I am struggling with all of this. "They" referring to treaty signatories, want the original treaty honored no matter what. But then comments like above come along and say no, we want the treaty to change with the times, to reflect modern requirements. This feels disingenuous. You can't just take the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't like. I would like to know what I am missing.
I am not going to do the math but how wide is a pipeline? The province is 640 km at it's widest point. Assuming a right of way is .5 kilometers(?) wide that is 320 square km. That is a very small percentage of the total area. It does seem unreasonable that this is a valid objection.
The consequence of a spill into a water body especially through mountain headwaters is very high. People should be concerned about it. Just using surface areas makes things like the grassy mountain coal mine seem very reasonable.
We still need to build the pipelines but there are real manageable risks that shouldn’t be dismissed.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Yeah, build the pipelines but it should have zero risk to fresh water supply. And even a greedy economist should know and understand that the next great resource to be exploited is fresh water. Don't EFF with clean water. Full stop. That should be universally agreed upon between any profiteer monger and hippy or FN alike.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
Ugh, how dare he ruin what appears to be beautifully kept example of a 4th gen. Trans Am WS6 with his sh-tty campaign signage. PONTIAC DID NOT DIE FOR YOU TO PISS ON ITS GRAVE LIKE THIS, POILIEVRE.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Whelp. Doubling housing starts doesn't seem to be a likely scenario. CMHC used to think that the idealized scenario of doubling housing starts could maybe bring affordability to 2004 levels, but now maybe it could maybe bring it to 2019 levels. If anything, I thought housing starts were dropping recently.
Doubling the pace of homebuilding in Canada will only bring affordability back to levels seen right before the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a new government report that lowers expectations for the impact of construction on housing costs.
Earlier estimates from the national housing agency called for a similar boost in home construction and targeted 2030 as the year it could be achieved. That previous forecast suggested that a rapid boost in housing supply would bring affordability back to 2004 levels.
Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect Canada’s housing starts to average 230,000 units between 2025 and 2027, a significant deceleration in construction because interest rates and economic uncertainty have weighed on the industry.
Last year, all the costs of home with a typical mortgage would have eaten up about 54% of the average Canadian household’s income, the CMHC report shows. The current rate of home construction would result in almost no improvement in that ratio over the next 10 years.
CMHC has been assessing how much housing is needed to restore affordability. We now estimate that housing starts must nearly double to around 430,000 to 480,000 units per year until 2035 to meet projected demand. This will require action by everyone to change how we build homes.
Changes in our approach
First, the time it takes to get approval for and build new housing means that our 2030 timeline is no longer realistic. While building a new structure may take 1 or 2 years, getting the approvals to rezone land is a multi-year process.
To reflect these timelines, we’ll begin presenting our results on a rolling 10-year horizon. As a result, for this report, we estimate how much housing is needed by 2035. We also present our results to highlight the change in the number of housing starts required per year rather than a cumulative total. This will ease comparison with current and potential rates of housing construction.
Second, restoring affordability to levels last seen 2 decades ago isn’t realistic, especially after the post-pandemic price surge. COVID-19 significantly changed the affordability landscape across the country. In particular, Toronto and Vancouver face more structural affordability challenges that require more time to address.
As a result, we’re changing our aspiration to restoring affordability to levels seen just before the pandemic.
EDIT: Here is the historical trend of housing starts:
NATO target for defence spend set to 5%. If Canada met that target it would become the 7th largest military spender on the planet. Our defence budget would swell from $30bn to US to $115bn USD. The current gross federal budget spend per year is $538bn CAD ($392bn USD).
It's all lip service I'm sure as Trump's (likely) gone before 2029...but...if not, are you really going to inflate the federal budget 22% or cut equivalent services?
Canada gets its income 43% from personal income taxes, and 17% from corporate taxes, with the GST making up a further 10%. Deficit is $40 bn / yr at the moment.
Options to pay for defence in an extreme case would be, 3x the deficit each year, have personal income taxes increase 30%, 2x corporate taxes or 3x the GST. Obviously it's a combination of all those things, but it's a significant step change.
Program expenses in Canada are $240bn CAD, with 50% of that being OPEX in administrating the programs. That's the obvious transfer of services to defence.
