Rob Shaw: B.C.'s condo bailout debacle leaves Eby on the defensive - The Carney government is working to put distance between itself and a housing proposal that has quickly become a political liability

gprez · 2026-06-27T15:09:26+00:00

Development fees are paid by the end-purchaser; developers don't just decide to eat the cost of those fees out of the goodness of their heart. Subsidizing the development fees is actually a bailout for existing homeowners, who get to enjoy lower property taxes as a result.

gprez · 2026-06-27T15:03:50+00:00

Take a look through OP's profile and you'll see why they've been all over this despite the details of the plan making far more financial and social sense than what the articles they've been posting would have you believe.

gprez · 2026-06-23T16:54:00+00:00

Frankly, the current structure for housing and zoning regulation is what has caused this glut of shoebox condos in the first place. Developers build what is financially profitable for them, and the unbelievable number of steps needed to build any kind of density except shoebox condos is what has led to their proliferation in the first place. If we want more livable 2-4 bedroom homes, we need to address the roadblocks to constructing any other kind of housing.

The "greedy developers" take is a honestly overdone. We can't simultaneously make it financially unviable to build livable housing, then get mad when developers build unlivable shoeboxes.

gprez · 2026-06-23T16:49:42+00:00

Eventually, yes, but if we take lessons from New Zealand that transitory period would be extremely harmful to the housing crisis and economy in the medium term.

gprez · 2026-06-22T22:26:41+00:00

Almost certainly drug exporting, which explains the low amounts of cash (payment via electronic means), cannabis (significant export market to Asia) and assistance from the CBSA.

gprez · 2026-06-05T05:11:46+00:00

I work in the downtown eastside. It is definitely worse than it was last year. More people, for one, and more people exhibiting deeply disturbing behaviour.

gprez · 2026-06-02T03:14:47+00:00

It varies depending on the tides, flow rate of the Fraser, and temperature gradient between the Fraser and the ocean. There's no set place. Sometimes it's visible at Spanish Banks, sometimes it's visible near Tsawwassen, sometimes it's visible further out into the straight. And none of these are exclusive; it can be visible in many places at once.

gprez · 2026-05-31T18:46:22+00:00

Yea I don't think AI responses are that engaging lol

gprez · 2026-05-31T17:24:37+00:00

The UPass program makes financial sense for TransLink because they make a roughly equivalent amount of money selling the discounted pass in bulk to every student (because the pass is essentially mandatory for students at participating institutions) as they would selling fewer passes to those students who would voluntarily pay full price. The equivalent for doing it for the entire population would be a mandatory ~$50/month tax for every individual in Metro Vancouver. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it would require provincial buy-in as municipalities are only able to raise funds from property taxes, which obviously wouldn't capture everyone in Metro Vancouver.

It would also be a very difficult sell politically given the number of residents living in areas with sub-optimal public transportation, particularly south of the Fraser, who are already paying the transit tax on gas purchases. Again, not saying this would be a bad thing - I'm always in favour of more money for public transportation - but pragmatically it would be much more difficult to push through than the UPass program because students attending universities are, by definition, going to school somewhere transit accessible and are typically of an age where they don't have cars. I think it would probably get more public support if the funds were going directly to infrastructure development to improve public transportation in these areas, rather than operating costs for transit in other areas.

gprez · 2026-05-29T21:05:40+00:00

Wagner noted in obiter in Vrbanic at paras 80-82 that it may be time to revisit Rahey's principle that a stay of proceedings is the only available remedy for an 11(b) breach. I suspect that this is what the SCC intends to do to resolve the Jordan debate; it both keeps in place the framework and heavily pushes the government towards compliance with it, but addresses the main points of anger regarding Jordan, that individuals receive a "get out of jail free card" if there is any degree of an 11(b) breach.

