22 per cent of Canadian homebuilders cancel projects amid high rates despite severe housing shortage

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Well, us Canadians are not making enough babies so, the only way to get workers and tax money is to import people

Sure, if we want positive population growth. And we do. But -there WILL be a 'goldilocks' number for immigraiton, not too many, not too few but just right.

And there's also a question of points and who gets in.

It's becoming evident that the immigration levels we have currently can't be sustained by our current level of housing builds, infrastructure and other supports. We may have to slow down for  a while till that's addressed, but trudeau is committed to the century ideas and he's increasing immigration to the point where it's breaking our systems.  And that's the conflict

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 8/18/2023 at 3:00 AM, CdnFox said:

It was your claim.  YOU were the one who said that density is key - it is up to YOU to explain why. It is not up to me to defend your position. I clearly explained why it wasn't - it's up to you to defend your claim that it was.

As to the information - You're turning into yet another disgusting left wing !diot who prefers dishonestly to discussion. What a shame. I mean the first question is answered in the article i posted for this thread. It's got lots of info on how we're doing for housing.  But you're going to pretend i didn't post anything about how we're doing for housing and ask i look it up for you. Even tho its what the thread is about. Couldn't even wait till a new thread to pretend i hadn't posted the info.

And then i've given you very specific information about what is 'unique'  - more than enough for you to do your own research in 5 seconds.  But rather than discuss the points you're going to demand i do more research for you.  And then more and more and more - we know how this game works.  You're as bad as @Moonbox,  all you left wing degenerates do the same thing and refuse to actually address the issues at hand.  Sealioning is all you care about.

Is there not a single honest left winger anymore? Are you ALL like this now?  Not one of  you cares about discussing the issues honestly?  Man, that's pathetic.

Is this some sort of avant-garde art piece satirizing trolling? You’re getting yourself all excited and that’s not good for anybody. Of course, any proper socialist would not regard me as a kindred spirit at all and in no European country would I be considered left-wing either. Only in the ‘redder’ parts of the US and few battier corners up here, e.g. the Toronto Sun readership, could I seen as relatively left-wing.

And on density, it is one well-recognized factor to be considered in the mix that will help us ease our problems. Its mention shouldn’t cause hysteria. This is a challenge all Canadians are involved in one way or the other, whether they live in large urban centres themselves or not. The more we take politics out of the discussion, the quicker the progress we will make. I’m happy to wait until this thread has cooled down and we can discuss these matters in a useful fashion. 
 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 8/18/2023 at 1:16 PM, I am Groot said:

What do you think of the population estimates for the Liberal's Century Initiative?

This includes increasing the population of megaregions. It suggests a population increase Greater Toronto Area from 8.8 to 33.5 million, the Greater Montreal region from 4.4 to 12.2 million, the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor from 2.8 to 15.5 million, the Greater Vancouver region from 3.3 to 11.9 million, the National Capital Region from 1.4 to 4.8 million, the Southwestern Ontario region from 1.2 to 2 million, and the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region from 800,000 to 1.7 million.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative#:~:text=It suggests a population increase Greater Toronto Area,Winnipeg Metropolitan Region from 800%2C000 to 1.7 million.

Let me say once again: those most negatively affected by immigration, in our country the poorer inhabitants of large cities, should have the biggest say on the numbers involved. Across the Western world, we have seen what happens when this isn’t the case. 

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Let me say once again: those most negatively affected by immigration, in our country the poorer inhabitants of large cities, should have the biggest say on the numbers involved. Across the Western world, we have seen what happens when this isn’t the case. 

Nobody cares what the poor have to say. The Liberals and NDP barely even care what blue collar workers have to say. Only  the Tories pay any attention to them.

Blue collar types, and the poor, don't have the right lingo down pat. They don't understand or even approve of intersectionality or critical race theory and disapprove of the the government giving preference to gays or visible minorities ahead of them for jobs and grants and other programs. They are our 'deplorables' because they don't approve of the progressive's obsession with identity politics and aren't willing to bow their heads in shame for the supposed crimes of their ancestors. 

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

And on density, it is one well-recognized factor to be considered in the mix that will help us ease our problems. Its mention shouldn’t cause hysteria. This is a challenge all Canadians are involved in one way or the other, whether they live in large urban centres themselves or not. The more we take politics out of the discussion, 

Don't you think that the people ought to have at least been consulted for an effort that will make such enormous changes in our society? Actually, when it was first proposed that was the 'consultation' and the people were overwhelmingly opposed to it. 

So no more consultation. They're just doing it anyway. Screw what the plebes think. 

