That's my view. The "Century Initiative" is being criticized for suggesting that Canada should reach 100 million by 2100. But you'd never believe it, the criticism is that this is too many people, and not many people criticise this "Iniative" as having an unambitious goal.
We tried increasing immigration recently. Most of it went to Ontario and BC, who are incapable of building housing quickly or cheaply enough to accommodate even a modest increase in demand.
The criticism of the Century Initiative is that the extra 60-80 million are going to come largely from countries like India at rates that destablize Canada while further entrenching the kind of inequality that we've seen grow over the past 15 years.
The British did this to almost 20 different colonies, with the same people groups for the same reasons.
Century Initiative obviously doesn't specify from which countries, it merely mentions skilled immigration as its primary source of growth.
However if you take a step back and wish to argue in good faith, and look at where people did come from when Trudeau decided to open the flood gates 10 years ago, you'll find that India represents roughly 40% of immigrants. I'd say that can be described as "largely", and there is no reason to believe that opening the gates even wider would change those proportions.
And if you argue in good faith, you would admit that that the past is not the future before making that argument. You would admit that Trudeau's policies are not necessarily other people's policies or policy preferences. You also would not in good faith use words like "floodgates" when speaking about human migration.
I think you are a bit confused about the world so let me help you out.
Most of Canada is difficult to live in. There are multiple geographic issues (cold/less sun). This is why a vast majority of Canadians live very close to the US border. So while Canada looks like a very large country it is in fact rather small when it comes to habitable space. You are probably not aware of how miserable the east coast is.
Next Canada is a poor country. The richest part of Canada is that part that sells the oil. The rest of Canada is poorer than the poorest US state. Canada GDP capital is not doing well. Mostly going down. Not a good trend. Food inflation etc. On top of that housing in Canada is very expensive. Canada has no ability to expand.
Canada has virtually no companies. All our companies are either banks or like mining companies. No tech and soon no manufacturing. Taxes in Canada are very high but they mostly go into a giant black hole of corruption.
Trudeau wasnt really in charge of the country. He is literally a nepobaby Carney was his adviser for years. The cabinet of Trudeau actually has some of the same people. This is continuity of the same group of elite.
Canada finds it very difficult to grow which is why all the new immigrants ended up in the large cities. These cities are poor and corrupt so they cant grow either. So everything ends up super crowded.
Now focusing on the rather silly things you have said:
" But you'd never believe it, the criticism is that this is too many people, and not many people criticise this "Iniative" as having an unambitious goal"
Were people criticizing it for lack of ambition if not then this is just a red herring. Ambition does not make a project or idea good.
"you would admit that that the past is not the future before making that argument. "
I mean all argumentation and prediction relies on looking at the past and trying to guess how the future will turn out.
In conclusion:
Try to understand the nature of the world in a more clear fashion. Look around you. Look at data. Avoid the rhetoric and the politics.
Most of that rant is not about data, it is a set of value judgments which which I do not agree. For some people the economy is everything and you're one of those people. Luckily for society not everyone is like you.
Thanks, but as I said I do not share your value judgments about what is and is not important in this matter so this data is not relevant to my consideration of the matter.
Well, now we know exactly what the biggest lie was: Ontario was laundering goods from China for cheaper imports into the U.S. for a cut. Straight up thieves.
Can you provide evidence that the Government of Ontario was laundering goods from China for imports into the U.S.A. for a cut? I'm a regular reviewer of Government of Ontario actions and finances so I would definitely want to see the inflows and outflows from this trade.
Openly lying about one's position is a typical negotiating strategy available to parties and used by both parties in the Canada-USA trade negotiations. It doesn't need to be justified. My issue is the American threats of violent annexation. That is more indicative of a shakedown.
By definition if you isolate a country from the world it would be more self sufficient that very moment than it is the moment before it is isolated. Isn't that obvious?
Agreed self-sufficiency isn't the best term.
But if I were to rephrase it, let say that self-sufficiency in terms of the quality of life - US would be in much better shape than Canada. Canada has _significantly_ much more to lose than the US.
Sure, but you don't need that hypothetical to explain that. The USA produces and consumes more goods than Canada. Overall people are resilient and able to survive such disruptions. I'd rather be sovereign and poorer than whatever kind of second-class "American" status the USA would grant us forcibly annexed Canadians. To me that's more to lose than every loonie in my bank account.
> I'd rather be sovereign and poorer than whatever kind of second-class "American" status the USA would grant us forcibly annexed Canadians
The biggest 'enemy' of Canada is not America(s). It's the Canadian govt itself. Most Canadians cave into their tribal instinct of 'us versus them' and cannot see past that own manipulative govt.
Canada has not only proportionately significantly more trade restrictions (between countries) compare to US, but it also have significant restrictions to trade and free market within Canada: example quotas on milk, dairy, beef and chicken. There are more taxes at every stage of a transaction with little benefits ( yes people mention 'free' health care but it's another subject). Relatively unaffordable housing mostly due to taxation (For example the tax part of condo in Toronto/Vancouver is cumulatively about 35%) etc.
Just to be clear both govts of US and Canada are tyrannical. Americans on an average distrust their govt more than Canadians - hence they overall do better in keeping their govt overreach in check.
True, I did watch the Americans keep their government in check when they did not attack Iraq in 2003 and when they did not attack Iran recently. They kept their government in check when they did not kill school girls in Iran. They kept their government in check when government agents did not kill US citizens protesting government overreach, not to mention all the times the American people prevented their government from killing, kidnapping, arresting, torturing and imprisoning undocumented people. I greet the bane to tyranny, these beautiful American souls, whose hearts are gladdened only by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Yeah, but export taxes are a federal responsibility. The fact that these provinces are irrelevant for the Liberals politically is those provinces' exact liability here.
