I do like that, out of four promises he makes when he will be PM, three are already things that exist (but without the "Mosleems are evil" spin he adds on them) and one is a contradiction in terms.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
If they want to talk about terror, I wonder why they're not talking about the most recent high profile terror incident in Canada?
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
Deepak Obhrai !
Hindu, long time conservative from Calgary and not a fucking loon.
Right now the liberals have zero serious opposition and that needs to stop.
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
One very meaningful area that I think the Conservatives could do a good job with would be overhauling the military procurement process. It has been a shamble for decades and is probably one of the biggest examples of sheer waste (through things like penalties on cancelled contracts) and government inefficiency - for instance, the CF Small Pack Load Carriage System (pictured in spoiler) took 12 years to procure, and that's an item that has a large number of comparable existing commercial off the shelf products.
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
We should totally be upping our military spending. Some of our branches are working with obsolete equipment that's bordering on dangerous. We will never be a country (hopefully) that needs to defend our borders but even just keeping our NATO obligations is going to get harder and harder if we don't invest on newer/better equipment.
If we are going to ask people to become soldiers and put their lives on the line for the rest of us the least we can do is insure they have all they need to do the job and come home in one piece.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+4
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
I mean he mentions upping spending on JTF2, which is military/special ops. I'm not really sure what these guys will do, unless there's some sort of "Kill Osama Bin Laden" mission that we need to go on, but it's definitely a promise to use force against the evil muslims regardless.
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
I mean he mentions upping spending on JTF2, which is military/special ops. I'm not really sure what these guys will do, unless there's some sort of "Kill Osama Bin Laden" mission that we need to go on, but it's definitely a promise to use force against the evil muslims regardless.
"Furthermore, a Canadian government under my leadership would make full use of the Canadian Elite Special Forces (JTF2) to protect Canadians at home and abroad."
He doesn't mention increased spending at all, just using the same resource more often to achieve better results.
Also, I'm not 100% clear on this, JTF2 being a military unit isn't really authorized to conduct domestic operations outside of aiding civil authorities. Domestic threats are entirely the RCMP's job.
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
I mean he mentions upping spending on JTF2, which is military/special ops. I'm not really sure what these guys will do, unless there's some sort of "Kill Osama Bin Laden" mission that we need to go on, but it's definitely a promise to use force against the evil muslims regardless.
JTF2 is our version of special forces. They do all the black op/ bananas stuff. They are who you call in when you need a scalpel not a broadsword.
They are and always will be a very specialized tool. You don't send these guys on regular patrols or even take part of regular military ops.
After defending residential schools the other week because she felt that the good points about them were being overlooked (which, again, what the actual fuck?), Senator Lynn Beyak is doubling down.
Her main excuse seems to be that she can't be horribly racist because she's met indigenous people before.
In a statement, she brings up, "... an era of fake news and exaggeration", because the media had the nerve to ... quote a speech she gave with full context. Because you know, why else would people possibly be upset about her defending residential schools?
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
I mean he mentions upping spending on JTF2, which is military/special ops. I'm not really sure what these guys will do, unless there's some sort of "Kill Osama Bin Laden" mission that we need to go on, but it's definitely a promise to use force against the evil muslims regardless.
JTF2 is our version of special forces. They do all the black op/ bananas stuff. They are who you call in when you need a scalpel not a broadsword.
They are and always will be a very specialized tool. You don't send these guys on regular patrols or even take part of regular military ops.
They are also very good at their jobs. Like one of the top special forces groups in the world and highly respected. And nobody knows who the fuck you are talking about if you mention them because unless you are really into that shit, nobody ever says anything about them.
I wonder what the strategy here is. Surely apologising and walking it back would pay more dividends than doubling down. I mean I guess she's a Senator, so she doesn't have to ever care about finding another job, but seriously, who is this performance for?
I wonder what the strategy here is. Surely apologising and walking it back would pay more dividends than doubling down. I mean I guess she's a Senator, so she doesn't have to ever care about finding another job, but seriously, who is this performance for?
Just spit balling, but a lot of senators owe their position to their ability to fund raise for their party. The Conservatives are currently soliciting donations and, as I've been posting, a lot of what they're saying is intended for the red meat party members.
Of course, it's also distinctly possible that there's nothing beyond "I'm a senator and if you don't like it, feel free to lick my logcutter".
Between him and Leitch the conservative leadership candidates are going full on coo coo for cocoa puffs. Nobody of any political importance is saying that Canada should follow Sharia Law, and yet they're super busy stoking fears that exactly this is happening...somehow?
FEAR MUSLIMS AND THEIR SHARIA LAW!
ONLY I(WE) WILL PROTECT YOU BY TARGETTING MUSLIMS WITH OUR POLICIES AND BY BEEFING UP OUR MILITARY AND SURVEILLANCE!
MANY POLITICIANS WOULD RATHER TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND AVOID THE SUBJECT.
