Support NeoGAF

[Walpurgis]

Here is an interesting article that goes into the reasons that the Manitoba election will matter to the rest of Canada.

It basically says that the federal NDP and CPC are both wounded after their crushing defeats in the October election and they need a win, the NDP more so.

A PC win would end a string of provincial and federal losses and provide a much-needed boost as the national Conservative leadership race gets underway.

"It's a way to start building the recovery of the party nationally," says Jaime Watt, a Conservative strategist who is not working on the Manitoba campaign.
"A loss in Manitoba is not devastating, but a win is super helpful."

For the NDP the stakes are higher. Nine years of balanced budgets and consecutive electoral wins in Manitoba gave the New Democratic movement credibility that a socially progressive party could govern with financial responsibility.

"We don't see that many NDP governments pop up across the country, says University of Manitoba political scientist Paul Thomas.
"Now this seems to be a government destined to go down to defeat and perhaps a very serious political setback."

Right now, only Saskatchewan is Conservative and only Alberta and Manitoba are NDP so they're just desperately fighting for scraps.

Another issue is western alignment. Selinger's Manitoba is more aligned with Wynn's Ontario than the west. For example, Manitoba has joined Ontario's cap-and-trade carbon market and stayed out of the New West Partnership (reduces trade barriers between BC, AB and SK). Meanwhile, the Liberals and PCs promise to bring Manitoba into the New West Partnership. And the PCs will definitely fight Trudeau alongside Brad Wall on the environment. That is probably the biggest effect.

 

[ryan-ts]

I've seen so many budget related articles in the past couple weeks, appears as if every sector expects/ is hopeful for funding once tomorrow's budget is revealed. Seems inevitable that some groups are going to be deeply disappointed.

 

[Tiktaalik]

You definitely can't please everyone and the government already seems to be trying to scale back expectations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/0...ittle-for-productivity-trudeau_n_9487480.html

OTTAWA — Justin Trudeau says the first two years of the government's massive infrastructure program will focus on "unsexy," yet desperately needed projects such as overdue maintenance.

The prime minister also acknowledged in an interview with Bloomberg today in New York that he doubts ramping up these types of early investments will boost the country's weak productivity.

But Trudeau says after the initial phase Ottawa will focus government spending on bigger, more-detailed projects aimed at increasing growth over the long haul and guiding Canada toward a low-carbon economy.

His remarks on the goals of the 10-year, multibillion-dollar infrastructure plan come as his government prepares to release further details of the program next Tuesday in its first budget.

...

The government has been signalling since Autumn that it's interested in changing the formula by which federal, provincial and municipal governments share costs, and this is rumoured to be in the budget. This would be incredibly exciting as as I've said before, municipal governments really don't have the revenue generation tools to come up with a one third share on big ticket transit projects.

Ottawa ready to boost funding formula to municipalities, sources say

OTTAWA—Ottawa appears ready to boost its share of the funding it provides municipalities as it looks to fast-track an infrastructure spending spree, the Star has learned.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau will take the wraps off the Liberals’ first budget on Tuesday — and its contents will put smiles on the faces of municipal leaders, sources say.

And municipal officials can expect good news on two fronts: A change to the traditional one-third funding formula — at least for some projects — and financial help for the prep work needed to get those infrastructure projects off the ground.

...

Of course you still need the Province to play ball, and unfortunately for me and other transit fans in Vancouver, the BC Liberals have already indicated that they do not intend on paying more than a one third share for transit expansion, which makes whatever transit infrastructure funding that is incoming from the Feds rather useless.

British Columbia to cap contribution to transit infrastructure at one-third

The province has told Canada’s federal Infrastructure Minister that British Columbia absolutely will not contribute more than a third of the money needed for major transit projects, even though Ottawa has hinted that it may increase its traditional one-third share.

And, says B.C. Community Minister Peter Fassbender, the province expects Lower Mainland cities to come up with whatever is needed to cover the remaining cost for big rapid-transit projects proposed in Surrey and Vancouver.

“I was asked if the province is willing to increase its share and I said, ‘No,’” said Mr. Fassbender, who met Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi in December in Ottawa and then in January in British Columbia. “We’ve had our money on the table for a while and we remain committed to that.”

...

At this point I really don't see how transit gets built in BC without a change in Provincial government.

