Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I expect better from a future leader. Much, much better.

But I guess he has to follow his 'common sense' gimmick or whatever that is, so perhaps assuming we're all doing FOX News hyperbole is both indicative and an indictment on Canadians.

Sure, but let's just be honest here. You were never voting for the guy regardless of whether he watches Fox News or CBC.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, but let's just be honest here. You were never voting for the guy regardless of whether he watches Fox News or CBC.

Cuz he must be one of the most unlikable smarmy pricks out there and that says a ####ing lot.


Hey Progressive Conservative Party, come back, we are sorry.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, but let's just be honest here. You were never voting for the guy regardless of whether he watches Fox News or CBC.

Ok, but that's not the topic at hand. I still have to deal with him as my Prime Minister. His gaslighting rhetoric is open to roasting, just like half this thread is about roasting Trudeau.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, I don't really care if the guy watches Fox News. I feel like that is most voters?

I think less of anyone who watches Fox News unironically or not for the lulz. Especially fascists who crow about how awful the Mainstream Media™ is, and how no one should trust them because they lie, blah blah blah.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Genuine question.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

2 more questions.

*I will delete my reply here (as you put effort in the questions), and leave my last post to answer

[Firebot]

This is coming from Sam Cooper who was canned by Global after his foreign interference story earlier in the year implication Han Dong, take it with a grain of salt as a result, but it's making the rounds. It talks of Chinese infiltration in election and leadership races including the CPC's leadership contest.

https://www.thebureau.news/p/exclusi...ort-says-china

The document strongly suggests that People’s Republic proxies financially infiltrated the federal Conservative’s 2022 leadership contest, shortly after leader Erin O’Toole was attacked with Chinese disinformation, during the fall 2021 federal election.

The Intelligence Assessment says proxies attempted to elect a federal party’s new leader, purchasing party memberships to support an unidentified candidate, with the objective of tempering the federal party’s perceived “anti-China” stance.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Rent and housing costs are directly impacted by supply and demand, mortgage rates and inflation, and speculative bubbles from both domestic and foreign sources. Record high immigration negatively impacts supply and demand, and overzealous government spending impacts Bank of Canada decisions, both are which the federal government does control.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10048805/...ing-inflation/

CPC had unveiled their plan. They are not in power at this point and market conditions may change so any talk is only speculative. We may have a hard housing crash next year and have a different problem altogether before election comes up. It's not the first time I had to link it (last time the same line of question came up, it reverted to bashing the CPC plan).

https://www.conservative.ca/building...t-bureaucracy/

Trudeau has been campaigning on affordable housing since 2015

https://liberal.ca/trudeau-promises-...for-canadians/



It's not so much what will Poilievre do as only time will tell if his policies will work once elected (and while certainly bolder and more aggressive will it resolve a housing crisis in itself, very doubtful). It's more to do that Trudeau and Liberals have been at the helm promising affordable housing for 8 years, and this year Trudeau just raises his hands and effectively shrugged "not my responsibility". The acceleration of housing prices and rent has only gone up since the Liberals have been in power, and the incumbent in charge is where the blame shifts. It's an easy target to campaign on.

The optics while rent continues to go up is something that Canadians feel and would care more about, and would likely vote based on that optic more

But immigration isn't just popping the housing market. At this point is propping up the future of the CPP, Healthcare and the Canadian economy. Have you seen our natural birth rate? It's pathetic. Canadian born people don't want to or can't afford to have kids. If we don't allow mass immigration, we will atrophy and wither, especially living next to the US as more and more youth will then jump ship to avoid the coming storm. You can argue that we got ourselves into a pickle here but there's no way to fix it in present circumstances without acquiring more bodies. Immigration remaining high is a must.