God dammit, people. Instead of trying to scare everyone who doesn't know any better, maybe we could work on understanding each other and promoting a fair and tolerant society that doesn't demonize anyone and has rational discourse?
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
I mean he mentions upping spending on JTF2, which is military/special ops. I'm not really sure what these guys will do, unless there's some sort of "Kill Osama Bin Laden" mission that we need to go on, but it's definitely a promise to use force against the evil muslims regardless.
JTF2 is our version of special forces. They do all the black op/ bananas stuff. They are who you call in when you need a scalpel not a broadsword.
They are and always will be a very specialized tool. You don't send these guys on regular patrols or even take part of regular military ops.
They are also very good at their jobs. Like one of the top special forces groups in the world and highly respected. And nobody knows who the fuck you are talking about if you mention them because unless you are really into that shit, nobody ever says anything about them.
Which is actually how they want things to be. IIRC, initially, the fact that JTF2 was a special force unit was classified.
+4
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I wonder what the strategy here is. Surely apologising and walking it back would pay more dividends than doubling down. I mean I guess she's a Senator, so she doesn't have to ever care about finding another job, but seriously, who is this performance for?
Kenora is weird. Were she an elected politician, it'd likely be a play to her riding/constituency, but she's not, so it's unclear.
It's hard to gauge the extent to which there's any strategy involved, as she was one of 5 Harper appointments to the Senate of that particular batch, and of them, the least politically active. She had all of two runs as the Provincial Progressive Conservative Candidate in the 1990s, which never went anywhere.
I wonder what the strategy here is. Surely apologising and walking it back would pay more dividends than doubling down. I mean I guess she's a Senator, so she doesn't have to ever care about finding another job, but seriously, who is this performance for?
For her own ego and fragile sense of self-righteous moral superiority and to cover up her hateful prejudices under the thinnest banner of political justification?
+2
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I wonder what the strategy here is. Surely apologising and walking it back would pay more dividends than doubling down. I mean I guess she's a Senator, so she doesn't have to ever care about finding another job, but seriously, who is this performance for?
So, since she has no public profile that I can find in terms of speaking to the media (which of itself might be nothing since she's a Senator and not a sitting elected politician), instead I looked at her questions in committees, which helpfully does have a record at the Senate's own archive. I'm including below snippets of direct quotes of questions she posed, so the spoilers will contain a lot of reading.
Before her speech on March 7th in the Senate proper, she brought up these questions on January 31st, 2017 in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (she's a member of the committee):
Senator Beyak: Thank you for an excellent presentation. It was very informative for us. I travel a lot in the United States, as I'm sure everyone does, and I have visited museums of Native history. They seem to be living in harmony there, but could you tell me if that relationship between the government and First Nations is working or if there's another model anywhere in the world that we could emulate a bit instead of reinventing or trying to reinvent the wheel.
Senator Beyak: This is not meant to be a controversial question at all; I'm just curious with your expertise. Many years ago I voted for Pierre Elliott Trudeau because of his white paper for First Nations. I had personal interests at the time, and still do, family members, and I thought it was perfect.
You can fill me in a little bit better on the history of it, but it was something like trade your status card for a Canadian citizenship — a one-time payout at that time of about $500,000 per Native — and you became a Canadian, pursued your culture and your interests, your beadwork, your language, on your own dime and your own time, and we all became Canadians together. The people loved it, the First Nations people. What they called “the Indian industry” didn't — the chiefs, the band councils, the people who were in charge.
Trudeau caved about six months into it and didn't do it, but it seems as though Justin — we had a lady here, Pam Palmater, talking to us about how they're trying to assimilate Natives by not registering them properly and through 6(1) or 6(2).
Mr. Miller: Bill C-31.
Senator Beyak: Yes. I wondered if you had any comments on that. It did seem like a very good idea at the time, for us all to be Canadians together. The best of intentions were in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They didn't mean to hurt anybody. The fathers and sons and family members of the nuns and priests, to this day, have to bear the reputation as well, and nobody meant to hurt anybody. The little smiles in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are real, the clothes are clean and the meals are good. There were many people who came from residential schools with good training and good language skills, and of course there were the atrocities as well.
Do you have some thoughts on whether something like that could work today? Do you think Justin Trudeau is going down that path, and is it possible to pay out — now it would be millions of dollars per Native — and we all become Canadians together, to settle all the treaty rights?
Mr. Miller: The major defect in the white paper of 1969 to which you refer was the process that produced it. There was a series of consultations, so-called, that went on between First Nations and other indigenous leaders and government officials for several years leading up to 1969. When the policy statement emerged in June of 1969, it reflected none of those consultations. What it reflected was the philosophy and approach of the Prime Minister, a highly individualist, anti-nationalist ideology. Nothing wrong with it.
I was a young man then. I was supportive not of the white paper specifically but of Trudeau's general approach at the time. But the problem was that it was enormously disrespectful to indigenous peoples. They reacted and their leadership reacted, and it was a united reaction right across the country in opposition to it. Therefore, Trudeau and Chrétien, the then minister, backed off and suspended the white paper.