What do people think will be in the budget tomorrow?

 

[Tapejara]

Article was from early this morning, but Trudeau says that the new budget will include "historic investments for indigenous people."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...toric-investments-for-indigenous-peoples.html

People are of course skeptical considering how poorly indigenous people have been treated, so I'm really interested in seeing what these "historic" investments will entail.

On a similar note, has there been any updates on the investigation into the missing and murdered aboriginal women? It feels like I haven't heard anything on that in a while.

 

[killer rin]

Article was from early this morning, but Trudeau says that the new budget will include "historic investments for indigenous people."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...toric-investments-for-indigenous-peoples.html

People are of course skeptical considering how poorly indigenous people have been treated, so I'm really interested in seeing what these "historic" investments will entail.

You know, now I am wondering. Hypothetically, lets say Trudeau comes out tomorrow and says "We are going to make a one time payment to bring every first nations reserve up to the living standards that other rural canadians enjoy". How much would that cost? 100 Billion? 200 Billion? I'm thinking it would be a lot considering you would need to build a ton of roads and bridges, a ton of water treatment and waste management plants, a ton of schools and hospitals and a bunch of other stuff which I can't think of.

 

[SRG01]

You know, now I am wondering. Hypothetically, lets say Trudeau comes out tomorrow and says "We are going to make a one time payment to bring every first nations reserve up to the living standards that other rural canadians enjoy". How much would that cost? 100 Billion? 200 Billion? I'm thinking it would be a lot considering you would need to build a ton of roads and bridges, a ton of water treatment and waste management plants, a ton of schools and hospitals and a bunch of other stuff which I can't think of.

More than likely, it'll be the running/drinking water promise he made during the election.

 

[Stumpokapow]

You know, now I am wondering. Hypothetically, lets say Trudeau comes out tomorrow and says "We are going to make a one time payment to bring every first nations reserve up to the living standards that other rural canadians enjoy". How much would that cost? 100 Billion? 200 Billion? I'm thinking it would be a lot considering you would need to build a ton of roads and bridges, a ton of water treatment and waste management plants, a ton of schools and hospitals and a bunch of other stuff which I can't think of.

You can build hospitals, but who will work in them?

 

[killer rin]

You can build hospitals, but who will work in them?

True, I guess most rural areas just utilize clinics while piggybacking off of the nearest city/high density town for anything major. Still though, I am genuinely curious at how much things would cost, especially since its something that we as a country should have already had done decades ago

 

[gabbo]

You know, now I am wondering. Hypothetically, lets say Trudeau comes out tomorrow and says "We are going to make a one time payment to bring every first nations reserve up to the living standards that other rural canadians enjoy". How much would that cost? 100 Billion? 200 Billion? I'm thinking it would be a lot considering you would need to build a ton of roads and bridges, a ton of water treatment and waste management plants, a ton of schools and hospitals and a bunch of other stuff which I can't think of.

A one time payment wouldn't cover everything since it would take generations to solve the issues.

 

[Walpurgis]

f course you still need the Province to play ball, and unfortunately for me and other transit fans in Vancouver, the BC Liberals have already indicated that they do not intend on paying more than a one third share for transit expansion, which makes whatever transit infrastructure funding that is incoming from the Feds rather useless.

I heard on the radio last week that they screwed up the city budget in Winnipeg and have to reduce the number of promised school programs (for something) to get by. I think I also mentioned the transit disaster in September when they reduced the number of buses on the first day of school (when ridership is highest for the year). They said that they had a backlog of broken buses that they couldn't afford to fix. Combine that with the annually climbing transit prices (even though gas is cheap now) and I get the impression that more money for municipalities would make a huge difference here (if the mayor doesn't waste it all on Jets tickets).

Unfortunately, we will have PCs in the province after the election so Trudeau will have to work with them on that and I have a feeling that they won't make it easy.

You can build hospitals, but who will work in them?

Don't they get paid more money living in those? If that isn't enough, then raising the standards of living might make rural areas more attractive. Failing that, they could either train more doctors through a specific (cheaper?) track that requires a number of years of work in rural areas or import foreign doctors requiring the same thing. I don't know if any of these things have been tried though.

A one time payment wouldn't cover everything since it would take generations to solve the issues.

True and I think a one time payment is risky because future governments would use it as justification to not help in the future.

