historic lows in November.

Notley said on Sunday that Alberta would be cutting crude production beginning in January in an attempt to deal with the massive oversupply that led to Canadian oil being traded at an historic low of US$13.27 in mid-November. Executives of upstream oil companies such as Cenovus Energy and Canadian Natural Resources have urged Notley to intervene for weeks, saying that they couldn’t transfer the oil they were producing without sufficient pipeline space, leading to hundreds of thousands of barrels clogging up warehouses and being sold at a discount.


A divided oilpatch reacts as Notley cuts output and industry shares pain
How the oil crisis in Alberta is boosting crude prices around the world
Alberta orders oil producers to cut 325,000 barrels a day to ease crisis
On Monday, Notley’s decision sent Western Canada Select up 50 per cent to trade at US$32.91 as of 10:40 a.m. On Friday, Canadian oil closed at US$21.93.

[Traum]

Boosted by Premier Rachel Notley’s announcement that Alberta would be cutting crude production by 325,000 barrels per day, Canadian oil prices rallied after reaching historic lows in November.

Gosh I hate this stupid self-serving woman.

Alberta is not Saudi or OPEC. Whatever she does can hardly make a dent on the overall world oil prices or production volumes. But within Canada (or at least Alberta), I'd expect retail gas prices to climb a bit as a result. So who is her production cut helping and hurting? And given the mixed reactions from within the industry, there is no consensus at all as to whether this is something the industry should do, and you can tell this is more of a gamble where the outcome is totally uncertain and anybody's guess.

Notley is playing a dangerous game here, just like she has done in the BC wine ban and empty threats of shutting off petroleum product shipments last year. And again, I will bring up the fact again that the Alberta provincial election is coming up in May 2019, so this is a thinly veiled political theatrics designed far more for her own personal gains, as opposed for the good of her province.

I may or may not like Jason Kenney, but I can't wait to see this Notley woman getting kicked out of her office soon enough.

[carisear]

it's almost like running a government is hard, and you need to make informed decisions, and not just throw around money and ideology!

[jasonturbo]

If the Province of Alberta was able to move all the oil it produced to market there not be such a massive price delta between WTI and WCS. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Imagine for a minute that you are a chicken farmer, you make a living selling eggs.

There are a total of 10 chicken farmers in your community, each farm produces 10 eggs per day, for a total daily production of 100 eggs. The immediate community consumes 10 eggs per day, the other 90 eggs are shipped to small towns within the county.

The shipping of eggs occurs through a delivery service that everyone shares, the delivery truck has a limited range, it can only deliver within the county limits. The delivery truck is only a transport service, they do not market or distribute eggs on behalf of the farmers, it is up to the farmers to sell their eggs. At this point the market is balanced, supply is equal to demand.

Then, through the miracle of capitalism, two of the egg farmers manage to increase their daily egg production by 5 eggs each, bringing the total number of eggs for "export" to 100 per day, 10 more than the existing demand within the county. This is a positive supply shock which results in negative or insufficient demand, there is no longer a balanced market.

All of a sudden the price of eggs starts to fall, the excess of available eggs has resulted in price competition among farmers who want to be sure that their daily supply of eggs will be sold. So the farmers drop their prices to secure contracts with the available consumers, however, even with reduced prices the demand does not change, and surplus of eggs develops in the farming town.

Eventually two things happen:

1. The price of eggs reaches a bottom, a point at which one or more farmers refuse to sell their eggs for less than x dollars, which will likely happen well below the point of profitability.

2. The number of eggs in storage reaches maximum capacity and there is no longer customers to purchase eggs or space to store new eggs.

What is the solution to this problem? For most normal people it should be fairly obvious, increase access to consumers by expanding the delivery service to new markets outside of the county limits.

Chicken Farmer - Oil Producer
Eggs - Oil
Community - Alberta
County - The existing customer base (Canadian refiners and approximately 3.3M BBL/Day of existing pipeline capacity to the USA)
Delivery Truck - Pipelines

Global supply and demand balances out with oil around 50$/BBL, that price is based on a consumer anywhere in the world buying oil from a producer located anywhere in the world. However, Canada is so restricted in our ability to move oil to global markets, we play the role of chicken farmer living through an egg surplus with a delivery vehicle that can't make it beyond the county line.

