News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.1K     0 

For those interested, here is a link to Carney's press conference at the conclusion of the APEC conference in Korea:


As I noted in the Trump thread, Carney admits he apologized to Trump for the Ford ad. Carney was asked if he saw the ad before it aired, and he said yes, and claims he told Doug Ford he did not want to see it aired. Let's see what Doug has to say about that now! I find it hard to believe Ford would defy Carney, but that is what Carney is now claiming. If it is true that Carney told Ford he did not want the ad aired, it just goes to show that Carney is too afraid, for whatever reason, to mount even the mildest pushback against Trump. Instead, Carney chooses to lie prostrate in front of Trump and let Trump take kicks at him. Forget about "elbows up." Carney can't even stand up on his own two feet next to Trump.

It is difficult to watch because Carney answers each question with bafflegab, but I watched the entire press conference, so you don't have to. I hate it when a politician can't answer a direct question without obfuscation. As much as I hate Trump, his one good quality - probably the only one - is Trump answers direct questions DIRECTLY. He doesn't GAF!
 
Really good article in the Globe yesterday on Canada's process for approving and publicly funding new drugs, particularly oncology (cancer) drugs.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Canadians can wait years to get drugs regulators have already deemed safe. Why?

Even after treatments pass Health Canada’s review, getting them publicly reimbursed here takes longer than any other G7 country
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

The process takes too long, though we appear to be making progress on that; this is both a federal and a provincial issue.

The story follows one particular drug that can be life saving for people with myeloma but which is not publicly funded in Canada as price negotiations have broken down after more than 2 years.

The sticker price is well over $600,000 a dose; though the way this particular drug works (genetic therapy) its a single-dose treatment.

The provinces seem to be aiming to negotiate that down to ~$150,000 per...and the manufacturer is not willing to go that low. (we don't know the exact details of the negotiation, but a target was set of 72 to 80% discount off the initial price.

****

I have sympathy with our regulators here, who are tasked with value for money; but even more for patients whose lives hang in the balance.

So long as we (as a country) are paying no more than our peers, I think we should find our way round to paying. If there is a sincere belief that that the manufacturer is mooching, then I think we need provisions in law for revoking their patent and licensing someone else to make the drug.
 
^...he's a very horrible person. I think that's something we can mostly agree with.
 
Not sure how you negotiate a trade deal with these guys...

"This prime minister of Ontario, who I imagine is smarting quite a bit from the Blue Jays loss last night, spent $75m trying to sway US public opinion. This is foreign interference in US public policy. A price has got to be paid for this."
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1985013856343597530
 
We're waiting the US out. Either the institutions of the US start to correct for Trump's overreach, or that country is sliding into authoritarianism and we should be trying to insulate ourselves to the extent possible while they self-immolate.
 
afransen said:
We're waiting the US out. Either the institutions of the US start to correct for Trump's overreach, or that country is sliding into authoritarianism and we should be trying to insulate ourselves to the extent possible while they self-immolate.
Click to expand...
You forgot the third option; they completely collapse into separate coalitions of states.
 
thettctransitfanatic said:

Loading…

archive.is
Click to expand...

I will, as I do every year, read the entire budget and report back to UT on what I find.

In respect of the above, I am given to understand that this will be integrated with/replace the existing transit fund, so I'm not clear how much will be net gain vs the status quo.

If its its 5B net new that is much more substantial. The existing fund commits 3B per year which would extrapolate as 30B over 10 years.

The new fund will also cover health infrastructure and housing.
 
Northern Light said:
I will, as I do every year, read the entire budget and report back to UT on what I find.

In respect of the above, I am given to understand that this will be integrated with/replace the existing transit fund, so I'm not clear how much will be net gain vs the status quo.

If its its 5B net new that is much more substantial. The existing fund commits 3B per year which would extrapolate as 30B over 10 years.

The new fund will also cover health infrastructure and housing.
Click to expand...
Sounds like repackaging rather than much new funding.
 
Northern Light said:
I will, as I do every year, read the entire budget and report back to UT on what I find.

In respect of the above, I am given to understand that this will be integrated with/replace the existing transit fund, so I'm not clear how much will be net gain vs the status quo.

If its its 5B net new that is much more substantial. The existing fund commits 3B per year which would extrapolate as 30B over 10 years.

The new fund will also cover health infrastructure and housing.
Click to expand...

I have come around to the Strong Towns argument that federal funds for transit lead to system level waste. The more that federal governments, in Canada and the US, fund transit and roads, the more it leads to suburbanization which only exacerbates the problem. And then perversely simply increases the demand for higher governments to fund more and more local infrastructure to cover up the suburban growth ponzi scheme. What's the point when the feds up the fund to $5B and all that happens is we end up building subways at $1B/km?

We have to tighten our belt. This is a good place to start. Tell the provinces and municipalities they should raise taxes and pay for their own roads and rails. Leave the feds to focus on national level infrastructure like HSR. Or national level programs that are broadly impactful, like say electrifying transit and school bus fleets, which would have a whole bunch of positive impacts on air quality and children's health. Aside from the industrial benefit, since we have a large bus industry.
 
kEiThZ said:
I have come around to the Strong Towns argument that federal funds for transit lead to system level waste. The more that federal governments, in Canada and the US, fund transit and roads, the more it leads to suburbanization which only exacerbates the problem. And then perversely simply increases the demand for higher governments to fund more and more local infrastructure to cover up the suburban growth ponzi scheme. What's the point when the feds up the fund to $5B and all that happens is we end up building subways at $1B/km?

We have to tighten our belt. This is a good place to start. Tell the provinces and municipalities they should raise taxes and pay for their own roads and rails. Leave the feds to focus on national level infrastructure like HSR. Or national level programs that are broadly impactful, like say electrifying transit and school bus fleets, which would have a whole bunch of positive impacts on air quality and children's health. Aside from the industrial benefit, since we have a large bus industry.
Click to expand...

For the record, I like your idea in principle. I favour disentangling government, and in general, having one order of government deliver 'x' , not two or three, with clear accountability and a bias towards more local control for things are intrinsically local. But achieving that would be a very profound shuffle of dollars and power that I don't see either senior level of government offering up.

Just to have a sense of that, the capital costs of transit borne by senior gov'ts for Toronto transit projects is in the 10s of billions, with servicing costs of several billion per annum.

If the City were to take on all of that, it would represent something like a 30% increase in expenses which if laid entirely on the property tax would be a 67% bump. That's a non-starter.

Generating the equivalent in HST is at least a 2-point sales tax in Toronto, maybe 3.

None of that is to differ w/you in terms of the principle, but the politics of getting there ....
 
Federal Budget has been posted online, reading in progress:

Loading…

budget.canada.ca

This year's deficit: 78B

1762290537736.png


****

1762291089060.png

1762291146124.png


****

1762291178546.png


****

1762291286759.png

***

1762291528490.png


1762291567899.png


****

1762291819197.png


***

1762292306867.png


1762292336126.png


****

1762293004793.png

1762292981742.png



And lots more that I'll come back to when I get a chance.

***

Biggest disappointment, no move to curtail OAS to affluent seniors.

Biggest problem - for all the general investments discussed, Real GDP Growth is never expected to exceed 2% in the next 5 years, that's a lot of investing to tread water.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top