Are you forgetting the “police stations” China established here recently? Those are not actions of a foreign government respecting our sovereignity or of a government defending itself against the US’s attacks. That is the action of a foreign power intent on ignoring our borders and laws to enforce their own ideologies.

“There is a move in the county council to try and put forth a letter or resolution stating that we support Canadians coming. We want you to come. We want to make you feel welcome,”

Lol not gonna lie, a letter stating “Please come spend your money here!” while ICE can go where they want and do what they want with 0 repercussions? Like hell am I going to the states, blue or red. Sort out your shit and don’t ask me to put myself in danger because your countrymen elected an aggressive idiot

And, critically, it supersedes the hot issue of the day, meaning in theory it prevents “ends justify the means” approach even with explicit approval from the population.

I agree- we need more midrise buildings throughout.

IMO Canada’s problem isnt one of feasibility but of desire. By and large, people dont WANT midrise apartment buildings. The vast majority of people want the white picket fence dream in a subdivision and two cars. I think the govt needs to get back into building housing on both the federal and provincial level, not just leaving it up to the upper tier municipalities. The housing that IS built by those municipalities typically is exactly what you’re requesting - less car centric, cheaper, midrise buildings. They just don’t build enough of them. If we can make enough of those buildings by the govt (who can ignore the low profitability of those builds), maybe we can make them desirable enough that people change their mind about suburbia. At the very least, providing apartments meant for a full family would be a huge step forwards compared to the current offerings.

I haven’t heard any arguments that maintaining property values is a bottleneck preventing more buildings. How does that make sense?

I’ve heard that policies that crater home values can’t be chased (ie increased taxes on selling property, or other tax disincentives for houses to be so expensive or a vehicle for investments) but even those proposals don’t actually address the root problem of not enough homes.

Agreed, but that isn’t what I’m talking about.

Literally none of the “build more houses” they’ve attempted so far has succeeded on provincial, municipal, or federal levels. We have significant bottlenecks that cannot be addressed in any short period of time, so limiting the incoming strain into the system WHILE also building more houses is the only realistic path.

But it’s totally Musk’s company, and he’s super efficient, so his company is OBVIOUSLY sitting on millions of dollars of rebates from months of sales without collecting. That’s peak efficiency.

I find it hard to believe that they had THIS much of a backlog. The article says only 1400 Canadian employees - thats a lot of money for a subsidiary that small, and means, on average, there was 7 backlogged cars for each employee.

Wood is much cheaper than concrete block, and is much faster to build with. A standard house wall, say 20ft long and 8 ft high (1 storey) would require approximately 20 2x6 and 4 sheets of plywood. Thats approximately $220 in materials at big box store prices (so much less for builders). In comparison, just the blocks for the cinder block wall (8"x16") are $900, plus mortar.

To cut studs, nail, raise the wall, and add plywood is a two man job for ~2-4hrs, assuming no windows or doors. That is easily a job for a few days if you use cinder blocks.

I’m surprised not to see anyone touch on it, but the 1% cut is ~$400/yr per person, and the 2.25% is ~$900 a year. That should be enough to offset the impact of the tariffs for the first little while, with more targeted help available still.

I’d like to see a balance of increasing tax rates on the upper brackets to balance the difference, but that might be a bit optimistic to hope for.

Why does each candidate need to represent a riding? Have the ridings each have their own representative for local issues, and then have the extra MPs represent the country as a whole.

Stop making threats against Canada’s sovereignty more clear for you?

Unfortunately it was planned long before. They started their trip I. january. Also bringing the sub over for us to look at as we’re possibly buying some. https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/nova-scotia/article/french-nuclear-submarine-visiting-halifax/

The key part is the majority of ballots cast. Beyond the benefits of MMPR (of which I am fully on board for), we still had a sub 50% voter turnout. If literally half of ontarians can’t be bothered to vote, they’re agreeing to everything else. I place responsibility for trump with those who voted for him and those who didn’t vote - it’s the same in this case.

Let me know if there’s more nuance I missed! It’s been a while since I looked into it.

I don’t think that was why - the special committee report recommended a referendum and switching to Proportional Representation.

Two parties stand to lose the most from that - Liberal and Conservative. NDP, Green, and fringe parties like PPC stand to gain the most, as do the people of Canada, IMO. Trudeau didn’t want it to go to a referendum, because the liberals would lose significant power, and likely never again become a majority party, as there is a not-insignificant portion of people who vote Liberal as an anything-but-conservative approach.