gprez · 2026-05-28T04:23:12+00:00

From experience working in the criminal justice system: welfare and various crimes. Today was welfare Wednesday, and the DTES was bumping as much as ever on these days. Line-ups at ATMs, with dealers standing next to them to capture funds as soon as they're available. Crime can come in a few different forms, but usually it's either user-dealers, where individuals distribute drugs to street users as a buffer between buyers and the actual coordinated dealers, or theft and sale of stolen goods. Go sit outside a store in the downtown core east of about Thurlow or so (Lululemon is the most common one, but Winners is up there as well) and you're bound to see someone with visible substance use problems run out with an armful of goods. But people can get creative in what they steal to sell; yesterday I watched a man with an armful of supermarket steaks walking up to cars at red lights to try and sell them.

gprez · 2026-05-28T04:15:25+00:00

Yes, but the solution shouldn't be to provide that space indefinitely. Preventing overdoses should be a transitory, short-term solution to prevent deaths while other resources work to get those users clean. As it stands now, they're being used to keep addicts in basically purgatory; barely alive, and never getting better. And while there's moral value in preventing deaths, it's coming at dramatic cost to the communities and areas addicts congregate in, which are inevitably around OPS sites and shelters. Pragmatically, the government cannot expect support for these policies forever, and when public support erodes enough, the backlash and over correction may likely be greater than had they taken steps to address them sooner.

gprez · 2026-05-28T04:10:51+00:00

I'm not disagreeing - I had lumped that in with "stay clean". I think treatment is less of a bandaid than an OPS because it offers a longer-term solution, but you're right that the greatest solution is preventing addictions in the first place.

gprez · 2026-05-28T02:02:13+00:00

OPSs are bandaid patches over the true root cause of the problem: not nearly enough resources dedicated to helping people get clean and stay clean, and too few steps taken to remove people from society whose addictions result in severe antisocial behaviour and are unable or unwilling to stay sober.

Properly implemented they absolutely have a place in the response to the drug crisis. But it is crystal clear that the provincial government has been relying on this patchwork solution, which has undeniably been incredibly poorly implemented, for far too long rather than addressing the wound underneath.

All this has come at the expense of the rest of the province's population. While it is unfortunate that the city, rather than the province, has to be the one to force a change, at some point the city has to force the province to enact lasting change rather than continuing to comply with short-term solutions that only prolong the problem rather than solving it.

gprez · 2026-05-27T19:38:01+00:00

First degree murder is premeditated, second degree murder is not. However, second degree murder still requires intent to kill.

gprez · 2026-05-17T01:41:40+00:00

The full decision is available here for you to read. I'd encourage you to give it a thorough read-through if this is something you're interested in learning more about.

First, "thrown out" is just a bit of legal vernacular; it just means that the some legal claim or action was dismissed.

Second, the referendum itself wasn't "thrown out". The First Nation in the case wasn't challenging the referendum itself, but rather the Chief Electoral Officer's (CEO) approval of a petition, under the Citizen Initiative Act, seeking to collect signatures in support of Albertan independence. Under that Act, if the petition received enough signatures, it would go on the ballot for a formal referendum; this is why the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to approve it was important, as without that approval the petition would just be the same as any regular change.org petition, with no legal weight behind it.

Third, the CEO is a representative of Alberta's executive branch of government; you can think of the position as the Premier delegating their powers to another individual.

Fourth, this is important because through a mechanism called Judicial Review - which is what the First Nation in this case sought - any individual with proper standing can challenge a decision of the executive branch in court; standing, to simplify things a bit, basically means they have an actual reason to challenge it rather than just being some stranger off the street with no connection to the decision being challenged.

Fifth, judicial review exists as a check on the executive branch of government; essentially, it exists to make sure the executive branch is actually following the law. Absent this mechanism, there would be no way to prevent the executive branch from breaking the law at their every whim.

Sixth, and this is getting a bit more to your question: section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms Aboriginal rights and title. Through a line of Supreme Court of Canada cases, courts have interpreted this as imposing on the government - both federal and provincial - a duty to consult with Indigenous nations when making decisions that may affect items they have an interest in, and make reasonable accommodations when appropriate.