Interesting times coming out of the conference.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rutuu For This Useful Post:
I expect most of the military spending 'increases' will be shell games of re-categorizing other infrastructure and industrial spending. Given the relentlessly increasing public spending on health care and other entitlements, and ever-worsening dependency ratios, it was never realistic to think NATO countries were just going to find hundreds of billions in their budgets in the coming years.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I expect most of the military spending 'increases' will be shell games of re-categorizing other infrastructure and industrial spending. Given the relentlessly increasing public spending on health care and other entitlements, and ever-worsening dependency ratios, it was never realistic to think NATO countries were just going to find hundreds of billions in their budgets in the coming years.
Carney literally said this in an interview with CNN yesterday. It’s not just armed forces and they’re counting infrastructure and other spending as NATO “defense” spending. For example building infrastructure to northern communities or other such investments.
Carney literally said this in an interview with CNN yesterday. It’s not just armed forces and they’re counting infrastructure and other spending as NATO “defense” spending. For example building infrastructure to northern communities or other such investments.
So while it seems crazy it’s very shell gamesy.
The UK is using the same tactic, give Trump a win while committing to little long term
The UK is using the same tactic, give Trump a win while committing to little long term
If I'm not mistaken the agreement among the NATO members to increase to 5% is based on 3.5% actually being on defense expenditures and 1.5% being on infrastructure spending where infrastructure is a very broad category.
Yeah, build the pipelines but it should have zero risk to fresh water supply. And even a greedy economist should know and understand that the next great resource to be exploited is fresh water. Don't EFF with clean water. Full stop. That should be universally agreed upon between any profiteer monger and hippy or FN alike.
The only way to get that risk to zero is to never build another pipeline and shut down all the existing ones. So let’s start with saying zero risk isn’t achievable.
That said, the risk can get very, very low - like pretty close to airline safety low and then if the worst happens, it will have to be dealt with. It’s unlikely to result in any permanent damage to a water source, but it can mess things up for a while which is why pipeline companies spend so much integrity dollars close to water bodies.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
I expect most of the military spending 'increases' will be shell games of re-categorizing other infrastructure and industrial spending. Given the relentlessly increasing public spending on health care and other entitlements, and ever-worsening dependency ratios, it was never realistic to think NATO countries were just going to find hundreds of billions in their budgets in the coming years.
If I’m understanding you, that’s worrisome as roads, bridges and other infrastructure is already crumbling.
Bill C-5 passed the Senate this afternoon with no amendments.
Oh my god… could it… could it actually be? Politicians actually doing their ####ing jobs and what’s best for the country???? Holy Christ… I didn’t know this was possible.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
But if the road and bridge is used by military personal at some point, perhaps to get to Timmies, it's now a qualifying project.
Exactly. Carney suggested that mining project costs for strategically important resources would qualify. Did they just broaden the definition of what is a defense cost?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Exactly. Carney suggested that mining project costs for strategically important resources would qualify. Did they just broaden the definition of what is a defense cost?
100% broadly interpreted definition. And it won’t be the only one. Upgrades to critical infrastructure across the board will likely apply. Deep water port in Hudson Bay? Sounds like something the Canadian Navy can also use to protect shipping of energy products to Europe.
Critical minerals will undoubtedly be included, as they should. Tidy little win-win for our economy and collective defence.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to IliketoPuck For This Useful Post:
Oh my god… could it… could it actually be? Politicians actually doing their ####ing jobs and what’s best for the country???? Holy Christ… I didn’t know this was possible.
thank Mark Carney. Amazing what having a mature, capable, educated professional at the helm can do. (who actually cares about the country more than himself)
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
thank Mark Carney. Amazing what having a mature, capable, educated professional at the helm can do. (who actually cares about the country more than himself)
Carney is basically exactly who many supporters here suggested he was, good and bad. A pragmatic centrist banker with a high degree of economic sense that would be just as suitable a leader of the Cons as he was the Libs.
The people who said he’d be just like Trudeau are fat off crow already. Imagine what PP’s first efforts combating the woke mind virus would have looked like as an alternative lol.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