I don't think anything like that, either in terms of process or substance, is in the cards for the immediate future — at least I hope not.
Senator Beyak: Well, the Native people still talk to me about it, the ordinary folks on the ground who just want to go to the mall, get their nails done, get their hair done, live in peace and prosperity. They are tired of the bickering. They are tired of everybody speaking for them. They'd like to have a national referendum, Native to Native — where do you want to live, what do you want to do, how do you want to move forward — instead of all these groups that supposedly speak for them, but they don't feel that they do speak for them. I'd love to speak to individual Natives across the country and see how they really feel.
Senator Beyak: I don't think I've ever asked three questions in all the time I've been on this committee, but it's so nice to have a historian here. Thank you.
I was interested in what you said about the residential schools and the book that you wrote. Again, I have testimonials from many people. I live in a riding that has 52 First Nations around us in our catchment area, and I have many friends there, and they have sent me testimonials about many good experiences. The best example is the playwright Tomson Highway, who credits his success to going to residential school. He acknowledges the atrocities but says there were good people doing good things, who taught him language and how to play the piano. I wonder if you could tell me a little bit more about that side of it.
I was disappointed in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report in that it didn't focus on the good. The people I talk to are Christians. They belong to Spirit Alive, a group in Saskatchewan, and Tribal Trails. They look through the windshield rather than the rearview mirror. They want to move ahead in positivity and happiness and not focus always on the past. Do you hear anything like that, or did you do that kind of research for your book?
Go back a bit further to May 11, 2016, on the same committee, but studying a different report relating to a Study on best practices and on-going challenges relating to housing in First Nation and Inuit communities in Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut and the Northwest Territories:
Senator Beyak: Thank you again. I live in northwestern Ontario. There are 52 Aboriginal communities around me, and the most successful ones are Spirit Alive out of Saskatchewan and Tribal Trails in Thunder Bay. They're Christian ministries. They have dry reserves, no alcohol, no drugs.
You mentioned that the kids don't want to go home to their parents who are drunk, and I wondered how much of a problem that is for you and if there's anything we can put into our recommendations that would help there as well.
Then a few years back (because one of the few online news articles I could find that talked about her was in relation to a letter to the editor chastising Beyak for her questioning on a committee regarding Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act), on October 27, 2014 on the Standing Committee on National Security & Defense, in relation to security threats facing Canada:
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much, gentlemen. You have our admiration, respect and gratitude. Like Senator Stewart Olsen, all weekend I heard from constituents that we live in a great nation, and they want to keep it that way and do their part to do what they can as well.
I have a three-part question about the 93 travellers. People wonder how many of them, if all or a majority, are what are commonly internationally known as radical Islamic jihadist extremists. If that is the case, how often are they travelling? How are they getting back? Do we need more tools to prevent them from coming back? Is this war more than a criminal court due process thing?
Senator Beyak: I don't mean this question to sound critical in any way. I want an understanding of something I don't know.
I worked for the last five years with very moderate Muslims in the United States and Canada. I don't think I can say their names, but I was a little appalled and glad that you repudiated the handbook, United Against Terrorism, but there were some pretty radical Muslim groups that were part of that book, and I wondered how we were associated with them and why. I'm glad that you repudiated it. If you're going to take a stand, would you explain a little bit why you were associating in the first place with them?
As I said, I don't mean to be critical. I just didn't like the book at all.
Senator Beyak: Canadians are tolerant, welcoming, open-minded and flexible, and I've worked for years, since 2008, with moderate Muslim groups and Muslims in Canada and the United States. But there is a concern amongst Canadians about the term ''radical Islamists.'' And the RCMP said that 93 of their travellers, the vast majority, are associated with what is commonly known internationally as the radical jihadist Islamist State, ISIS. Could you tell me how many individuals you follow who are radicalized and what your concerns are, and if you have the tools to do it effectively?
And finally November 3, 2014 on the same committee regarding security threats facing Canada, which I'll highlight if only because it struck me more than anything else:
Senator Beyak: Thank you, gentlemen. We've heard from groups over the last weeks, before the attack occurred last week, and I think Canadians watching this broadcast are very respectful of everybody's positions and limitations. No matter what Canadians' education — and a third have university, a third have trade school or college and a third have grade 12 or less — they don't want to hear us talk. They don't want a thousand reasons why we can't solve this problem. They want us to put our collective heads together and find a way to protect the rights of 35 million Canadians instead of the rights of 90, 93 or 130 individuals.
How do you propose we do that together as parliamentarians, bureaucrats and governments? There has to be a better way for Canadians than to just listen to us talk as the problem gets worse.