Oddly I didn't expect this thread to be focused on the price of oil, this isn't a major issue, what is a major issue (IMO) is our universally-terrible universal health care and the thousands of mentally ill drug addicts wandering around the lawless society that is East Van that receive virtually no meaningful assistance.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Traum

I call this bullshxt. If we are producing enough to meet Canadian demand, there'd be far more places selling gas at below $1/L right now.

They're not far off, right now the GVRD is paying 33.28¢/L in fuel taxes, so the actual station is only taking in about $1/L.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

Oddly I didn't expect this thread to be focused on the price of oil, this isn't a major issue, what is a major issue (IMO) is our universally-terrible universal health care and the thousands of mentally ill drug addicts wandering around the lawless society that is East Van that receive virtually no meaningful assistance.

Universal healthcare problems isn't unique to Canada alone -- in fact, I'd say that compared to other countries that also offer universal healthcare, we are doing fairly well, esp in regards to keeping up with providing care for the "normal" range of healthcare needs. (The opioid and fentanyl crisis do not fall into this "normal" range of healthcare services, and mental health support is a whole other can of worms as well.)

The UK's NHS is severely understaffed, and their staff and patient ratio is among the worst in the western world. Taiwan's public health insurance is on the brink of bankruptcy, among other problem it faces. Hong Kong's public healthcare is a joke, with waitlists on even scans and tests being over multiple years in some cases. (And worst of all, the Hong Kong government is overflowing with money -- it's just that the local government refuses to spend money on public healthcare, and instead prefer to blow its money on white elephant projects that mostly only benefit Mainland Chinese firms.) Our US neighbours obviously doesn't have universal healthcare, but their healthcare crisis is far worse than what we are dealing with here in Canada.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

Oddly I didn't expect this thread to be focused on the price of oil, this isn't a major issue

Considering that our dollar seems to ride on the back of it, would make it a major issue, no?
As well as the handling of the issue and what it means for future investment.

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

what is a major issue (IMO) is our universally-terrible universal health care and the thousands of mentally ill drug addicts wandering around the lawless society that is East Van that receive virtually no meaningful assistance.

They receive plenty of assistance.
The longer a person is addicted to drugs the more susceptible they are to developing a mental disorder.
Our approach? Provide them with a comfortable area to shoot, and hand out free needles to do it with. Many of which end up littered through the streets and parks because regardless of the label, it's not an exchange.
Next, offer a city sanctioned area to flog hot goods. You'll likely be seeing more of those, btw as the city recently performed a review on the results of the dtes street market.
Oh and champion it all as a success so other cities can follow the example. Edmonton just opened 4, yes 4 safe sites. All clustered. Brilliant.

Addicts are more likely to quit when they hit rock bottom. This should be common sense. Take that away and all we're providing is palliative care. And they wonder why the problem keeps growing.

Edit: sorry for being blunt

[MG1]

Originally Posted by welfare

Edit: sorry for being blunt

I honestly had to do a double take.

I thought you typed............. sorry for being a cunt.

I need to stop assuming things and actually read the words.

god bless

[welfare]

Potatoe pototoe

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem whatsoever on government policies that provide aid in keeping people off the junk. Just not the ones that help keep them on it.
I don't see any empathy in that.

[$_$]

Originally Posted by Traum

Universal healthcare problems isn't unique to Canada alone -- in fact, I'd say that compared to other countries that also offer universal healthcare, we are doing fairly well, esp in regards to keeping up with providing care for the "normal" range of healthcare needs. (The opioid and fentanyl crisis do not fall into this "normal" range of healthcare services, and mental health support is a whole other can of worms as well.)

The UK's NHS is severely understaffed, and their staff and patient ratio is among the worst in the western world. Taiwan's public health insurance is on the brink of bankruptcy, among other problem it faces. Hong Kong's public healthcare is a joke, with waitlists on even scans and tests being over multiple years in some cases. (And worst of all, the Hong Kong government is overflowing with money -- it's just that the local government refuses to spend money on public healthcare, and instead prefer to blow its money on white elephant projects that mostly only benefit Mainland Chinese firms.) Our US neighbours obviously doesn't have universal healthcare, but their healthcare crisis is far worse than what we are dealing with here in Canada.