My own personal belief is that we should force immigrants to populate the north. Or at least reside in a northern community for the first 3ish years or something. Exacerbating problems in Toronto and Vancouver is pretty mindless. And if that makes people want to move to canada less, well then we both get what we want out of it. And by north here I don't mean Nunavut or NWT, i just mean in the vast unpopulated space north of roughly calgary all the way across Canada. Edmonton, Saskatoon, Grande Prairie, hell even Fort MacMurray are established enough that substantial growth is possible.

On to the housing strategy the CPC announced.

"The Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act Will:

Require big, unaffordable cities to build more homes and speed up the rate at which they build homes every year to meet our housing targets. Cities must increase the number of homes built by 15% each year and then 15% on top of the previous target every single year (it compounds). If targets are missed, cities will have to catch up in the following years and build even more homes, or a percentage of their federal funding will be withheld, equivalent to the percentage they missed their target by. Municipalities can be added if the region that they are a part of meets these criteria.

Reward big cities that are removing gatekeepers and getting homes built by providing a building bonus for municipalities that exceed a 15% increase in housing completions, proportional to the degree to which they exceed this target.

Withhold transit and infrastructure funding from cities until sufficient high-density housing around transit stations is built and occupied. Cities will not receive money for transit until there are keys-in-doors.

Impose a NIMBY penalty on big city gatekeepers for egregious cases of NIMBYism. We will empower Canadians to file complaints about NIMBYism with the federal infrastructure department. When complaints are legitimate, we will withhold infrastructure and transit dollars until cities allow homes to be built.

Provide a “Super Bonus” to any municipality that has greatly exceeded its housing targets.

Cut the bonuses and salaries, and if needed, fire the gatekeepers at CMHC if they are unable to speed up approval of applications for housing programs to an average of 60 days.

Remove GST on the building of any new homes with rental prices below market value. This will be funded using dollars from the failed Liberal Housing Accelerator fund.

Within a year and a half of this law passing, list 15 percent of the federal government’s 37,000 buildings and all appropriate federal land to be turned into homes people can afford. "

The last point, which I bolded, is IMO the only concrete action on the list that will lead to more affordable housing. Though the last portion is way too vague (how much land??) the 15% of buildings is an intriguing target. I would want some justification though- why does the fed even have those buildings if they're unneeded? Or what purpose are we diverting them from?

The first couple download signficant costs and responsibilities to municipalities. How are they going to achieve that? They don't build homes. The likely result of this is two fold: 1. developers will be approved for further sprawling development in contravention to current policies, costing an increasing amount of taxpayer dollars to provide service and driving up municipal tax rates for everyone. 2. incentives provided to homebuilders to get them building (because losing federal grants is potentially worse), which means less money for programs and services in city OR municipal tax rates increasing.

Dog whistle to "removing gatekeepers". Who is gatekeeping in homebuilding? The homebuilders... but that's clearly not who is meant in this policy. My take is that this is a reference to city planners and urbanists who want to end sprawl. Sprawl = more taxes for everyone. Hard to fight affordability through imposition of more taxes.

Withholding transit and infrastructure funding based on something municipalities can't directly control... That sounds like a recipe for a positive intergovernmental relationship and a functioning society. It's like your boss coming to you before pay day and saying that you are not getting your paycheck until the person wearing the coat you sold starts getting cold and really needs to wear it.

The CHMC stuff is really puzzling. Did someone working at CMHC personally offend smolPP? They're bureaucrats for god sakes, fed ones. They're doing exactly as told, i'm positive. If a new government comes in they will do exactly what that one tells them, no firing needed. Seems to be another dogwhistle like call to his strongman idol.

Removing GST on new home builds is an incentive for the home builders. How will they track and ensure that the rent is being offered below market rate after the incentive is provided? How long of a period must that benefit be maintained? This is a handout to the current gatekeepers.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9910537/m...dable-housing/

The policy is dumb and won't fix anything.