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Well, us Canadians are not making enough babies so, the only way to get workers and tax money is to import people

If we're bringing in people to work at unskilled, low-paid jobs they're not paying any income tax. They're consuming it.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Of course, any proper socialist would not regard me as a kindred spirit at all

Hey I'm feeling like I'm in pretty good company these days. Considering how divided Canada is under Trudeau it's a little remarkable how united the forum has become under CdnFox. Who knew there were so many lefties around here? There's more converts everyday it seems.

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Don't you think that the people ought to have at least been consulted

Were indigenous people consulted when our ancestors migrated here?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Is this some sort of avant-garde art piece satirizing trolling?

 

Speaking to your mirror?

You are very clearly on the left of the political spectrum.  I understand why these days people on the left like to pretend they're not.  But you clearly are.

And like most on the left, you seem to prefer dishonest 'tricks' to honest discussion.

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

And on density, it is one well-recognized factor to be considered in the mix that will help us ease our problems.

But that's not what you said.  And it's not even true for most of Canada - we've already got pretty high poputlation density and as noted it may not be possible to do much more in that regard cost effectively.  You claim that' it's a "

And yet again - you cannot defend your position and instead spent two paragraphs in an effort to dodge around it.

Do you notice how when someone on the right takes a position, they are able and willing to defend it?

Do you notice how you did everything BUT - and spent a lot of words doing so?

Typical liberal troll.

 

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Is this some sort of avant-garde art piece satirizing trolling? 

In the past I've called his sort of carrying on "Performative Jackassery".

The problem is that I think he actually considers himself reasonable.  ?

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And like most on the left, you seem to prefer dishonest 'tricks' to honest discussion.

This has to be the most blatant example of projection in the history of the Internet.

The trick you're most famous for though is evidenced in every post you've uttered something like so what you really said or just to be clear or what you really meant.

And of course the lamest trick in the book, or schtick in your case its so frequent, rubber and glue.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

In the past I've called his sort of carrying on "Performative Jackassery".

The problem is that I think he actually considers himself reasonable.  ?

The real  problem is you consider lies to be arguments    But it is interesting that so many on the left have exactly the same tactics.

56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This has to be the most blatant example of projection in the history of the Internet.

 

This from a guy who literally changed his post and then spent forever lying about it

Sorry sparky - i tell the truth. Whereas a LOT of people here have noted you're a liar to your face. 

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This from a guy who literally changed his post and then spent forever lying about it

What post? You're forever referring to things without ever linking to them.

Another famous lame assed trick of your's.

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What post? You're forever referring to things without ever linking to them.

Another famous lame assed trick of your's.

ROFLMAO -  sure kid    You also didn't vote for trudeau right?  

You realize that the person you're trying to convince actually knows the truth right?   Seriously, what kind of shattered desperate person do you have to be  

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Were indigenous people consulted when our ancestors migrated here?

"Our" ancestors came here to explore new lands and when confronted, fought, conquered and won. Consultations seemingly failed.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

"Our" ancestors came here to explore new lands and when confronted, fought, conquered and won. Consultations seemingly failed.

Actually - with respect to canada, you're both a little off base.

The first nations WERE in fact consulted at length in Canada when "our ancestors"  (because all whiteys are the same ) arrived.

In fact the king himself declared that these should be thought of as brothers and treated well, and entered into agreements with them.  They were never conquered in Canada, and they in fact agreed to the relationship that they had. That was true even with the french areas. And for hundreds of years that actually worked well for both sides. '

So yeah - it WAS mutual. No Conquest needed.

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Actually - with respect to canada, you're both a little off base.

The first nations WERE in fact consulted at length in Canada when "our ancestors"  (because all whiteys are the same ) arrived.

In fact the king himself declared that these should be thought of as brothers and treated well, and entered into agreements with them.  They were never conquered in Canada, and they in fact agreed to the relationship that they had. That was true even with the french areas. And for hundreds of years that actually worked well for both sides. '

So yeah - it WAS mutual. No Conquest needed.

Cannot dispute or agree was not there so, OK

Yes, there were and are agreements but as the indigenous claim, they were and are not kept. Hence, they lost and they were, by definition, basically conquered.

According to todays indigenous, it never worked

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Cannot dispute or agree was not there so, OK

Well, fair enough i suppose but we DO have the signed treaties and such

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, there were and are agreements but as the indigenous claim, they were and are not kept. Hence, they lost and they were, by definition, basically conquered.

The majority of them were kept.  And if for example a tenant broke a deal with the landlord and stayed in the house unlawfully you wouldn't say they 'conquored' the house - you'd call it a legal dispute wouldn't you?

 

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

According to todays indigenous, it never worked

I know    In order to convince someone they owe you something they don't, it's often necessary to rewrite history a little  

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They were never conquered in Canada, and they in fact agreed to the relationship that they had.

Try telling that to the Haida, not to mention all the other nations who never had a chance to weigh in on things and never agreed or signed onto anything.

