Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think they gave access to more people. I doubt they reached more.

nm double post

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The point is that this is not normal market fluctuation. Demand driven through speculation puts pressure on the residents of each city, that eventually prices them out of the market entirely. Not long ago, the impact of foreign residential investment was said to be contained to Vancouver and Toronto, but we have seen expansion to Calgary and Edmonton (not to mention resort towns), and now into Saskatoon and Montreal. This is an issue becoming a national concern very quickly.

Yes, major impact.

As for cratering home value in places like Vancouver, there is no doubt that the market is overvalued right now. There are ways to ease prices into normalcy without cratering. How about doubling or tripling property tax for foreign residential investment across the country, to slow down investment and help the infrastructure of the cities themselves directly?

One potential issue that we can get ahead of, instead of reacting to, that was a throw away mention in this article...

... is this an issue that we want to be dealing with in an already strained health care sector?

I still don't see foreign investment as a big problem for non-major centers and resort areas, and the real estate markets in these other areas will remain primarily impacted by the usual economic factors. That seems to be pretty much in line with what the article says:

A new report on real estate trends says foreign investors may start looking beyond Toronto and Vancouver and begin targeting markets in Montreal and Saskatoon in the coming year.

...

PwC says Calgary and Edmonton were, until recently, among the country's most promising real estate markets. However, as the price of crude has plummeted and investment in the oilpatch has dried up, both residential and commercial properties in the region have stopped switching hands as owners take a wait-and-see approach.

Meanwhile, real estate markets in Ontario and Quebec home to the bulk of the country's manufacturing sector are poised to benefit from the lower loonie as well as the economic recovery in the U.S., Canada's biggest trading partner.

And that could spark greater interest from foreign buyers in the Montreal market, PwC predicts.

...

Chris Potter, a partner at PwC Canada, says farmland around Saskatoon has also become attractive to foreign investors, although it remains to be seen how much of an impact the oil price shock will have on the province's real estate market.

Basically, it seems like pure speculation that foreign investment will have a big impact on the Saskatoons of the country.

I think Vancouver's a special case really. It's in the Pacific Rim real estate market moreso than the Canadian market (except the rental market of course). People have been talking about Vancouver being overvalued since single detached homes hit $1 million a decade ago. Now duplexes are at a million and continuing to rise. I don't think there's any bubble in Vancouver at all, unless we create one by taking measures to discourage foreign investors and drive them out, in which case the prices of detached homes will plummet. That's the trouble with upping property taxes on foreign owners: it compels them to sell. I think a better idea would be a foreign buyer property transfer tax or fee tied to the purchase price of the house - something that discourages new foreign buyers without motivating the existing ones to flood the market with properties.

Truthfully though, I fully expect that your middle class Canadian is either (a) going to have to settle for a condo in Vancouver for the long haul; (b) buy in the burbs and commute like crazy; (c) rent forever; or (d) move. And the choice would be the same in any major international city.

But I'm less convinced that the same will be true for Saskatoon or even Calgary. Oil goes down, interest rates go up, those markets take a big hit. But they likely remain a long way from the situation Vancouver's in, where property prices are basically not tethered to the local economy (and even the 2008 recession didn't smack the property market too hard).

It's an interesting issue for sure. But I'm not persuaded it's a Canada-wide one yet.

[JohnnyB]

From a Shanghai perspective, the property in Vancouver looks really cheap. While people in Vancouver go on about the high cost of property, people over here talk about how affordable it is to buy in Canada.

The problem that Canada faces, and will always face, is that it's a pretty small market in which the urban centres are desirable for well off people from around the world to be in. Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto just placed in the top five of liveable cities again and Vancouver especially is an attractive place for people from the Pacific Rim to move to. That's not going to change. It's just a matter of the real estate market, like other markets, becoming increasingly global.

I do think Canada should take some action to protect residents from being so negatively affected by investment dollars though. Perhaps a heavy tax on unoccupied properties. Part of the problem is that investors will buy properties and just sit on them without renting them out, leading to more scarcity in the rental market as well as the buyers market. Empty properties are nothing but a drain on a community.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

Rent has a value which follows supply and demand. So if real estate is too expensive rent and bank the difference. If rent supports the price then it's real demand and not the foreign investment boogeyman.

Saskatoons real estate is driven by the cost of new housing which is driven by the cost of labour which is driven by the labour rate in Fort Mac.

If rents don't support the housing price don't buy.

I'm not sure I'm following you. If foreign buyers are buying up property, then that decreases the supply whole doing nothing to satiate the demand. At the same time, it's also driving up prices and making it harder for new domestic buyers to enter the market, which would subsequently increase the demand for rentals.

The problem that I see with the rental market in Vancouver is that it costs as much or more per month rent than it would a mortgage, so there is no banking the difference. And it's not just as simple as buying in a situation like that because the average person doesn't have the necessary down payment, and they can't really save enough for a down payment with the current rent prices.