If there's any way to swing the "referendum" in October in a very bad direction it would be to do this.
Right now Alberta and Saskatchewan are not suffering at all (2% of exports affected) from Trump's tariffs.
This is by design.
He (or the "smarter" people he surrounds himself with) is attempting to drive a wedge in Canadian unity.
Danielle Smith is, btw, totally onside with playing this to her advantage to get things.
Export tax, as just as it might be in these circumstances, would be used as pretext for wholesale foreign interference and domestic disruption on a level we have never seen in this country. It would end up being a profound self-own
The referendum is a hypothetical while federal power is real and spelled out in the constitution. All I hear about Alberta and Saskatchewan's leverage is that we ought to fear their willingness to invite a foreign power to dismember Canada. It certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I'm sure many Canadians are fine with a "bad no deal" if it means not negotiating with an unreliable partner that consistently engages in threatening Canada's national sovereignty.
> forcing me to go out every day and talk to human beings face to face, even just little things like making sure I was showered and dressed every day
This part is strange to me. I've worked from home for about 10 years and I've never once had an issue with twice-daily showering, meeting people face-to-face, going out for coffee, going outdoors, going to the gym, etc. The fact I can just go sit in a park, on a hiking trail, or whatever and work there is a genuine "killer app" for me. I'm surprised at people who tell me that they are isolated by home work when there are so many opportunities for social and natural connection everywhere...
There are different kinds of people, and a considerable % of folks rely on some foundational structure in their day-to-day to drive many of their other habits.
For a lot of people, that was commuting to a job outside of their home.
> I'm surprised at people who tell me that they are isolated by home work when there are so many opportunities for social and natural connection everywhere...
It begs the question of "with who"? If you have family/spouses then it makes sense. if you have a social circle it comes down to if they are also wfh and have time to meetup for lunch or whatnot. Which is iffy these days. If you have no one... well, you don't have anyone taking you away from the computer and are tempted to just stay at your workstation. Nothing else is waiting for you.
I'm lucky that I can do something that aligns with how I like to live and work. I guess my question to you is why you don't seek to return to the office yourself? I might not understand the attraction of the commute but "different strokes for different folks" is like a bedrock of western society.
neighbors farther along in life than I. Story of my life, pretty much. I'm in an awkward gernation of being some 10 years older than a lot of other kidsa my parents were friends with. But still 15 ish years behind the parent generation with everyone having kids and families to tend to. And that's before getting into shared interests like tech or art or whatnot, which further filters out potential friends.
I dunno. Maybe this is simply the issues of a suburb where I'm clearly not at the heart of some urban sprawl.
I'm a male and was miserable + depressed for quite a while. I decided to seek therapy and experiences I wanted to, well, experience.
It has nothing to do with males "not opening up," I talk to a lot of men and no one has issues sharing their emotions because we are all healthy humans and understand that life is a struggle but with social relationships it becomes bearable.
You aren't opening up at all, you're actually closing in and refusing to do anything to better yourself or seek professional therapy.
Therapy takes money, I've been short on money the last few years. It is not for the lack of trying that I do not open up to professionals.
And yes, I feel it is opening up to say how I "don't belong" because I'm in this awkward age group of "too old for childhood friends". That's not something I share in my personal life. So hear it dismissed with "well you just want to be miserable, screw off" sure is motivating, right?
But I guess this is America. If I don't have money to fix my problems, I'm not worth acknowledging.
>we are all healthy humans and understand that life is a struggle but with social relationships it becomes bearable.
I mean in which lucky place of the planet you live in? I dunno u but where I live it's 40 degree celsius out there and all over europe. I'm a remote worker and most time of the year going outside is just not possibile, over heat or too cold or raining like it never did before(climate change you know)
I’m don’t know how to say this, but if you’re claiming that there’s a place anywhere in Europe where going outside is “not possible” for more than a handful of days of the year (like extreme heatwaves), you definitely have some kind of problem that other people don’t have. And I mean it, it isn’t normal to be this scared of going outside.
In Canada - and it does get cold here, and hot here. You can't work outside every single day, but you also do not have to stay at home or indoors every single day. I lean toward being outdoors for as much as possible of the year. There's no perfection about it.
There is a lot of research that spending time in nature, even if the nature is not ideal (bare trees, winter, bad weather, too hot), has measurable impacts on human cognition, memory, and similar mental benefits. It's not even correlated with mood improvements: even if you return indoors more miserable than you left due to the weather, you still measurably mentally benefit from spending time in nature.
Find some shade and don't stress it Europal! (I hate climate change too.)
Not the person you're replying to, but this is genuinely the killer feature of the UK. Yes, we get heat waves and more of them now, but it's much better than mainland Europe. Especially if you stay away from London (which I would recommend).
The previous poster doesn’t realize he is part of the problem. He wants everyone to go back to the office so that he can see people face to face again and have the social pressure to wash himself. Makes you wonder why no one wants to be his friend?
If you are ever in a situation where you are alone and no person works for you, realize you are most likely the problem. It took me a while to figure it out and it’s hard to make friends that you resonate and align with. But there are billions of people around the world and unless you live in a small village, there are always people looking to strike a conversation; and some of those will make good/reliable friends.
If you claim that something only moves in one direction, then one counterexample is enough to invalidate that claim. If you say in 99.999% of cases something only moves in one direction, then that claim can be invalidated by showing that either more or less of cases result as claimed... Isn't that straightforward thinking?
I seriously doubt that 99.999% of all toll roads are "ratchets" that only move in one direction, i.e. have never had the tolls lowered or removed, only increased. Examples of tolls being lowered and removed are also not extreme outliers it's one of the possible directions in which a toll's price can move and everyone and their aunt, but maybe not their dad, knows that.