 

[Pedrito]

So the magic number is 29.4 $B.

PM Zoolander has destroyed Canada! We'll all going to die! Buy gold and ammo! #Trump2016, etc.

 

[Gitaroo]

Still not sure about this crazy infustrature spending can grow the economy in the long term. China did the same thing building all the roads, airport when their economy were down, then ended with a bunch of deserted airports and facilities with high maintanence cost at the end that keeps bleeding money or abandon. Canada doesn't even have the population to drive and put them into good use. Like somebody said, who will work or even use them.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

So the magic number is 29.4 $B.

PM Zoolander has destroyed Canada! We'll all going to die! Buy gold and ammo! #Trump2016, etc.

That's over two years though isn't it?

 

[sikkinixx]

Still not sure about this crazy infustrature spending can grow the economy in the long term. China did the same thing building all the roads, airport when their economy were down, then ended with a bunch of deserted airports and facilities with high maintanence cost at the end that keeps bleeding money or abandon. Canada doesn't even have the population to drive and put them into good use. Like somebody said, who will work or even use them.

China builds shit in places where nobody lives in anticipation that people will someday move there no? A bit different than replacing/fixing things for areas that use and need it.

 

[Pedrito]

Still not sure about this crazy infustrature spending can grow the economy in the long term. China did the same thing building all the roads, airport when their economy were down, then ended with a bunch of deserted airports and facilities with high maintanence cost at the end that keeps bleeding money or abandon. Canada doesn't even have the population to drive and put them into good use. Like somebody said, who will work or even use them.

It's about 12 $B a year. Not exactly crazy. And it's mostly to renovate the old stuff. Not build new stuff in the middle of nowhere. I doubt it will have much of an impact on the economy, but it's badly needed.

That's over two years though isn't it?

Nope. Deficit for the fiscal year.

 

[Cake Boss]

Still not sure about this crazy infustrature spending can grow the economy in the long term. China did the same thing building all the roads, airport when their economy were down, then ended with a bunch of deserted airports and facilities with high maintanence cost at the end that keeps bleeding money or abandon. Canada doesn't even have the population to drive and put them into good use. Like somebody said, who will work or even use them.

Chinas problem is that they built cities, roads and airports that were overpriced for their own people to use and in the middle of no where. I don't think that would be a problem for Canada. They are looking to I.prove the already built infrastructure and other additions. Right now I would love another bridge from Gatineau-Ottawa to help with the traffic flow. That's only a small example.

 

[pr0cs]

So the magic number is 29.4 $B.

PM Zoolander has destroyed Canada! We'll all going to die! Buy gold and ammo! #Trump2016, etc.

No one sane actually believed anything Trudeau said in regards to money during the election

 

[gabbo]

No one sane actually believed anything Trudeau said in regards to money during the election

Nor should you take what Pedrito said seriously

 

[gutter_trash]

I forgot that is was budget day, today had too much big news going on all over the world

Brussels attack,
Obama's last day in Cuba,
Canada's Mayor Rob Ford passed away
Another Tuesday Primary night in the US.

oh yeah budget zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


in Justin we trust

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

It's about 12 $B a year. Not exactly crazy. And it's mostly to renovate the old stuff. Not build new stuff in the middle of nowhere. I doubt it will have much of an impact on the economy, but it's badly needed.



Nope. Deficit for the fiscal year.

Oh, it's $29.4 billion for both this and the next year (~$58.8 billion in total). I read it wrong. That's a lot but I trust that they know what they're doing.

 

[Sean C]

Justice Cromwell to retire later this year, clearing the way for Trudeau's first Supreme Court appointment.

Start polishing your resumes, appellate justices from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland! (don't wait up, PEI judges)

 

[Simon Belmont]

Justice Cromwell to retire later this year, clearing the way for Trudeau's first Supreme Court appointment.

Start polishing your resumes, appellate justices from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland! (don't wait up, PEI judges)

I love how our system makes it nearly impossible for anyone other than a super accomplished judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

[Pedrito]

I love how our system makes it nearly impossible for anyone other than a super accomplished judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

The last two (Côté and Brown) were anything but super accomplished judges. Well, at least Côté was a super accomplished lawyer. It remains to be seen what Brown is...

 

[sikkinixx]

Justice Cromwell to retire later this year, clearing the way for Trudeau's first Supreme Court appointment.