Both Taiwan and Canada's care have been pretty good from experience (how their funding is doing notwithstanding).

[SiRV]

Originally Posted by welfare

They receive plenty of assistance.
The longer a person is addicted to drugs the more susceptible they are to developing a mental disorder.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by welfare

Our approach? Provide them with a comfortable area to shoot, and hand out free needles to do it with. Many of which end up littered through the streets and parks because regardless of the label, it's not an exchange.

evidence?

Originally Posted by welfare

Addicts are more likely to quit when they hit rock bottom. This should be common sense. Take that away and all we're providing is palliative care. And they wonder why the problem keeps growing.

Evidence?

You are truly the largest beta dip shit dick sucking cuntbag with a 2" erect penis incel conservative NPC retard that has ever lived on the face of this Earth. Period

[underscore]

Originally Posted by welfare

Addicts are more likely to quit when they hit rock bottom.

Even if that's the case, until they do they create a lot of headache. Strain on the police, EMS, and general public when they're stealing to purchase illegal substances and then ODing repeatedly due to lack of consistency with the products they consume.

Personally I'd rather allow people to go to facilities where they can have access to whatever they're addicted to in a controlled environment, for free. Overall it'd save money, reduce deaths, and cut the income of organized crime.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by underscore

Even if that's the case, until they do they create a lot of headache. Strain on the police, EMS, and general public when they're stealing to purchase illegal substances and then ODing repeatedly due to lack of consistency with the products they consume.

did you know it's strict policy for these safe sites NOT to impose sobriety?
figure it adds to the stigma of being an addict.
if an assistant gets some fresh face wanting to try it for the first time, they can't tell them that they're making a horrible mistake. just turn around.
they have to service them, no question, and watch them inevitably degrade.
i don't know about you, but i couldn't do that and think what i was doing was somehow noble.

Personally I'd rather allow people to go to facilities where they can have access to whatever they're addicted to in a controlled environment, for free. Overall it'd save money, reduce deaths, and cut the income of organized crime.

so because we can't/won't enforce our laws, we should forget them altogether?
think about the long term of that position.

[DragonChi]

How would you get people off the streets and off drugs?

More importantly, how to get this demographic to contribute to Canada?

[underscore]

Originally Posted by welfare

if an assistant gets some fresh face wanting to try it for the first time, they can't tell them that they're making a horrible mistake. just turn around.

Is that somehow prevented by keeping it illegal? With all the information people have available to them these days, if that's what they really want to do, then fuck it, let them. And then make it so that it has as little an impact on everyone else as possible.

Originally Posted by welfare

so because we can't/won't enforce our laws, we should forget them altogether?
think about the long term of that position.

That's not at all what I'm saying, don't jump to the "but if we let someone do X, then next we'll allow Y" so quickly. Then you end up lumped with the nutters that thing gay marriage guarantees the legalization of pedophilia.

[m4k4v4li]

a lot of the addicts are already beyond a point of being future productive members of society

at that point as a society we decide whether to keep them on life support as a drain
or just put them out of their misery

[Bouncing Bettys]

Originally Posted by m4k4v4li

a lot of the addicts are already beyond a point of being future productive members of society

at that point as a society we decide whether to keep them on life support as a drain
or just put them out of their misery

I hear the Philippines is a nice place to live if you can weather the odd hurricane and their government is on the same page with you.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by DragonChi

How would you get people off the streets and off drugs?

More importantly, how to get this demographic to contribute to Canada?

You can't. All you can do is give them opportunity.
The rest is up to them.

Originally Posted by underscore

Is that somehow prevented by keeping it illegal? With all the information people have available to them these days, if that's what they really want to do, then fuck it, let them. And then make it so that it has as little an impact on everyone else as possible.

Maybe that guy trying it for the first time would have made a different choice had there not been a safe, supervised place, free of judgment, for him to do it.