Essentially, what I get from her past record of questioning and areas of interest, is that she is highly influenced by her Christian faith. This is directly referenced again and again in her questions regarding Aborginal issues in general, and subsequently her speech in the chamber with respect to Residential Schools in which she started off by highlighting, in her mind, how the negative aspects of the Residential School system overshadowed the positive aspects that came from it (which she tries to highlight by bringing up a testimonial reflection from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission). You also see it in her repeated fixation on "radical islamism" in the context of terrorism as well as her thematic focus of Canadian society versus the threat of radicalized Islam she focuses on in contrast.
( You can also listen to her full speech on the Senate floor that prompted the original CBC article here (timestamp approximately beginning at ~18:33:20). )
Really all you need to know about her is she's someone who uses a phrase like "and of course there were the atrocities as well"
As if atrocities are some footnote in an argument.
This lady is supremely offensive and he stance seems to be "well, we had to kill a few Indians to make some good old stock Canadians like me, that's the price you pay."
Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
Holy cow, Aegis. First of all, thanks for doing that digging, those remarks are enormously insightful. Secondly, JFC, how is this a person that has any sort of oversight or position in relation to First Nations affairs. Apparently the chair of the committee has been getting an inordinate number of calls and e-mails calling for her removal. Perhaps I'll reach out as well.
Holy cow, Aegis. First of all, thanks for doing that digging, those remarks are enormously insightful. Secondly, JFC, how is this a person that has any sort of oversight or position in relation to First Nations affairs. Apparently the chair of the committee has been getting an inordinate number of calls and e-mails calling for her removal. Perhaps I'll reach out as well.
If you could share how to go about this that'd be appreciated as well. Here or in pm.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
You can go to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples Senate page, then scroll down a bit for Chair Lillian Eva Dyck's own page, which lists governmental phone, email, website, and fax contact info.
One very meaningful area that I think the Conservatives could do a good job with would be overhauling the military procurement process.
They just had 9 years in power to do so and didn't, so probably not a priority for them.
I legitimately do not know why military procurement is such a clusterfuck for Canada in general. It is a bipartisan problem, we don't have a military-industrial complex, and we certainly don't have an imperialist hegemony to sustain with advanced technology.
I mean, it's gotta be the Americans, right? At least in part? E.g. thinking back to the Avro Arrow, cancelled by Diefenbaker (PC) to buy some shitty US missiles?
One very meaningful area that I think the Conservatives could do a good job with would be overhauling the military procurement process.
They just had 9 years in power to do so and didn't, so probably not a priority for them.
I legitimately do not know why military procurement is such a clusterfuck for Canada in general. It is a bipartisan problem, we don't have a military-industrial complex, and we certainly don't have an imperialist hegemony to sustain with advanced technology.
I mean, it's gotta be the Americans, right? At least in part? E.g. thinking back to the Avro Arrow, cancelled by Diefenbaker (PC) to buy some shitty US missiles?
I remember watching the Avro Arrow miniseries in high school.
The problem (and this is a bipartisan problem, as mentioned), is that we spend our money on things we really don't need. 'Let's buy some expensive fighters!' we shout triumphantly, as our transport helicopters continue to turn into death traps.
Everyone I know who's in the military just wants the government to spend on the things that actually help them out in the missions they're likely to undertake.
One very meaningful area that I think the Conservatives could do a good job with would be overhauling the military procurement process.
They just had 9 years in power to do so and didn't, so probably not a priority for them.
I legitimately do not know why military procurement is such a clusterfuck for Canada in general. It is a bipartisan problem, we don't have a military-industrial complex, and we certainly don't have an imperialist hegemony to sustain with advanced technology.
I mean, it's gotta be the Americans, right? At least in part? E.g. thinking back to the Avro Arrow, cancelled by Diefenbaker (PC) to buy some shitty US missiles?
Politicians don't care about it because the public doesn't care about it.
Very few people who aren't involved with the Canadian military spend any time thinking about it in my experience.
Investing in it's not likely to get you a ton of votes, so why even bother?
One very meaningful area that I think the Conservatives could do a good job with would be overhauling the military procurement process.
They just had 9 years in power to do so and didn't, so probably not a priority for them.
Certainly wasn't under Harper, for all of his bluster about supporting the troops. He's the one responsible for getting us to the shitty funding position the Canadian Forces are currently in.
Military procurement, and general procurement through the fed is challenging and no one party is solely responsible for that mess. Our biggest issues is probably proximity to the US Military Industrial Complex and the close relations we have with the US Army wagging the dog a bit on can collaborate with their systems. F-35 mess is a probably the worst example of a procurement but everything from ship-building to sidearms has been a farce.
Wanted to point people this way and post this little gem from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toronto-housing-bmo-td-1.4028032 - I know that home owners are counting on the equity built into the homes they own, but the info-graphic at the mid point of this article is insane, 225k/year family salary, saved 100k for a down payment and still 200k short of being able to buy the average detached home. TD has taken a bit of a shit-canning this week, but I think their financial analysis part is still decent.
I haven't heard news from the Vancouver real-estate rodeo recently, have rules enacted provincially made any headway or have they just kicked the problem down the road?