[Firebot]

I don't have the energy or time to answer to each question (especially since each post I do gets many replies and those get replies as well), but I do appreciate your long answer there on housing and do agree with some of your points on the feasibility of their plans (which I've stated before last time the housing plan came up I just stated they have a plan, I never stated I agree with it)

[opendoor]

I mean, it's pretty clear that most of their housing policies are nonsense. Unless they have a plan to convince developers to crater their own profit margins by overbuilding, there isn't a lot that's going to happen on the supply side. But complaining about housing costs is good politics, so they'll keep doing it.

But housing costs move in cycles like everything else; we just happen to be right near the most expensive point of the cycle right now as interest rates have increased the cost of buying but haven't totally worked their way into selling prices yet. The idea that any government is going to dramatically alter housing costs isn't backed by any kind of real evidence. Particularly since improving affordability requires devaluing existing properties. And doing so so in a short period of time means putting tons of people financially underwater. But I don't really see anything structurally that makes right now fundamentally different than prior peaks in carrying costs relative to income and I expect we'll see a return closer to the long-term average in coming years:

[Monahammer]

That's a rational way of looking at housing economics, but there are other levers the government could pull to actually combat it. CHMC at one point did actually build housing, for example. They could do that again.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

CHMC at one point did actually build housing, for example. They could do that again.

Not if PP fires them all lol

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

That's a rational way of looking at housing economics, but there are other levers the government could pull to actually combat it. CHMC at one point did actually build housing, for example. They could do that again.

Socialist!

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

That's a rational way of looking at housing economics, but there are other levers the government could pull to actually combat it. CHMC at one point did actually build housing, for example. They could do that again.

Maybe, but how much latent capacity is there really in the construction industry right now? Canada is already building at about the fastest rate in the industrialized world, with nearly 7 housing starts per 1,000 people. The US by comparison is only at about 4 units per 1,000 people.

And it's not like high construction levels prevented prices increases in the past. The first bubble on that chart I posted came after a decade where the housing stock increased by 35% (vs. a population increase of only 14%). Conversely, what many people now view as a golden age of affordability (90s and early '00s) coincided with a huge drop in housing construction.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And it's not like high construction levels prevented prices increases in the past. The first bubble on that chart I posted came after a decade where the housing stock increased by 35% (vs. a population increase of only 14%). Conversely, what many people now view as a golden age of affordability (90s and early '00s) coincided with a huge drop in housing construction.

It's almost as if supply and demand and prices is affected by economic recession, and when housing is 'affordable', people can't buy them because they are out of a job.

Rent and housing prices were down significantly in 2015-17 in Calgary.

A hard recession is really the main recipe to get affordable housing. Building more houses is a pretty vapid promise that would have to happen on a scale far greater than the federal government could realistically undertake.

The whole affordable housing pledge is a problem when real affordable means prices much come down hard, and 65.5% of Canadians are home owners.

It's just odd to see so much scrutiny for a party not in power and won't be for at least 1-2 years, while Liberals have campaigned and ran policies pledging affordable housing for 8 years yet their plans are never scrutinized.

The CPC plan isn't the answer, but at this point, does it matter? What we have now isn't working.

With TD missing earnings and announcing thousands of cuts with gloomy forecast, the start of could be a hard recession may be at its very preliminary stages.

The problem may fix itself and it's going to be bumpy.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The CPC plan isn't the answer, but at this point, does it matter?

Yes. Categorically, yes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Dog whistle to "removing gatekeepers". Who is gatekeeping in homebuilding? The homebuilders... but that's clearly not who is meant in this policy. My take is that this is a reference to city planners and urbanists who want to end sprawl. Sprawl = more taxes for everyone. Hard to fight affordability through imposition of more taxes.

Why does it have to sprawl? Why can't it be density? Unlike Calgary, a lot of cities (e.g. Vancouver) are geographically constrained and will have to densify to meet their targets, as they can't sprawl even if they want to.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

Yes. Categorically, yes.

Ok, so what's the answer if it matters?

Vote Liberals again, since they will get it right this time and will really hear Canadians now?