Start polishing your resumes, appellate justices from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland! (don't wait up, PEI judges)

He's young, 63 and only been on the job for 8 years. Isn't that kinda... short?

 

[Simon Belmont]

The last two (Côté and Brown) were anything but super accomplished judges. Well, at least Côté was a super accomplished lawyer. It remains to be seen what Brown is...

I said almost, and Brown was on the court of appeal.

 

[Sean C]

He's young, 63 and only been on the job for 8 years. Isn't that kinda... short?

Not really. Justices on the Supreme Court don't uniformly try to run out the clock in the way they do in the US, and regularly retire early. The last round of retirement ages:

Marshall Rothstein - 75
Louis LeBel - 75
Morris Fish - 75
Ian Binnie - 72
Marie Deschamps - 60
Louise Charron - 61
Michel Bastarache - 61
John Major - 75
Frank Iacobucci - 67
Louise Arbour - 57

 

[subrock]

I sure wish there was a federal EV incentive included in the budget since BC seems to be content with letting everything expire.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Not really. Justices on the Supreme Court don't uniformly try to run out the clock in the way they do in the US, and regularly retire early. The last round of retirement ages:

Marshall Rothstein - 75
Louis LeBel - 75
Morris Fish - 75
Ian Binnie - 72
Marie Deschamps - 60
Louise Charron - 61
Michel Bastarache - 61
John Major - 75
Frank Iacobucci - 67
Louise Arbour - 57

Worth noting that Arbour got promoted, which is as good a reason as any to retire.

 

[killer rin]

I sure wish there was a federal EV incentive included in the budget since BC seems to be content with letting everything expire.

Technically they are incentivizing it by funding the buildout of Electric Vehicle Charging stations. I figure if people start to see them all over the place, they would be less wary of buying them for range reasons.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Good budget, curious to see what kind of green investments will actually be made. Montreal is so damn full of cars and nothing is being done about it, but it's mostly in the mayor's hands. Cars are such a nuisance and such a poor return on investment, they litter the streets and go unused at least 22 hours a day, often for many days. I would care more about more public transportation than more electric cars.

 

[Boogie]

All right, let's see here....

*opens up a bunch of articles on the budget*...

*Ctrl+F "rcmp", "security" , "policing"*

...

Ah well. Didn't expect any different.

Very quiet on the military side of things as well.

 

[SRG01]

All right, let's see here....

*opens up a bunch of articles on the budget*...

*Ctrl+F "rcmp", "security" , "policing"*

...

Ah well. Didn't expect any different.

Very quiet on the military side of things as well.

I thought they were pushing back military procurement? It's the bad kind of quiet to me, but the government does have other, more pressing priorities to take care of first.

 

[Boogie]

I thought they were pushing back military procurement? It's the bad kind of quiet to me, but the government does have other, more pressing priorities to take care of first.

Sure, but in a budget that seemed to take a "here's something for everyone" approach to spending, the complete silence on security matters is annoying (from a self-interested perspective, of course).

I mean, even with the emphasis on infrastructure, I know that the RCMP has *huge* needs when it comes to infrastructure investment. And on that front, they only specify $60 mill over five years for a new forensic lab in B.C? We here in Ontario are *beggingg* for new facilities that we need, hell, we've needed a new divisional Headquarters for 7 years now, and it can't get out of the "well, we've agreed that we need one" planning process.

edit: From the National Post:

Planned National Defence purchases worth $3.7 billion — ships, planes and vehicles — are being deferred indefinitely.

"Indefinitely". Damnnn.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Still not sure about this crazy infustrature spending can grow the economy in the long term. China did the same thing building all the roads, airport when their economy were down, then ended with a bunch of deserted airports and facilities with high maintanence cost at the end that keeps bleeding money or abandon. Canada doesn't even have the population to drive and put them into good use. Like somebody said, who will work or even use them.

Fixing the centuries old sewers in historic downtown Halifax == building ghost cities in the middle of nowhere. Building much needed mass transit lines in our largest cities == building extra airports we don't need.

 

[Walpurgis]

Good budget, curious to see what kind of green investments will actually be made. Montreal is so damn full of cars and nothing is being done about it, but it's mostly in the mayor's hands. Cars are such a nuisance and such a poor return on investment, they litter the streets and go unused at least 22 hours a day, often for many days. I would care more about more public transportation than more electric cars.