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a made-in-Canada military procurement policy would be a boost to our manufacturing industry, our high-tech industry, and our R&D sector, all while doing something real and concrete to "support our troops" and finally reaching our NATO spending commitment.
One very meaningful area that I think the Conservatives could do a good job with would be overhauling the military procurement process.
They just had 9 years in power to do so and didn't, so probably not a priority for them.
I legitimately do not know why military procurement is such a clusterfuck for Canada in general. It is a bipartisan problem, we don't have a military-industrial complex, and we certainly don't have an imperialist hegemony to sustain with advanced technology.
I mean, it's gotta be the Americans, right? At least in part? E.g. thinking back to the Avro Arrow, cancelled by Diefenbaker (PC) to buy some shitty US missiles?
We kind of do have a military-industrial complex, just not on the level of the US (obviously). We're the world's 14th largest arms exporter, to the tune of about $320 million annually. We spend about $20 billion on defence, but only a fraction of that is on procurement. That's one of the procurement problems - it is much more lucrative (and much simpler) for Canadian arms companies to fulfil foreign contracts than it is to go after domestic contracts. There's also a mismatch between the stuff that we export (armoured vehicles, small arms, etc) and the actual needs of the Canadian Forces.
There are also inherent political issues associated with procurement. The Canadian government generally tries to spread spending around the country, while the suppliers of military equipment are generally concentrated in Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. You then also get into political snafus, like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (responsible for the Coast Guard) having to recuse himself from decisions around procurement of new vessels because one of the primary bidders is Irving Shipbuilding (and the minister has pre-existing ties to the Irvings).
This is further complicated by the fact that as soon as procurement gets beyond the average life span of a government (and our system does) you then run into the problem of changing priorities and cancelled contracts.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a made-in-Canada military procurement policy would be a boost to our manufacturing industry, our high-tech industry, and our R&D sector, all while doing something real and concrete to "support our troops" and finally reaching our NATO spending commitment.
This runs into trouble when trying to do everything in house. In particular, building the "big ticket" items like ships and aircraft presents a challenge because, even with more robust spending, we don't really require enough frigates or fighter aircraft to support their manufacture as a going concern. Basically, such a company always needs to be producing or servicing something. Even the U.S., with their monumental spending, requires an export market to keep some of their armaments industry afloat. Trying to do everything ourselves requires that we become a nation of arms exporters (more so than we already are) and compete with some our major allies (an potentially arm their opponents), build up more equipment than we need, or otherwise subsidise these industries.
This isn't to say we shouldn't do things in house, but what makes more sense is to do one thing really well (sort of what was attempted with the Arrow - Canada built a massive military aircraft industry during World War II and afterward we either needed to produce new aircraft to keep the industry relevant or let it collapse) and accept that we will import other systems from our allies.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a made-in-Canada military procurement policy would be a boost to our manufacturing industry, our high-tech industry, and our R&D sector, all while doing something real and concrete to "support our troops" and finally reaching our NATO spending commitment.
This also goes against pretty much all of NAFTA also fyi.
America would flip if we told them we were not buying their guns anymore.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a made-in-Canada military procurement policy would be a boost to our manufacturing industry, our high-tech industry, and our R&D sector, all while doing something real and concrete to "support our troops" and finally reaching our NATO spending commitment.
This also goes against pretty much all of NAFTA also fyi.
America would flip if we told them we were not buying their guns anymore.
Don't most of the actual small arms in use by the Canadian Forces come from Colt Canada? Mind you, that's a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. company anyway.
Military procurement, and general procurement through the fed is challenging and no one party is solely responsible for that mess. Our biggest issues is probably proximity to the US Military Industrial Complex and the close relations we have with the US Army wagging the dog a bit on can collaborate with their systems. F-35 mess is a probably the worst example of a procurement but everything from ship-building to sidearms has been a farce.
Wanted to point people this way and post this little gem from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toronto-housing-bmo-td-1.4028032 - I know that home owners are counting on the equity built into the homes they own, but the info-graphic at the mid point of this article is insane, 225k/year family salary, saved 100k for a down payment and still 200k short of being able to buy the average detached home. TD has taken a bit of a shit-canning this week, but I think their financial analysis part is still decent.
I haven't heard news from the Vancouver real-estate rodeo recently, have rules enacted provincially made any headway or have they just kicked the problem down the road?
I haven't seen detailed analysis of the effect of the foreign buyers tax on Vancouver real estate but I have heard that it cooled the price increases somewhat. Although... I have also heard that it shifted things over to the Toronto area more, causing prices in the GTA to increase even more.
The GTA is out of control. Totally out of control. The Ontario government really needs to address the issue.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a made-in-Canada military procurement policy would be a boost to our manufacturing industry, our high-tech industry, and our R&D sector, all while doing something real and concrete to "support our troops" and finally reaching our NATO spending commitment.
This also goes against pretty much all of NAFTA also fyi.
America would flip if we told them we were not buying their guns anymore.
