LoveCanada

Who pays for that? The taxpayer, which means a MASSIVE increase in taxes because the average house in Canada is now about 700,000.

Lets say the gov wants to buy 1000 homes in a city, thats 700,000,000. How much do you think taxes would have to go up to spend nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars for 1000 homes in a major city? If they did that in 30 Canadian cities thats 21,000,000,000.

21 TRILLION DOLLARS! Currently Canadas entire national debt (the highest in Canadas history) is 1.4 trillion. So you'd have to make it 15 times bigger to buy those houses. If everyone taxes TRIPLED we couldn't pay that off.

You think thats workable? Not a chance. And thats just for 1000 homes per city. Vancouver for example currently has about 125,000 rentals, Toronto has 550,000 rentals so 1000 is barely a drop in the bucket.

Amazing the things that one can come up with when one doesnt do the math.

So my rental basement suite, I rent out for 1200 in a major Canadian city. The house is worth 650,000. A mortgage on that house at todays interest rates would be 3650. Insurance is another 150. Property taxes are 300. So monthly fixed costs of ownership are 4100. But there's always something to fix so add on a very modest 300 a month for that and 4400 is a reasonably moderate estimate.

SO explain to me how the person who now pays 1200 a month is going to come up with more than THREE times their rent per month to buy a house. And theres no way that house is dropping so far down in value that 1200 is anywhere close to being able to buy it, even if it lost HALF its value. Give me your solution to how that would work.

Mom and pop landlords provide the cheapest rentals on the market. Our investment in rental housing is absolutely necessary in providing a place for those on the lowest budgets.

An air conditioner unit for a single room is as cheap as $140 brand new at Walmart and often used they're just $40 on marketplace. But the tenant pays the power bill. Sure I'll buy you a couple, not exactly a big deal, its your power bill.

You DO realize that if we sold all our properties that millions of people would have no place to live? Just because we put them up for sale doesnt mean a current tenant could afford to buy them. What does that mean? They would likely be snapped up by corporate property management companies. And that means rent would go UP as companies would control all the rentals and can set whatever price they wish. The existence of mom and pop landlords is what keeps prices DOWN especially if they are for basement suites.

Yes, thats a brilliant deduction. I rent safe, comfortable and most importantly AFFORDABLE suites to people like: university students, single moms, people who are just separating from their spouse, couples who just met, disabled veterans, people on a temporary work assignment, people who move every couple of years, people who dont know where they want to buy a house yet, people who would rather invest than buy a house... and NONE of them want to buy a house. But Im a 'garbage' person for giving them a good place to live. Ok then, good deduction there Sherlock.

One is enough IF he was actually part of the protest. He wasnt. There were even people in the convoy protest who offered a cash reward for his identity and no one ever found out who he was. Maybe coincidence, maybe not, but he disappeared up the steps into the hotel that the RCMP were staying at. The protesters werent staying there. So who was he?

And no ONE person in a protest does not mean you can paint the thousands of others there with the same brush. If that were true you would have noticed that there was a counter protest just a few blocks away where ONE person in the crowd was carrying a hammer and sickle flag. Does that mean that crowd support Communists? Hardly.

There was ONE guy with a Nazi flag wearing a face covering (why? The protesters were anti mask) who was jeered out of the crowd and disappeared into a hotel. He was NOT with the convoy and definitely NOT supported by the protesters.

A new generation starts when kids are born. Thats about 20 years if you average it across the world. Maybe 30 years in North America. Not 60 years.

I understand their situation very well. I used to have a home that was destroyed by a catastrophic natural event and I cant live there anymore because my home, cars and property are gone. Stuff happens. Im not looking for a scapegoat, you deal with it and move on, ESPECIALLY if its going to take 100 years to happen.

Yeah wearing pants is exactly the same as taking a shot that MAY protect you from covid (It didnt. I still got covid, so did three people in my family who were also vaccinated) or it may actually make you sicker.

Which is why the gov has accepted admissions from 2700 Canadians who were damaged by the vaccine and have already paid out 18 million in damages to them with more to come. https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics

So yeah, thats exactly like wearing pants to work.

She wasnt 'prone' to sickness til the hospital forced her to get a SARS shot after nearly 20 years there. Not her fault she got sick from it.

We’re all whores though. They wave cash in front of our faces and we beg them for it.

I got into teaching to help kids grow and learn and you think Im a whore for money? Im done with your ridiculous and completed unfounded opinions. You need help.

Major historic polluters like Canada

Huh? Even the article states Canada's contribution to GHG's is 2% which is already inflated. Most sources state its 1.3%. How does 98.7% of emissions coming from other countries, with China and the US making up more than half of that, make Canada a "major" polluter? We're obviously and empirically very MINOR polluters, we're actually within the margin of error since the calculations are all based on computer models.

And Im well aware of Canada's higher per capita rate but the environment does not measure GHG's by "per capita" rate.

One of the main lawyers represented in this court case was there to represent Tuvalu, which is a tiny string of islands in the mid Pacific. Its a tiny nation of 10,000 people on 9 miniature islands (totalling only 10 square miles) with the highest point only being 15 feet above sea level. But these people feel that a tiny and incredibly slow rise in sea level due to "climate change" is their biggest danger? How about typhoons or just a plain old sea squall? The island MAY be underwater in 100 years. Maybe.

Here's an idea - since this is "emergency" is going to take a hundred years, which is five generations from now, you Tuvaluans start packing your bags and moving say in 20 or 30 years, instead of hand wringing what MIGHT happen in five generations? Heck, take your time, and dont move for three more generations, your kids, your grandkids and your great grandkids will be fine.

Good lord, like none of us have ever moved because we no longer felt good about where we lived or it was no longer a 'safe neighborhood' Happens every day in the rest of the world, why should Tuvalu get 'compensated' five generations down the road when they could easily make EXTREMELY SLOW plans to leave in a 20, 40, 60 years from now?

Thats like watching a car come at you at walking speed from 100 miles away and screaming that you are going to want compensation when it hits your great great great grandchildren who all refuse to move from the same spot. Make it make sense. Its not an emergency when it happens at a snails pace, its just a change.

The only people truly excited about this ruling are the lawyers rubbing their greedy hands in glee at the prospect of their fees for suing the big bad oil companies for billions.