NDP usually lives in fairytale land and even their grand plan is well short and actually not very different

https://www.ndp.ca/affordability

That’s why a New Democrat government will create at least 500,000 units of quality, affordable housing in the next ten years, with half of that done within five years. This will be achieved with the right mix of effective measures that work in partnership with provinces and municipalities, build capacity for social, community, and affordable housing providers, to provide rental support for co-ops, and meet environmental energy efficiency goals. This ambitious plan will create thousands of jobs in communities all across the country, jump-starting the economic recovery, and helping Canadians get the affordable housing they need.

250,000 homes in 5 years barely meets the net immigration intake for 1 year let alone 5, the impact will be negligeable. 500K homes would cost 300-500 billion to build. That money needs to come from somewhere. And that's best case NDP campaign promise level.

While making affordable rental housing more available is critical, New Democrats believe that the dream of homeownership shouldn’t be forever out of reach for Canadian families. That’s why we will re-introduce 30-year terms to CMHC insured mortgages on entry-level homes for first time home buyers. This will allow for smaller monthly payments, freeing up funds to help make ends meet for young families. We’ll also give people a hand with closing costs by doubling the Home Buyer’s Tax Credit to $1,500.

Easier mortgage terms just adds to the bubble and just intensifies the problem.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why does it have to sprawl? Why can't it be density? Unlike Calgary, a lot of cities (e.g. Vancouver) are geographically constrained and will have to densify to meet their targets, as they can't sprawl even if they want to.

I agree that density is best, but if that were what the policy was intending to incentivize or encourage, the policy would contain reference to density targets. Gatekeepers to new homebuilding in this context can only be read as those seeking to limit the creation of new communities on the borders of existing cities.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Maybe, but how much latent capacity is there really in the construction industry right now? Canada is already building at about the fastest rate in the industrialized world, with nearly 7 housing starts per 1,000 people. The US by comparison is only at about 4 units per 1,000 people.

And it's not like high construction levels prevented prices increases in the past. The first bubble on that chart I posted came after a decade where the housing stock increased by 35% (vs. a population increase of only 14%). Conversely, what many people now view as a golden age of affordability (90s and early '00s) coincided with a huge drop in housing construction.

The labor shortage is a real problem that will drive all capital costs to construct up in the country. Higher cost to construct raises the price of the new housing being built.

You're right, it's an interesting conundrum. Really the demand does need to fall. Or maybe it just needs to shift. I am really interested in pushing this idea that we still need immigrants, we just need them to go not in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, or basically anywhere (else) in Ontario. How we can reasonably enforce that I am not sure, but I think we need to consider this a lot more.

Firebot, I appreciate your arguments and agree that it does seem pretty futile to vote liberal again and expect anything to ameliorate. Indeed, voting for these obviously corrupt ignoramuses does feel really immoral. But to me, it feels substantially more immoral to support a grandstanding snake oil salesman with a known regressive social agenda. I have a trans friend who I don't want to see effected by backwards ass social policy. I value their safety and mental health higher than some of these things (not in vacuum per se, but with knowledge that there are myriad others like them who are also in jeopardy if PP and ilk come to power.)

That is why i am interested in attacking PPs policies right now when not even in power. Because I hope that I can show enough people he's a charlatan and offering insubstantial bull#### policy to placate the masses while also turning to placate his robust social base with policies like parental rights.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well that's the whole issue with affordable housing. People are basically in favour until they realise that the house they own is going to drop by 30% (or whatever amount). It's not as enticing of a concept once you consider that!

People who just entered the market would be hurt by a big price drop. People who bought a long time ago or who's house is paid off shouldn't really care. You have to live somewhere, if you aren't planning to move then it doesn't matter how much your house is worth, unless you are using it for loan leverage I guess. It wouldn't bother me a bit if my house dropped 30% in value, if anything I would think about upgrading. The only other people who should care about it are folks looking to downgrade or cash out, not sure that is a large percentage of homeowners though. The people who would really care are real estate investors who are a big cause of the problem, too bad for them.