Don't most of the actual small arms in use by the Canadian Forces come from Colt Canada? Mind you, that's a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. company anyway.
I've talked about it a few times in chat, but let's talk about the Toronto housing market for a second.
So we bought a house last year in the area. This isn't our situation exactly, but I think it's illustrative of the problem here. Imagine you are a couple, no debt, making exactly 6 figures, with the standard down payment available. You are looking for a 3 bedroom house. You will take a townhouse easily (ie - the cheapest kind of house). 2015 this would mean you were priced out of basically any community closer then 45 minutes from the border of Toronto. Literally you just couldn't move closer then that and at that distance houses will be snapped up literally within hours. If a house lasts more then 24 hours, it's because the owners are holding off on offers to start a bidding war. That's the market as it exists.
Then this year, just a few weeks ago, our neighbour sold her house. Literally identical to ours. We didn't even get to snoop during the open house because it sold within a day on a bully offer. For over asking. By a lot. The price she sold at compared to the price we paid only a year earlier for a literally (and I mean literally) identical house? ~50% more. We were fucking blown away.
The market is insane. It's always been fucking pricey but it's been going up by in crazy ways for several years now and this last year in particular, judging from some browsing of MLS listings, has been like twice as crazy as usual.
Though interestingly it seems to depend on the house size. I feel like it's the low end that's really getting insane, at least in my area. The larger houses have gone up in price but it's the smaller houses that went up insane amounts. I wonder if it's just people being priced out or something.
But part of it may be one of the big things I've noticed that I think, at least personally, is a major source of the current problem: there are no starter homes. They don't build them. They barely exist in a lot of areas and anywhere new houses are being built they don't seem to exist either. Builders only care about making a buck and big houses are more profitable per land area. And they aren't just not building them but in the city and such they are actively being destroyed. Older smaller homes are bought and virtually always torn down and replaced with a newer, larger home because the location is way more valuable then the building itself. I think this skews prices upwards by increasing the average size of the home in the area and by forcing people who do want a small new house to bid each other up to get them. And so young families looking for a first home have a ton of difficulty finding anything.
It can't be good for demographics and such either. Young people are essentially being priced out of the city and the nearby areas all together. Nobody I know can afford to move anywhere near the city when they want to buy. Most of the sales in the city around the neighbourhoods I know people in go to older (40+) upper middle class established families.
Posts
Deepak Obhrai !
Hindu, long time conservative from Calgary and not a fucking loon.
Right now the liberals have zero serious opposition and that needs to stop.
The problem is he doesn't once mention beefing up the military, just using one resource to counter an asymmetric and often quite nebulous threat. Forming a CSIS/RCMP joint operations unit is one thing, but they're limited to domestic operations, which seems kind of pointless in combating this threat.
I'm all for increased defense spending, we are currently spending half of what we promised our NATO allies we would spend. A lot of Canada's equipment is aged in comparison to other similar sized countries, or even smaller countries. I know most people don't take defense spending seriously, but it is one of those things that Canada has historically ignored when at peace and payed drastically for when war broke out.
One very meaningful area that I think the Conservatives could do a good job with would be overhauling the military procurement process. It has been a shamble for decades and is probably one of the biggest examples of sheer waste (through things like penalties on cancelled contracts) and government inefficiency - for instance, the CF Small Pack Load Carriage System (pictured in spoiler) took 12 years to procure, and that's an item that has a large number of comparable existing commercial off the shelf products.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
We should totally be upping our military spending. Some of our branches are working with obsolete equipment that's bordering on dangerous. We will never be a country (hopefully) that needs to defend our borders but even just keeping our NATO obligations is going to get harder and harder if we don't invest on newer/better equipment.
If we are going to ask people to become soldiers and put their lives on the line for the rest of us the least we can do is insure they have all they need to do the job and come home in one piece.
I mean he mentions upping spending on JTF2, which is military/special ops. I'm not really sure what these guys will do, unless there's some sort of "Kill Osama Bin Laden" mission that we need to go on, but it's definitely a promise to use force against the evil muslims regardless.
"Furthermore, a Canadian government under my leadership would make full use of the Canadian Elite Special Forces (JTF2) to protect Canadians at home and abroad."
He doesn't mention increased spending at all, just using the same resource more often to achieve better results.
Also, I'm not 100% clear on this, JTF2 being a military unit isn't really authorized to conduct domestic operations outside of aiding civil authorities. Domestic threats are entirely the RCMP's job.
JTF2 is our version of special forces. They do all the black op/ bananas stuff. They are who you call in when you need a scalpel not a broadsword.
They are and always will be a very specialized tool. You don't send these guys on regular patrols or even take part of regular military ops.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lynn-beyak-stands-by-fake-news-1.4028126
After defending residential schools the other week because she felt that the good points about them were being overlooked (which, again, what the actual fuck?), Senator Lynn Beyak is doubling down.
Her main excuse seems to be that she can't be horribly racist because she's met indigenous people before.