This is why I can't wait for self-driving cars. In fact, I am actually waiting for those to become affordable (and winter ready) before buying a car. It's going to be a whole new world with a ton of space opening up inside cities. Winnipeg is already empty enough as it is with large plains right inside the city.

 

[killer rin]

This is why I can't wait for self-driving cars. In fact, I am actually waiting for those to become affordable (and winter ready) before buying a car. It's going to be a whole new world with a ton of space opening up inside cities. Winnipeg is already empty enough as it is with large plains right inside the city.

I personally wouldn't wait for a self driving car. There is a high chance that owning one would be tied up in so much requirements that it would be much more expensive in the long run than vehicles of today. Think of it like this, would you trust your everyday civilian to ensure they stick to the strict maintenance schedules to ensure all the sensors are working at 100%?

Instead Self Driving Cars are just going to become apart of any cities transportation infrastructure. They have a fleet, they maintain and charge the fleet and if you want one you call one. Alternatively it would be a subscription you get from a company which provides you a vehicle if you need one. Really, it will open up a whole new world of opportunities for public transportation

 

[Tiktaalik]

This is why I can't wait for self-driving cars. In fact, I am actually waiting for those to become affordable (and winter ready) before buying a car. It's going to be a whole new world with a ton of space opening up inside cities. Winnipeg is already empty enough as it is with large plains right inside the city.

I've never been to Winnipeg so maybe that's why this sentence is baffling to me and I don't know what you mean.

Cities are generally compact and efficient spaces, where if anything, there's little to no room for cars. If Winnipeg isn't like this then they're wasting land and the city should be trying to solve that problem.

Maybe I'm confused because I don't believe that self driving cars is going to result in a reduction of cars on the road?

Self driving cars don't really solve that many of our most pressing transportation problems (tho eventually they'll be very useful for driving seniors around). Fundamentally we need to move more people in smaller spaces, and that means removing cars in favour of more efficient transportation systems, whether they're self driving or not, as cars simply take up too much room.

This guy says it better than me https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-trains-thats-what-will-solve-congestion/

 

[Walpurgis]

I've never been to Winnipeg so maybe that's why this sentence is baffling to me and I don't know what you mean.

Cities are generally compact and efficient spaces, where if anything, there's little to no room for cars. If Winnipeg isn't like this then they're wasting land and the city should be trying to solve that problem.

Maybe I'm confused because I don't believe that self driving cars is going to result in a reduction of cars on the road?

Self driving cars don't really solve that many of our most pressing transportation problems (tho eventually they'll be very useful for driving seniors around). Fundamentally we need to move more people in smaller spaces, and that means removing cars in favour of more efficient transportation systems, whether they're self driving or not, as cars simply take up too much room.

This guy says it better than me https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-trains-thats-what-will-solve-congestion/

For space opening up, I was talking about the parking space in downtown Winnipeg. It takes up a ton of space and even then, there is never enough parking, that is priced reasonably at least.

As for the desolate lands that we call Winnipeg, here is a street view image:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.9009...4!1sc1BGWfxnBTGHcRgDypn9Sw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Google Transcona Boulevard if you want to see it on map view to see how long this road is. This is a new road so every building along it (including that set of houses at the west end of it) was built within the last 15 months or so. I know because I live on the east side and this road has shaved off a few minutes off my commute (and has no cops or speed cameras). Why such a common sense road wasn't built earlier remains a mystery to me.

There are many examples of wasted space like this, some in nearby areas and others much further away, especially along the highways. However, they become less common as you enter the centre of the city. Here are some more street view examples.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/La...2!3m1!1s0x52ea70ca5cf4417d:0x5f05d4aa8e0ecda5

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8859...4!1sPwUgikwpEJRYx2_pB2g4xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8341...4!1sTDLJ-pUkeqzz45jCOxC0Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

To make matters worse, traffic is consistently horrendous every weekday, especially in the afternoons, and if there is an accident on just one of the highways, a 20 minute drive/45 minute bus ride becomes 3+ hours (rare but it has happened a few times). Winnipeg's traffic is actually worse than Edmonton and Calgary, on a quick google search.

I haven't really travelled to other cities so I don't know how they compare but I don't think that this is normal within a city's limits and it kin of bothers me.