Originally Posted by underscore

That's not at all what I'm saying, don't jump to the "but if we let someone do X, then next we'll allow Y" so quickly. Then you end up lumped with the nutters that thing gay marriage guarantees the legalization of pedophilia.

And that's not at all what I'm saying.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
We'll circle back in another fifteen years. See how that harm reduction strategy is working out for the dtes then.
Maybe instead of lowering the speed limit to 30k through Hastings so addicts wandering into traffic aren't hit, we can really fix it by just diverting traffic completely.

Better yet, let's just put them all in a big building and give them all the drugs they want. Paid for by our taxes. That way we all get to pat ourselves on the back for doing the humane thing.

[m4k4v4li]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Bettys

I hear the Philippines is a nice place to live if you can weather the odd hurricane and their government is on the same page with you.

how about singapore or china that have draconian laws on drugs
happily lived in both and never see any crackheads

gov't should administer locally produced potent fent and whomever wants to OD should be left alone

if ppl want to dig their own grave let em be

[underscore]

Originally Posted by welfare

Maybe that guy trying it for the first time would have made a different choice had there not been a safe, supervised place, free of judgment, for him to do it.

Maybe, but that seems unlikely and far from a common scenario. It'd be easy enough to implement a policy to prevent it if otherwise drug-free individuals come in wanting meth becomes a common problem though.

Originally Posted by welfare

Better yet, let's just put them all in a big building and give them all the drugs they want. Paid for by our taxes. That way we all get to pat ourselves on the back for doing the humane thing.

What's the better alternative? The current situation does not prevent the use of harmful substances, which bring about a pile of other problems. Minimizing those problems, which include increased risk and harm to the users, seems like the best we could aim for.

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by SiRV

Evidence?
evidence?
Evidence?

You are truly the largest beta dip shit dick sucking cuntbag with a 2" erect penis incel conservative NPC retard that has ever lived on the face of this Earth. Period

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/bi...licit-drug.pdf

It took me 15 seconds to find the report that details what welfare is saying. Less time than it took for you to type your completely useless post. Though this report doesn't delve in to the mental health issue it's common knowledge that abuse of opiods damages the brain.

Originally Posted by underscore

Even if that's the case, until they do they create a lot of headache. Strain on the police, EMS, and general public when they're stealing to purchase illegal substances and then ODing repeatedly due to lack of consistency with the products they consume.

Personally I'd rather allow people to go to facilities where they can have access to whatever they're addicted to in a controlled environment, for free. Overall it'd save money, reduce deaths, and cut the income of organized crime.

See the above report. The first safe injections sites in Vancouver opened in 2000, and public policy has continued to coddle the weak in the years since. The result? The pandemic BC has now. In 2017 the DTES Insite location recorded 175,464 visits (an average of 415 injection room visits per day) by 7,301 unique users; 2,151 overdoses occurred with no fatalities due to intervention by medical staff. 1,458 people still died in 2017, how many of those were saved by the staff but died later anyway is unknown.

Before people start defending the numbers due to the introduction of fentanyl know this: the users like it. If someone OD's that person's dealer actually gets more junkies vying to buy from them because they know the dealer is selling powerful stuff. BC's handling of opioid drug addicts has COMPLETELY failed, and instead created a monster that has spiraled out of control.

[SiRV]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/bi...licit-drug.pdf

It took me 15 seconds to find the report that details what welfare is saying. Less time than it took for you to type your completely useless post. Though this report doesn't delve in to the mental health issue it's common knowledge that abuse of opiods damages the brain.

What's to say it's not a mental health issue that FIRST drives people to opioids or other illicit substances?

That report also makes no mention of how effective the needle exchange program is at reducing needles on the streets.

Where is the evidence that rock bottom is when addicts finally decided to change their ways? (This is a hugely wide known MYTH to those in the medical community).

So no, your article answers nothing of what welfare stated

[Hondaracer]

Thing is, it’s a massive issue everywhere, all over North America and in literally hundreds of places that do not have safe injection sites.

Imo if you’re going to insight to “try” IV drugs, already being on the DTES and in that position, you’re pretty close to rock bottom anyways, it’s not like you were living a great life prior to arriving there.