In a statement, she brings up, "... an era of fake news and exaggeration", because the media had the nerve to ... quote a speech she gave with full context. Because you know, why else would people possibly be upset about her defending residential schools?
They are also very good at their jobs. Like one of the top special forces groups in the world and highly respected. And nobody knows who the fuck you are talking about if you mention them because unless you are really into that shit, nobody ever says anything about them.
Just spit balling, but a lot of senators owe their position to their ability to fund raise for their party. The Conservatives are currently soliciting donations and, as I've been posting, a lot of what they're saying is intended for the red meat party members.
Of course, it's also distinctly possible that there's nothing beyond "I'm a senator and if you don't like it, feel free to lick my logcutter".
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Which is actually how they want things to be. IIRC, initially, the fact that JTF2 was a special force unit was classified.
Kenora is weird. Were she an elected politician, it'd likely be a play to her riding/constituency, but she's not, so it's unclear.
It's hard to gauge the extent to which there's any strategy involved, as she was one of 5 Harper appointments to the Senate of that particular batch, and of them, the least politically active. She had all of two runs as the Provincial Progressive Conservative Candidate in the 1990s, which never went anywhere.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
They just had 9 years in power to do so and didn't, so probably not a priority for them.
For her own ego and fragile sense of self-righteous moral superiority and to cover up her hateful prejudices under the thinnest banner of political justification?
So, since she has no public profile that I can find in terms of speaking to the media (which of itself might be nothing since she's a Senator and not a sitting elected politician), instead I looked at her questions in committees, which helpfully does have a record at the Senate's own archive. I'm including below snippets of direct quotes of questions she posed, so the spoilers will contain a lot of reading.
Before her speech on March 7th in the Senate proper, she brought up these questions on January 31st, 2017 in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (she's a member of the committee):
Go back a bit further to May 11, 2016, on the same committee, but studying a different report relating to a Study on best practices and on-going challenges relating to housing in First Nation and Inuit communities in Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut and the Northwest Territories:
Then a few years back (because one of the few online news articles I could find that talked about her was in relation to a letter to the editor chastising Beyak for her questioning on a committee regarding Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act), on October 27, 2014 on the Standing Committee on National Security & Defense, in relation to security threats facing Canada:
And finally November 3, 2014 on the same committee regarding security threats facing Canada, which I'll highlight if only because it struck me more than anything else:
Essentially, what I get from her past record of questioning and areas of interest, is that she is highly influenced by her Christian faith. This is directly referenced again and again in her questions regarding Aborginal issues in general, and subsequently her speech in the chamber with respect to Residential Schools in which she started off by highlighting, in her mind, how the negative aspects of the Residential School system overshadowed the positive aspects that came from it (which she tries to highlight by bringing up a testimonial reflection from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission). You also see it in her repeated fixation on "radical islamism" in the context of terrorism as well as her thematic focus of Canadian society versus the threat of radicalized Islam she focuses on in contrast.
( You can also listen to her full speech on the Senate floor that prompted the original CBC article here (timestamp approximately beginning at ~18:33:20). )
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Really all you need to know about her is she's someone who uses a phrase like "and of course there were the atrocities as well"
As if atrocities are some footnote in an argument.
This lady is supremely offensive and he stance seems to be "well, we had to kill a few Indians to make some good old stock Canadians like me, that's the price you pay."
Fuck her.
Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
So what has the Wild Rose proposed?
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/wildrose-party-calls-for-fiscal-dragons-den-to-find-savings-in-government-books
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
If you could share how to go about this that'd be appreciated as well. Here or in pm.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I legitimately do not know why military procurement is such a clusterfuck for Canada in general. It is a bipartisan problem, we don't have a military-industrial complex, and we certainly don't have an imperialist hegemony to sustain with advanced technology.
I mean, it's gotta be the Americans, right? At least in part? E.g. thinking back to the Avro Arrow, cancelled by Diefenbaker (PC) to buy some shitty US missiles?
I remember watching the Avro Arrow miniseries in high school.
The problem (and this is a bipartisan problem, as mentioned), is that we spend our money on things we really don't need. 'Let's buy some expensive fighters!' we shout triumphantly, as our transport helicopters continue to turn into death traps.
Everyone I know who's in the military just wants the government to spend on the things that actually help them out in the missions they're likely to undertake.
I can't wait for him to start wearing Make Canada Great Again hats.
Politicians don't care about it because the public doesn't care about it.
Very few people who aren't involved with the Canadian military spend any time thinking about it in my experience.
Investing in it's not likely to get you a ton of votes, so why even bother?
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
Certainly wasn't under Harper, for all of his bluster about supporting the troops. He's the one responsible for getting us to the shitty funding position the Canadian Forces are currently in.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Wanted to point people this way and post this little gem from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toronto-housing-bmo-td-1.4028032 - I know that home owners are counting on the equity built into the homes they own, but the info-graphic at the mid point of this article is insane, 225k/year family salary, saved 100k for a down payment and still 200k short of being able to buy the average detached home. TD has taken a bit of a shit-canning this week, but I think their financial analysis part is still decent.