There's a domino effect to this too, because the price of housing has to be seen as a factor in the decrease of family sizes, which in turn increases the tax burden on future generations to support the previous ones.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Just bumping this, because I can't see a federal politics 2016 thread? Should someone make one, or just continue with this and change the name?

[chemgear]

No idea where to put this as mentioned above. But thanks Justin.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...-at-least-2025


Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is telling Ottawa to stop “dithering” on pipeline approvals, but an internal federal analysis may indicate why the Liberals are content to consult widely before making a decision.

A memo to the deputy minister of finance says low oil prices mean there is enough transport capacity in Canada without any new pipelines until at least 2025.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

No idea where to put this as mentioned above. But thanks Justin.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...-at-least-2025


Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is telling Ottawa to stop “dithering” on pipeline approvals, but an internal federal analysis may indicate why the Liberals are content to consult widely before making a decision.

A memo to the deputy minister of finance says low oil prices mean there is enough transport capacity in Canada without any new pipelines until at least 2025.

The moral of the story is that if you do nothing long enough the problem will eventually solve itself!

[CaptainCrunch]

So when the demand returns, we'll be caught back in the same old situation.

Brilliant, governance vis procrastination.

Looks like the biggest government jobs program will involve the manufacture of government cheese.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

No idea where to put this as mentioned above. But thanks Justin.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...-at-least-2025


Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is telling Ottawa to stop “dithering” on pipeline approvals, but an internal federal analysis may indicate why the Liberals are content to consult widely before making a decision.

A memo to the deputy minister of finance says low oil prices mean there is enough transport capacity in Canada without any new pipelines until at least 2025.

I think that the recent court decision that said you have to do proper consultation would be a good reason to follow process. It's not dithering, and Notley should know that, its about letting the review board do their thing so that once you get an approval its a done deal.

Haha, nice. You used an article from February to try to portray this as new news. Well done.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, nice. You used an article from February to try to portray this as new news. Well done.

What are you talking about? the second article?

Published on: July 12, 2016 | Last Updated: July 12, 2016 1:25 PM MDT
http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...-at-least-2025

[Slava]

The article that is linked with the "stop dithering" comment is from February though, before the latest appeal decision which would probably make some people think twice about just ramming a pipeline through.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, nice. You used an article from February to try to portray this as new news. Well done.

Eh? I'm not sure what you are saying? As mentioned above the Herald published it on July 12, 2016 and made mention of the fact that the original memo was internal (dated back in December) and only was released this week through the Access to Information Act.

Are you saying the Herald is falsely publishing this as news or misrepresenting that and the memo was actually publicly presented back in February? Maybe you were on the circulation list of that original memo or somehow read it two months later; but I have to admit that it's the first I've heard of it (though that admittedly doesn't mean much to be honest).

I guess I'm confused by the comment (and the snark).

[calculoso]

And yet your comment was accusing chemgear of bringing up old news

"Haha, nice. You used an article from February to try to portray this as new news. Well done."

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Slava

The article that is linked with the "stop dithering" comment is from February though, before the latest appeal decision which would probably make some people think twice about just ramming a pipeline through.

The article is about an internal memo that became public this week. This is a new development. That's why the article was published.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Eh? I'm not sure what you are saying? As mentioned above the Herald published it on July 12, 2016 and made mention of the fact that the original memo was internal (dated back in December) and only was released this week through the Access to Information Act.

Are you saying the Herald is falsely publishing this as news or misrepresenting that and the memo was actually publicly presented back in February? Maybe you were on the circulation list of that original memo or somehow read it two months later; but I have to admit that it's the first I've heard of it (though that admittedly doesn't mean much to be honest).

I guess I'm confused by the comment (and the snark).

I'm talking about the article that you linked about the federal government dithering though. That article comes up for me as February. The article on the memo and capacity is new, sure, but I was referring to the dithering comment. I just think that new information makes that comment somewhat irrelevant now.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm talking about the article that you linked about the federal government dithering though. That article comes up for me as February. The article on the memo and capacity is new, sure, but I was referring to the dithering comment. I just think that new information makes that comment somewhat irrelevant now.

How is it irrelevant?

5 months ago the premier makes this statement, today, an internal memo shows they are in fact dithering.

Where's the difficulty?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by nik-

How is it irrelevant?

5 months ago the premier makes this statement, today, an internal memo shows they are in fact dithering.

Where's the difficulty?

Because just last week the court of appeal overturned a decision on a pipeline based on the consultation not being in good faith and thorough enough. So while some people can look at that as "dithering" other people might look at that latest event as a need to properly and thoroughly consult.

Letting the NEB conduct proper reviews and not getting involved politically was specifically cited in that judgement, so rather than jeopardise these approvals it might be a prudent course of action to let the process run its course.

[peter12]

Slave, you vote Liberal, right?

[nik-]

Saying we're good on pipelines until 2025 isn't just reacting to the ruling though. That statement has nothing to do with respecting the review process, it's an economic and industry assumption.

[peter12]

And it is a complete dance around what industry actors are saying.