How typically you, not to mention typically colonialist - speaking for everyone as if what you had to say was the only thing that mattered. Like some old Pope issuing a...fatwa.

[ExFlyer]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well, fair enough i suppose but we DO have the signed treaties and such

The majority of them were kept.  And if for example a tenant broke a deal with the landlord and stayed in the house unlawfully you wouldn't say they 'conquored' the house - you'd call it a legal dispute wouldn't you?

 

I know    In order to convince someone they owe you something they don't, it's often necessary to rewrite history a little  

Yeah but, as we have seen and by the payouts the provinces and feds have had to pay, we have broken many if not most treaties...

If most were kept, then why have and are the provinces and feds paying for the broken treaties?

Re-writing history? Well that is the flavour of the past few years. It depends who get the most face time that gets to re-write history. Political correctness and avoidance wins

The indigenous are winning, big time billions of payout dollars and yet, they still claim poverty.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Try telling that to the Haida, not to mention all the other nations who never had a chance to weigh in on things and never agreed or signed onto anything.

 

BC is  a little different and didn't bother signing much. But the history is pretty clear - they were willing participants.

Remember that great haida uprising where they tried to fight back against the invaders?  Me neither.

They wanted the trade, they wanted the benefits that came with whitey being here.  And British Columbia was it's own little country - own armed forces and navy and everythning.  As to becoming part of Canada -  NONE of the british columbians were given a voice very much i'm afraid. We're all the same in that respect. 

But yeah - first nations welcomed and did business with the newcomers happily and of their own free will, and that relationship lasted hundreds of years with each helping the other. 

The nonsense spouted today is revisionist history.

[CdnFox]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Yeah but, as we have seen and by the payouts the provinces and feds have had to pay, we have broken many if not most treaties...

Many - definitely not most.

Quote

If most were kept, then why have and are the provinces and feds paying for the broken treaties?

Because some weren't, or more accurately some weren't kept well.  For example - the treaties with the first nations included a mandatory obligation to provide education. Which happened - but the res school system was NOT well managed. Promise kept but they still incurred a liability because of mishandling it.

The amount of money turned over to first nations is pretty tiny. Keeping in mind the country runs on about 400 ish billion each and every year, a few dozen million here and there is pretty small 'violations'.

 

Quote

Re-writing history? Well that is the flavour of the past few years. It depends who get the most face time that gets to re-write history. Political correctness and avoidance wins

Well you're unfortunately correct of course.

Quote

The indigenous are winning, big time billions of payout dollars and yet, they still claim poverty.

Of course they do.  First off - most of it goes to the chiefs and friends so the average first nation person IS still poor, and secondly they got the money by claiming poverty, of course they're going to continue to claim poverty   If they got the money by earning it they'd be out there earning it.   Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.  Give a man a fish, teach him to beg for life.

[SpankyMcFarland]

20 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Nobody cares what the poor have to say. The Liberals and NDP barely even care what blue collar workers have to say. Only  the Tories pay any attention to them.

Blue collar types, and the poor, don't have the right lingo down pat. They don't understand or even approve of intersectionality or critical race theory and disapprove of the the government giving preference to gays or visible minorities ahead of them for jobs and grants and other programs. They are our 'deplorables' because they don't approve of the progressive's obsession with identity politics and aren't willing to bow their heads in shame for the supposed crimes of their ancestors. 

Well, I did use the word ‘should’ there. 

[I am Groot]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

Were indigenous people consulted when our ancestors migrated here?

I imagine if it was their policy to bring people in the people of each tribe would have been consulted by their leadership.

[Dougie93]

29 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I imagine if it was their policy to bring people in the people of each tribe would have been consulted by their leadership.

when the French missionaries founded Canada on 22 June 1603

the Indigenous were in the postilion of power

they dictated terms to the French

the French meanwhile simply tried to convert the Indigenous to Christ along the way

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

BC is  a little different and didn't bother signing much. But the history is pretty clear - they were willing participants.

Remember that great haida uprising where they tried to fight back against the invaders?  Me neither.

They wanted the trade, they wanted the benefits that came with whitey being here.  And British Columbia was it's own little country - own armed forces and navy and everythning.  As to becoming part of Canada -  NONE of the british columbians were given a voice very much i'm afraid. We're all the same in that respect. 

But yeah - first nations welcomed and did business with the newcomers happily and of their own free will, and that relationship lasted hundreds of years with each helping the other. 

The nonsense spouted today is revisionist history.

Said the revisionist.

But no, when British Columbia was still British it's governors failed/neglected to secure all but a small handful of treaties their king told them to negotiate. When British Columbia became Canadian we inherited that responsibility. The rest as they say is well documented history which of course only compounded Canada's responsibilities.

It's like climate change where having to adapt is far harder and more expensive than doing what the right thing would have cost when they had the chance.