Fact File: No 'plan' to 'euthanize' 15 million Canadians with MAID (www.thecanadianpressnews.ca)

submitted 2 months ago by HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/canada@lemmy.ca

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 45 points 2 months ago

Well, euthanizing 1/3 of the population would certainly help alleviate the housing crisis...

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 months ago

"The cheapest thing in the long run would be to shoot all of us"- an old professor of mine

[-] Daryl@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

But we'd never have to feed or house anyone again

[-] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This CBC article claims that in 2023, in Alberta Canada, a box of 50 9mm rounds cost $13 retail. That's $0.26 a shot. Multiply that by 7 billion and you get $1.8 billion.

I assume Alberta Canada is not the cheapest place to buy 9mm rounds, and that if you were buying 7 billion rounds some kind of economy of scale would kick in, and that you could get a better price even just as wholesale rather than retail. Oh and that's Canadian Dollars. But that's still an upper bound.

$1.8 billion dollars is more than I have, but is not more than anyone has.

Toronto is Canada's largest city, and is the 4th largest city in North America. In 2025 they spent about 1.8 billion Canadian dollars of their budget on "Community and Social Services" alone. That's child services, fire, paramedic, parks and rec, shelters, that sort of stuff.

I'm not advocating for shooting every human on Earth, but for the cost of parks and shelters and ambulances for a single year in the 4th largest city in North America, we could make that happen.

[-] baggins@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

It's the federal government so we would somehow manage to pay about three times market price for them

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago

Even if we limit ourselves to homes within city limits (so we aren’t talking about backwoods cabins, here), Canada has about 6 empty homes for every homeless person.

The problem isn’t a lack of homes, the problem is an excess of “investors” looking for a labour-free income stream parasitized off of the backs of the working class.

[-] Arondeus@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Not trying to be argumentative, but I've seen this stat of there being more empty houses than homeless people thrown around a few times with different numbers and no sources given. Do you have a source for those numbers?

[-] Medic8teMe@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Homelesshub.ca puts homelessness in Canada at 235,000 as of 2024.

https://homelesshub.ca/collection/homelessness-101/how-many-people-homeless-canada/

OECD data via an article at Daily Hive puts empty homes in Canada as of 2021 at 1.34 million homes. Though that number is now thought to be much higher.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-over-1-3-million-vacant-homes

Basic math. 5 homes give or take a half or so per homeless person.

[-] Arondeus@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Awesome. Thanks for the links and your effort.

[-] rarsamx@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's not being argumentative. That's being responsible before spreading it. I'm sure the person you replied to confirmed and has the credible sources handy. Right? right?

[-] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

We're running an experiment on this new product, Soylent Green... Interested in participating?

[-] ComradeRachel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago

It would destroy a lot of other parts as well. I would have to bet a number of these people still work some sort of job even if part time, babysit for family members, still provide something to their community in a way. Sadly there are a lot of people who do believe measures to depopulate would be a good thing.

[-] Amuletta@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

"If they are going to die, then better they should do it now to decrease the surplus population."

[-] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 2 months ago

As per usual the anti maid crowd made up imaginary numbers for the "study"

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 months ago

Uggh. I was talking to a person who said MAID was forced on their family member. I was like WTF and explained they need consent, so they said their family member went in for an exploratory surgery and then the family all got called in because the docs said he had only hours left.

They show up and the person is not hooked up to machines or IV etc, and they asks why. The answer is because they are dying. Family freaks out and demands IV, and other remedies to get the person back to health.

I'm like OK, so all is good? Their reply was no the family member died 5 days later due to cancer.

SMH. So you put that person through an extra week of hell.

Also what was happening: that's not MAID anyway if a person just fades away from dying by refusing medical tratment, its not a dose to end your life.

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 months ago

I am getting so sick of alt-right nutcases making up stories that they themselves would rather have a leading role in.

We all know most of the alt-right is just itching to unalive anyone not like them.

[-] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

I too have lost all decorum in such exchanges and simply reply "Oh, well Ok then, liar" in those (fortunately rare) exchanges.

[-] underfreyja@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

This is literally a fake scenario based on a bunch of fake numbers that was circulated on twitter.

It's basically propaganda...

[-] non_burglar@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

This article is trash.

[-] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago

Yea it's not the best. but it's calling out lies so I figured it was worth sharing.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Because it refutes a bunch of lies? Is that why it's trash?

[-] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago

I think it’s trash because it starts with the “story” being “someone said this outrageous thing on a podcast”. Then the “both sides” counter argument is from actual medical professionals and people who have a clue.

Typically, journalism frames an issue and then covers some counterpoints to give some nuance. This time, they (bewilderingly) accept conspiracy theory nonsense as their story (when it shouldn’t have been written in the first place), then the sanity comes in as though it’s a counter point.

[-] non_burglar@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

It has a low journalism factor. When one writes an article, it's important to deliver to the reader certain facts right away; who's involved, setting, etc.

This article starts with "a podcast" and then doesn't say which one. It then goes on for a while not giving the reader who isn't privy to the background any relevant context. So we're left having to re-read the whole thing twice just to parse what the fuck it's about.

Trash writing.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I seriously think everything on Twitter is bots now.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

The bots are talking, but there are still credulous fools listening.

[-] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 4 points 2 months ago

HALF THE DAMN COUNTRY? People will believe ANYTHING. God damn.

[-] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Speak for yourself..

[-] Amuletta@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

One of my relatives worked for his provincial government health care department some years ago. He told me once that smokers gave the biggest contribution to the health care system because although they tended to be expensive in the last five years or so of their lives, they usually died young enough that they used less money than they put in.

So if they really wanted to save money, they would encourage us to take up smoking tobacco again.