 

[Walpurgis]

I personally wouldn't wait for a self driving car. There is a high chance that owning one would be tied up in so much requirements that it would be much more expensive in the long run than vehicles of today. Think of it like this, would you trust your everyday civilian to ensure they stick to the strict maintenance schedules to ensure all the sensors are working at 100%?

Instead Self Driving Cars are just going to become apart of any cities transportation infrastructure. They have a fleet, they maintain and charge the fleet and if you want one you call one. Alternatively it would be a subscription you get from a company which provides you a vehicle if you need one. Really, it will open up a whole new world of opportunities for public transportation

If that's how it plays out, it will be disappointing. My dream is to have my own self driving car that runs on renewable energy. If that doesn't happen, I guess its Winnipeg Transit for life.

 

[maharg]

I've never been to Winnipeg so maybe that's why this sentence is baffling to me and I don't know what you mean.

Cities are generally compact and efficient spaces, where if anything, there's little to no room for cars. If Winnipeg isn't like this then they're wasting land and the city should be trying to solve that problem.

Maybe I'm confused because I don't believe that self driving cars is going to result in a reduction of cars on the road?

Self driving cars don't really solve that many of our most pressing transportation problems (tho eventually they'll be very useful for driving seniors around). Fundamentally we need to move more people in smaller spaces, and that means removing cars in favour of more efficient transportation systems, whether they're self driving or not, as cars simply take up too much room.

This guy says it better than me https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-trains-thats-what-will-solve-congestion/

You seem to be assuming that self driving is only applicable to single occupancy vehicles, but self driving has applications to all levels of public transportation and potentially removes one of the biggest cost centres of bus and train service.

More than that, though, owning a self driving car makes little sense (for most people) and a reduction in private car ownership also means a drastic reduction in on-site parking for businesses which currently drive up land costs and reduce space efficiency in cities.

Self driving vehicles will be huge for cities, and will almost certainly also *increase* the number of people who use public transportation (since it is often more efficient, but if you own a car there are opportunity costs to using it).

Note that that article actually agrees with what I'm saying here, but implies that various things are unlikely that really aren't. For example, the explosion of uber is nothing compared to what will happen when it costs a fraction of what it does now thanks to no driver. That self driving cars will be used more like taxis than private cars in cities for most people is practically a foregone conclusion.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Yikes...a Conservative MP, Jim Hillyer, died in his office this morning. He was only 41, and had 4 kids.

 

[Silexx]

I'm starting to see a bit of chatter about increasing the GST. The government is still steadfastly denying that they ever will, but they may start feeling the pressure when they'll be scrambling for revenue to keep the deficit under control.

 

[Azih]

I'm starting to see a bit of chatter about increasing the GST. The government is still steadfastly denying that they ever will, but they may start feeling the pressure when they'll be scrambling for revenue to keep the deficit under control.

I'd be all for increasing the GST by even two points. Baby needs daycare and I need better transit.

 

[Silexx]

I'd be all for increasing the GST by even two points. Baby needs daycare and I need better transit.

When increasing the GST by just 1% brings the government $7 Billion in additional revenue, it starts to get mighty tempting when trying to balance the books.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I'm all for increasing the GST again. It was a stupid move to lower it, and our finances would be greatly improved if they even upped it a point.

Sure, but in a budget that seemed to take a "here's something for everyone" approach to spending, the complete silence on security matters is annoying (from a self-interested perspective, of course).

I mean, even with the emphasis on infrastructure, I know that the RCMP has *huge* needs when it comes to infrastructure investment. And on that front, they only specify $60 mill over five years for a new forensic lab in B.C? We here in Ontario are *beggingg* for new facilities that we need, hell, we've needed a new divisional Headquarters for 7 years now, and it can't get out of the "well, we've agreed that we need one" planning process.

edit: From the National Post:

"Indefinitely". Damnnn.

I agree they should be spending more on procurement, but it's not like the budget is totally silent from a public safety perspective:
- $35m for an Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-radicalization Coordinator
- $15m for heavy urban search and rescue task forces
- $128m "to improve the physical infrastructure that is relied upon by law enforcement and intelligence agencies across the country on a daily basis"
- Reopening the Kitsilano Canadian Coast Guard Facility
- $77m to "implement new measures to improve the security of government networks and information technology systems"

It's a little strange that, considering all their other promises, military procurement is one that they're ignoring...but at the same time, procurement is such a mess that just throwing more money at it isn't going to help right now.