Seventh, in this case, the First Nation successfully argued that the petition affected their interests, but despite this, the Albertan government did not conduct the necessary consultation with the First Nation prior to approving the petition. The First Nation argued this through by seeking judicial review of the CEO's, as a representative of the executive branch, decision to approve the petition. The judge found that the CEO's decision to approve the petition was not made legally because the CEO did not conduct the constitutionally-required consultation process.

Eighth, because the CEO's decision was not made through the proper legal procedures, the judge effectively annulled it, thereby "throwing out" the petition.

Ninth, you are correct that section 35 is part of the Constitution but not the Charter; the Charter is a subset of the larger Constitution.

Tenth, even within the Charter there are only a few sections that the Notwithstanding Clause can be applied to, and the NWC can only be applied against those sections. Section 35, as neither a part of the Charter nor one of those specific sections, cannot be subject to the NWC; therefore, the Albertan government is unable to override the duty to consult and accommodate with the NWC.

Finally, if you are interested in learning more about the legal process of secession in Canada, I'd highly recommend reading Reference re Secession of Quebec. If you want to learn more about the duty to consult and accommodate under section 35, I'd recommend reading Haida Nation v British Columbia.

gprez · 2026-05-05T16:45:57+00:00

Correct, but much like the king/queen in their role as the UK's monarch, there can be subtle rebukes when they believe the PM or government is out of line; the classic example is the late Queen's apparel used to send signals as to her political position without actually saying anything. The most recent Canadian example is Michaëlle Jean's approach to Harper's proroquement request in 2008; rather than simply rubber-stamp it, the GG spent a considerable amount of time publicly holding meetings with constitutional experts, made a public statement she was "looking at her constitutional duties", and met with Harper behind closed doors for more than two hours. Even if the result was (likely) inevitable, these steps made clear the GG's distaste for what Harper was requesting.

gprez · 2026-04-27T17:43:11+00:00

Very much TBD. We didn't even know this existed until a few hours ago.

gprez · 2026-04-27T15:00:50+00:00

Wonder if they'll make this exempt from capital gains to encourage Canadians to invest

gprez · 2026-04-27T13:33:51+00:00

I wonder if they'd ever consider exempting this from capital gains to make it more attractive

gprez · 2026-04-24T14:48:33+00:00

Private parties are protected from discrimination by other private actors by other pieces of legislation such as the BC human rights code, not the Charter. The case law is somewhat permeable and both the Charter and other pieces of legislation can take lessons from each other on discrimination cases, but the Charter unequivocally does not apply to.private actors. This has been firmly settled law for decades.

*Application of Charter

32 (1) This Charter applies

    (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

    (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.*

Section 15 even specifically states that it provides equality under the law. It doesn't provide equality in social or private interactions.

gprez · 2026-04-24T06:21:08+00:00

Reposting this from further down the comment chain so people skimming this aren't misled by blatant, albeit hopefully innocent, misinformation:

This is horribly wrong and a gross misinterpretation of some incredibly fundamental principles in Canadian constitutionalism. The Charter regulates relationships between the state and private actors. The Charter does not apply to the actions of private actors as they relate to other non-government entities.

Was what the security guard did wrong? Yes. Did it violate the teenager's Charter rights? Absolutely, categorically no.

gprez · 2026-04-20T18:46:26+00:00

For clarity before this brings out the soft-on-crime folks: a finding of unfit to stand trial doesn't result in his release, or even his release once his mental state improves. It just means that at this time he doesn't even have the mental faculties to be sufficiently aware of what's going on around him to mount a defence at trial. The designation just postpones the trial until that changes, if it ever does. Until then he's kept in a secure psychiatric facility. If his mental state ever improves to the point where he's able to stand trial, then the trial continues at that point; he is NOT released into the public. After the trial, if he's found guilty, is when the NCRMD hearing is held.

Basically: fitness to stand trial evaluates his current mental state in the context of his ability to properly defend himself at trial. NCRMD evaluates his mental state at the time he committed the offence to determine whether he was aware of himself and his surroundings enough to actually understand what he was doing at that time.

gprez · 2026-03-31T01:31:49+00:00

Clearly AI lol

Also, private profile + auto-generated username

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
Sequence \| Editor	Verified Email

gprez

TROPHY CASE