I haven't heard news from the Vancouver real-estate rodeo recently, have rules enacted provincially made any headway or have they just kicked the problem down the road?
We kind of do have a military-industrial complex, just not on the level of the US (obviously). We're the world's 14th largest arms exporter, to the tune of about $320 million annually. We spend about $20 billion on defence, but only a fraction of that is on procurement. That's one of the procurement problems - it is much more lucrative (and much simpler) for Canadian arms companies to fulfil foreign contracts than it is to go after domestic contracts. There's also a mismatch between the stuff that we export (armoured vehicles, small arms, etc) and the actual needs of the Canadian Forces.
There are also inherent political issues associated with procurement. The Canadian government generally tries to spread spending around the country, while the suppliers of military equipment are generally concentrated in Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. You then also get into political snafus, like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (responsible for the Coast Guard) having to recuse himself from decisions around procurement of new vessels because one of the primary bidders is Irving Shipbuilding (and the minister has pre-existing ties to the Irvings).
This is further complicated by the fact that as soon as procurement gets beyond the average life span of a government (and our system does) you then run into the problem of changing priorities and cancelled contracts.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
This runs into trouble when trying to do everything in house. In particular, building the "big ticket" items like ships and aircraft presents a challenge because, even with more robust spending, we don't really require enough frigates or fighter aircraft to support their manufacture as a going concern. Basically, such a company always needs to be producing or servicing something. Even the U.S., with their monumental spending, requires an export market to keep some of their armaments industry afloat. Trying to do everything ourselves requires that we become a nation of arms exporters (more so than we already are) and compete with some our major allies (an potentially arm their opponents), build up more equipment than we need, or otherwise subsidise these industries.
This isn't to say we shouldn't do things in house, but what makes more sense is to do one thing really well (sort of what was attempted with the Arrow - Canada built a massive military aircraft industry during World War II and afterward we either needed to produce new aircraft to keep the industry relevant or let it collapse) and accept that we will import other systems from our allies.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
This also goes against pretty much all of NAFTA also fyi.
America would flip if we told them we were not buying their guns anymore.
Don't most of the actual small arms in use by the Canadian Forces come from Colt Canada? Mind you, that's a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. company anyway.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I haven't seen detailed analysis of the effect of the foreign buyers tax on Vancouver real estate but I have heard that it cooled the price increases somewhat. Although... I have also heard that it shifted things over to the Toronto area more, causing prices in the GTA to increase even more.
The GTA is out of control. Totally out of control. The Ontario government really needs to address the issue.
Yes but it's an open bid that they won.
I've talked about it a few times in chat, but let's talk about the Toronto housing market for a second.
So we bought a house last year in the area. This isn't our situation exactly, but I think it's illustrative of the problem here. Imagine you are a couple, no debt, making exactly 6 figures, with the standard down payment available. You are looking for a 3 bedroom house. You will take a townhouse easily (ie - the cheapest kind of house). 2015 this would mean you were priced out of basically any community closer then 45 minutes from the border of Toronto. Literally you just couldn't move closer then that and at that distance houses will be snapped up literally within hours. If a house lasts more then 24 hours, it's because the owners are holding off on offers to start a bidding war. That's the market as it exists.
Then this year, just a few weeks ago, our neighbour sold her house. Literally identical to ours. We didn't even get to snoop during the open house because it sold within a day on a bully offer. For over asking. By a lot. The price she sold at compared to the price we paid only a year earlier for a literally (and I mean literally) identical house? ~50% more. We were fucking blown away.
The market is insane. It's always been fucking pricey but it's been going up by in crazy ways for several years now and this last year in particular, judging from some browsing of MLS listings, has been like twice as crazy as usual.
Though interestingly it seems to depend on the house size. I feel like it's the low end that's really getting insane, at least in my area. The larger houses have gone up in price but it's the smaller houses that went up insane amounts. I wonder if it's just people being priced out or something.
But part of it may be one of the big things I've noticed that I think, at least personally, is a major source of the current problem: there are no starter homes. They don't build them. They barely exist in a lot of areas and anywhere new houses are being built they don't seem to exist either. Builders only care about making a buck and big houses are more profitable per land area. And they aren't just not building them but in the city and such they are actively being destroyed. Older smaller homes are bought and virtually always torn down and replaced with a newer, larger home because the location is way more valuable then the building itself. I think this skews prices upwards by increasing the average size of the home in the area and by forcing people who do want a small new house to bid each other up to get them. And so young families looking for a first home have a ton of difficulty finding anything.
It can't be good for demographics and such either. Young people are essentially being priced out of the city and the nearby areas all together. Nobody I know can afford to move anywhere near the city when they want to buy. Most of the sales in the city around the neighbourhoods I know people in go to older (40+) upper middle class established families.