 

[Tiktaalik]

You seem to be assuming that self driving is only applicable to single occupancy vehicles, but self driving has applications to all levels of public transportation and potentially removes one of the biggest cost centres of bus and train service.

More than that, though, owning a self driving car makes little sense (for most people) and a reduction in private car ownership also means a drastic reduction in on-site parking for businesses which currently drive up land costs and reduce space efficiency in cities.

Self driving vehicles will be huge for cities, and will almost certainly also *increase* the number of people who use public transportation (since it is often more efficient, but if you own a car there are opportunity costs to using it).

Note that that article actually agrees with what I'm saying here, but implies that various things are unlikely that really aren't. For example, the explosion of uber is nothing compared to what will happen when it costs a fraction of what it does now thanks to no driver. That self driving cars will be used more like taxis than private cars in cities for most people is practically a foregone conclusion.

I understand the concept of self driving cars having the potential to promote less car ownership and to be used more like a public transportation service, but I don't think it really changes that much. There's clearly some potential for reduced parking demand, but I don't think it's dramatic.

The problem is that you inevitably reach the carrying capacity of the roads you have and the experience of the city doesn't really change for the better whether it's a traffic jam of individuals driving their own car, or individuals being driven in a self driving taxi.

To me it self driving cars feels like an improvement over an already deeply flawed transportation concept.

In the worst case scenario individual self driving car ownership does become popular, and urban sprawl is actually increased as people don't change their behaviours but are satisfied with even longer commutes now that they don't have to actually pay attention to the road.

Self driving taxis will definitely be an important part of future transportation networks, but I think there are dramatically bigger gains to be made with simpler solutions that use current day technology. That is, 1. build more public transit 2. Build bike lanes. 3. Densify and increase room for pedestrians.

 

[maharg]

I understand the concept of self driving cars having the potential to promote less car ownership and to be used more like a public transportation service, but I don't think it really changes that much. There's clearly some potential for reduced parking demand, but I don't think it's dramatic.

The problem is that you inevitably reach the carrying capacity of the roads you have and the experience of the city doesn't really change for the better whether it's a traffic jam of individuals driving their own car, or individuals being driven in a self driving taxi.

To me it self driving cars feels like an improvement over an already deeply flawed transportation concept.

In the worst case scenario individual self driving car ownership does become popular, and urban sprawl is actually increased as people don't change their behaviours but are satisfied with even longer commutes now that they don't have to actually pay attention to the road.

Self driving taxis will definitely be an important part of future transportation networks, but I think there are dramatically bigger gains to be made with simpler solutions that use current day technology. That is, 1. build more public transit 2. Build bike lanes. 3. Densify and increase room for pedestrians.

You aren't really refuting anything I said here, just reiterating your dubiousness at the idea that change will come in ways you don't expect from new technology. To be clear, this is basically like saying in 1992 "I don't think the internet will change much. People will still read books and watch TV." While that's obviously a true statement (and has born itself out as true), it severely misses the forest for the trees. Even when we're doing those activities we still did before the internet, we do them in vastly different ways now.

Who's going to buy a $30k+ car when you can spend less than a couple hundred dollars a month getting around on self-driving transit and self-driving car services that are available literally on demand (we have this now with Uber where it still requires a driver, let alone when it doesn't) when transit doesn't suffice? It's economically stupid to do so.

 

[Azih]

When increasing the GST by just 1% brings the government $7 Billion in additional revenue, it starts to get mighty tempting when trying to balance the books.

Really lowering the GST was a pretty obvious move by Harper to cripple the federal government and turn people against government provided services to create a downward spiral of privatization.

 

[pr0cs]

Funny how they left off any potential gst changes to their election platform. History repeats itself I suppose, not unlike how 10 billion morphed into 30 billion.

 

[explodet]

Really lowering the GST was a pretty obvious move by Harper to cripple the federal government and turn people against government provided services to create a downward spiral of privatization.

Naw, it was Harper's way to benefit Alberta because it's easier to calculate 5% tax in your head than 7%, at the same time sticking it to Ontario because it's harder to calculate 13% tax in your head than 15%.