I’m surprised it’s only 38%, that seems too low honestly.

We should increase student loan forgiveness for all medical professionals across Canada, we need them everywhere.

You can also use something like handbrake to convert everything to 264 instead of redownloading everything. You can also set it up to convert after items are downloaded.

Sounds exhausting.

Imagine the poor bastard who gets arrested for their washing machine ddos’ing people.

Seems like they be putting salmonella in everything these days.

Best we can do is a behemoth truck that doesn’t fit in spots and costs a first born child.

The hard part is actually catching the lightning, it’s very fast. God bless those speedy electricians.

I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.

Good point, for certain individuals a personal vehicle is a must, like a tradesperson. You can’t expect a HVAC tech to carry a new heat pump on the train. However, cars should be seen as a luxury that they are, and taxed more to reflect that. This is assuming we start investing into public transportation and make cities walkable.

Ideally, most people wouldn’t need to use a vehicle at all, or could rent one for the times they do need one. You could have a tiered system too, where if you live in a rural or small town where a vehicle is still necessary nothing would change. If you lived in a small or medium city and had a car (outside of job requirements) you paid a small yearly tax. If you lived in a major city and had a car you pay a luxury tax.

That’s a good idea. What if instead of one self driving car for each person, you had a larger self driving vehicle that picked up lots of people? You could put it on a set route so you know which car to catch a ride with, and you can even dedicate specific sections of the road for these vehicles. Heck, you could even have that set route go underground, or above ground.

…and we’ve just reinvented public transportation.

If you actually travel to and experience a city with great public transportation it’s mind boggling the nonsense we deal with in car centric cities. It’s just so inefficient having every person in their own individual vehicle. So must space is wasted on highways, parking lots, parking garages, etc.

Figures from the Insurance Bureau of Canada show the costs of catastrophes in Canada have been markedly rising, from an average of $440 million each year between 1983 and 2000 to $2.3 billion annually between 2011 and 2020.

If we took the increase in costs and charged oil and gas companies the difference, we would have funding for the program right there. Right now every company gets to enjoy the profits from ruining our planet, they should also share the expenses from doing so.

Also, this article doesn’t actually talk about what the adaptations are. How do you prevent the lack of snow all winter causing extreme dry conditions during the summer? How do you stop massive floods when the ground is so dry whenever it does rain it all runs off?

I simply don’t understand people not taking climate change seriously. Especially when half the lakes don’t even have ice in them at all!

Copied from my comment above:

"to run some numbers, BC currently has 5,000,879 out of Canada’s 36,991,981 or 13.5% of the population. If that proportion continues over the next decade, BC will see an approximate increase of 600,750 out of 4,450,000 people based off of this plan (assuming the grown maintains its linear growth). If you divide 600,750 people by 293,000 new units you get 2.05 people per unit, therefore if the people immigrating are bringing their family and living more than 2 people per unit you will see a net surplus of housing, but single people will see a net loss or break even of housing.

All of this is to say, it appears they have planned to create enough housing for the people projected to come here, but not a substantial amount to increase the overall supply. It would appear it will maintain the status quo."

If they build all the housing they plan to, they will roughly keep pace with immigration. Therefore nothing will change for the better, or our current housing crisis will remain constant.

That is assuming they follow through with the promise to build that much.

Here is the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration which talks about why immigration is important, but doesn’t mention plans on how to support the people coming here. It focuses on the financial benefits (a large section of it being international students, which only 1.4% of the “827,586 international students [that] held valid study permits in Canada” were given permanent residence.) and demographics of immigrants.

You touch on a point inadvertently about what makes immigration so beneficial is that the workers can start working as soon as they arrive. Or at least, as soon as their qualifications are transferred over (for example nursing). Which is far quicker than having someone born in Canada and waiting 20 odd years til they enter the workforce.

So, theoretically, the new people can help build homes, hospitals, schools, etc for the other people who need it, and then the new new people will build for the new people, and etc. There just doesn’t seem to be much planning going into it besides bring people in to make numbers go up. Also, major infrastructure works take years, so they’ll never be able to keep up.

To play devil’s advocate here, surely the issue isn’t the fact of immigration but the amount happening each year that is worrying? They’re adding 0.6 Winnipegs per year of people without, you know, adding any cities, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etc to handle the influx. If people can’t find a home now, how does adding more people solve that issue?

Edit: to clarify, I have no issue with immigration or immigrants, Canada’s history is all about immigration. Just questioning the rate per year without additional work going into upgrading current infrastructure.

2nd edit: to run some numbers, BC currently has 5,000,879 out of Canada’s 36,991,981 or 13.5% of the population. If that proportion continues over the next decade, BC will see an approximate increase of 600,750 out of 4,450,000 people based of of this plan (assuming the grown maintains its linear growth). If you divide 600,750 people by 293,000 new units you get 2.05 people per unit, therefore if the people immigrating are bringing their family and living more than 2 people per unit you will see a net surplus of housing, but single people will see a net loss or break even of housing.

All of this is to say, it appears they have planned to create enough housing for the people projected to come here, but not a substantial amount to increase the overall supply. It would appear it will maintain the status quo.

Good thing we have that election reform right? Right?