Quebec budget a bust for cities
The provincial budget was presented Tuesday. People are mostly talking about a very slight reduction in income taxes for some, but what concerns this blog is funding for cities – specifically, transit and housing in this fraught era.
And it’s generally felt to have been a disappointment. The CAQ is not interested in you if you don’t own your own house and car. Even QMI says that the party is more concerned with roads and highways than public transit.
Metro, which continues to grow in its seriousness and reliability about local news, has a good dissection of the budget’s points affecting Montreal, including how Quebec’s only financing a small fraction of the social housing we need. There are more points in the Metro piece, which I won’t expand on. If you want to know how the budget affects the city it’s a must‑read.
In short, we don’t vote for the CAQ, so how can we expect them to do anything for us?
Uatu 10:41 on 2023-03-22 Permalink
I’m just waiting for the austerity measures to appear in a couple of years when hospital unionized workers will change from heroes of the pandemic into a parasitic overpaid expense
H. John 11:18 on 2023-03-22 Permalink
“Implementing free access to vaccination against shingles”
I heard this mentioned on Paul Arcand this morning, and based on previous discussions I thought it might be of interest.
There were no details of when, of for whom, the vaccine would be free.
From the budget document:
…. Budget 2023-2024, the government is setting aside $124.6 million over five years to implement free access to vaccination against shingles.
The amounts invested will be used to vaccinate 800 000 individuals over this period.
Kate 14:36 on 2023-03-22 Permalink
Excellent news, H. John. My GP told me that the medical profession had been putting pressure on for shingles shots to be free. They cost more than $150 each now, and you need two.
jeather 15:26 on 2023-03-22 Permalink
There are two vaccines; one is better than the other for most people (there is a group for whom this isn’t true, but I forget what that group has in common). I’m trying to figure out the likelihood of them only paying for the less good one in order to incentivise people to pay for the better ones privately. I guess we’ll see how long it takes for them to get this actually through.,
H. John 18:36 on 2023-03-22 Permalink
@jeather. I’m assuming they will follow the recommendation of the INSPQ which found that Shingrix (the newer, more expensive vaccine requiring two doses) is more cost effective since it protects much better (90% vs. 50%), and the protection lasts much longer.
Their whole report from 2017 is 50 pages. Here’s the one page update:
https://www.inspq.qc.ca/publications/2381
jeather 12:33 on 2023-03-23 Permalink
I’m just being a pessimist. And I don’t trust this government.